Is There Any Basis For This?

[Scott en Aztlán]

Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
be found in this article:

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

[george conklin]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

It has been known since the 1930s that crime is much heavier around
transit stops...buses included.

[Robert Heller]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.

Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').

Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...

OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop. The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc. Note one can also (convinvingly) make the
argument that 'wealth' attracts crime and that one way of elimating
crime would be to ban wealthy people. Actually, this would really work
-- if *everyone* was suffiently wealthy, there would be little crime (or
at least property crimes).

[Sancho Panza]

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

[Robert Heller]

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Robert Heller

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers, workers
and neighbors.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Robert Heller

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers, workers
and neighbors.

It does make something of a difference. The point he is making is
putting a train station where one doesn't exist won't cause crime,
homelessness, prostitution, fun, or ethic diversity to magically bubble
out of the ground. If that's the case, it ought to mean a great deal to
places that will potentially get train stations in the future (Second
Avenue?).

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Sancho Panza

At Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400 "Sancho Panza"

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers,
workers and neighbors.

It does make something of a difference. The point he is making is putting
a train station where one doesn't exist won't cause crime, homelessness,
prostitution, fun, or ethic diversity to magically bubble out of the
ground. If that's the case, it ought to mean a great deal to places that
will potentially get train stations in the future (Second Avenue?).

History shows that there are more than "potential" problems. Maybe in the
Second Avenue case, political pressure from such a prominent area will
ensure sufficient patrols and controls. Otherwise, it will most likely fall
in line with its sister lines.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

At Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400 "Sancho Panza"

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztlán

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers,
workers and neighbors.

It does make something of a difference. The point he is making is putting
a train station where one doesn't exist won't cause crime, homelessness,
prostitution, fun, or ethic diversity to magically bubble out of the
ground. If that's the case, it ought to mean a great deal to places that
will potentially get train stations in the future (Second Avenue?).

History shows that there are more than "potential" problems. Maybe in the
Second Avenue case, political pressure from such a prominent area will
ensure sufficient patrols and controls. Otherwise, it will most likely fall
in line with its sister lines.

I don't see where its sister lines are in such horrid shape. Maybe
parts of The Bronx would be a better example of transit lines with
disproportionate social problems nearby.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

At Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:24:24 -0400 "Sancho Panza"

Post by Sancho Panza

At Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:26 -0700 Scott en Aztl�n

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107...

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop.

That is saying, just in different words, that the stations are attracting a
certain element.

Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza

The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.

Yes, convenience is a major attraction, along with shelter, heat and other
free amenities.

Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc.

Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers,
workers and neighbors.

It does make something of a difference. The point he is making is putting
a train station where one doesn't exist won't cause crime, homelessness,
prostitution, fun, or ethic diversity to magically bubble out of the
ground. If that's the case, it ought to mean a great deal to places that
will potentially get train stations in the future (Second Avenue?).

History shows that there are more than "potential" problems. Maybe in the
Second Avenue case, political pressure from such a prominent area will
ensure sufficient patrols and controls. Otherwise, it will most likely fall
in line with its sister lines.

I don't see where its sister lines are in such horrid shape. Maybe
parts of The Bronx would be a better example of transit lines with
disproportionate social problems nearby.

Along with parts of Queens and Brooklyn.

[Scott en Aztlán]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Robert Heller
Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza
We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault
and the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers, workers
and neighbors.

The question then becomes, how do rail stations compare to other
public places as far as their crime-attractiveness? In other words,
are rail stops any wors than bus stops, grocery stores,
parks/playgrounds, etc.? Is there anything special about rail stations
that would justify any special concern regarding crime?

[george conklin]

Post by Scott en Aztlán

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Robert Heller
Only that they attract a PRE-EXISTING / INDEPENDLY-EXISTING element.
The *stations* are not *creating* the criminal element. It is important
to keep track of cause-and-effect, ie, which came first, the crime or
the station.

Post by Sancho Panza
We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault
and the like.

Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

All a distinction without much difference. Especially for travelers, workers
and neighbors.

The question then becomes, how do rail stations compare to other
public places as far as their crime-attractiveness? In other words,
are rail stops any wors than bus stops, grocery stores,
parks/playgrounds, etc.? Is there anything special about rail stations
that would justify any special concern regarding crime?

Bus stops work too.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
The question then becomes, how do rail stations compare to other
public places as far as their crime-attractiveness? In other words,
are rail stops any wors than bus stops, grocery stores,
parks/playgrounds, etc.? Is there anything special about rail stations
that would justify any special concern regarding crime?

Train stations are safer than being on the street.

For example, gas station attendants (where still provided) and
convenience store clerks face a very high risk of assault. These are
all by motorists.

We forget all the people in nice suburban shopping malls carjacked and
brutally attacked.

[george conklin]

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

[Bolwerk]

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see
where a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a
community gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide
communities. Of course, voting constituencies have a hard time
imagining how a park might be anything but a good thing. Like any
community amenity, parks are probably safest when communities actually
use them.

(I think George wants park/recreation spaces banned too though.)

[george conklin]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not, unless
you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay out of unless
you are a member of a group which can provide some protection.

[Bolwerk]

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not, unless
you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay out of unless
you are a member of a group which can provide some protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves
lack cars.)

As for playgrounds, again, it varies from playground to playground.
Parks could easily be near things worth stealing, and, yes, mugging is
probably a bigger concern.

[Clark F Morris]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes. These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not, unless
you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay out of unless
you are a member of a group which can provide some protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves
lack cars.)
As for playgrounds, again, it varies from playground to playground.
Parks could easily be near things worth stealing, and, yes, mugging is
probably a bigger concern.

Note that in the case of South Blvd. in Evanston, the stop has been
there for at least 60 years that I can attest to because I rode
through as a child and I suspect that it was at least 20 - 30 years
old then. It is an unstaffed halt when the Evanston shuttle (Howard
to Linden) is running with on train fare collection if I recall
correctly.

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

Post by Clark F Morris
Note that in the case of South Blvd. in Evanston, the stop has been
there for at least 60 years that I can attest to because I rode
through as a child and I suspect that it was at least 20 - 30 years
old then. It is an unstaffed halt when the Evanston shuttle (Howard
to Linden) is running with on train fare collection if I recall
correctly.

CTA doesn't do on-train fare collection anymore; they use magnetic media
and Cubic fare machines now. There should be a security guard at the
station at all hours now, but I can't remember if there's also a customer
assistant or not, or what hours, as my friends that lived at South and
Sheridan moved out a few years back and I haven't needed to go there since.

[george conklin]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes.
These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not,
unless you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay out
of unless you are a member of a group which can provide some protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves lack
cars.)

Except they do. Of course you can steal locally. But transit stops make
your house "local" for a lot more people. The more people who go by, the
bigger the risk.

Post by Bolwerk
As for playgrounds, again, it varies from playground to playground. Parks
could easily be near things worth stealing, and, yes, mugging is probably
a bigger concern.

As a kid I would avoid playgrounds because the streets were much safer.

[Bolwerk]

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes.
These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not,
unless you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay out
of unless you are a member of a group which can provide some protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves lack
cars.)

Except they do. Of course you can steal locally. But transit stops make
your house "local" for a lot more people. The more people who go by, the
bigger the risk.

That's a little ridiculous. Motive, opportunity, and means all have to
be met still, and using transit would only be practical for the thieves
stealing small valuables, like cash or jewelry.

It's not like darkie is going to come to the burbs every day, break into
upstanding white folks' homes, steal their TVs and furniture, and board
transit with all that stuff in tow.

Besides, the more people who go by or the more people who have the
potential to come? I had a place where 100,000 people a day must have
walked by. I never had a single break-in in 5 years. Neither did any
of my neighbors. Yet, I know places where break-ins are daily, there is
much less foot traffic, and the transit service is worse.

[george conklin]

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes.
These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity
for crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not,
unless you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay
out of unless you are a member of a group which can provide some
protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves
lack cars.)

Except they do. Of course you can steal locally. But transit stops
make your house "local" for a lot more people. The more people who go
by, the bigger the risk.

That's a little ridiculous. Motive, opportunity, and means all have to be
met still, and using transit would only be practical for the thieves
stealing small valuables, like cash or jewelry.

Except for the fact that it has been shown since the 1930s that if your
house is near a transit stop, you are more likely to be a victim of crime.
Facts speak for

[Bolwerk]

Post by george conklin

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Bolwerk

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Heller
Understood. But transit stations don't *create* these crimes.
These
crimes arise, in part, out of homelessness, poverty, unemployment,
and other factors. Merely building a transit station won't *cause*
this criminal activity to spring up *out-of-the-blue*.

Actually by providing opportunity and a nice place, transit stops do in
fact create criminal activity that otherwise would not have taken place.

Do you think we should ban nice places? You know, to keep the riffraff out?

Many park/recreation areas, for instance, do that for certain periods
each day, presumably for the reason you give.

Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity
for crime than transit stops anyway.

No, transit stops are near things worth stealing. Parks are not,
unless you are a mugger. In the city playgrounds are places to stay
out of unless you are a member of a group which can provide some
protection.

Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves
lack cars.)

Except they do. Of course you can steal locally. But transit stops
make your house "local" for a lot more people. The more people who go
by, the bigger the risk.

That's a little ridiculous. Motive, opportunity, and means all have to be
met still, and using transit would only be practical for the thieves
stealing small valuables, like cash or jewelry.

Except for the fact that it has been shown since the 1930s that if your
house is near a transit stop, you are more likely to be a victim of crime.
Facts speak for

Even if that's true (it probably is, slightly), there are far more
factors to consider. It's not like you can pretend that transit stops
don't have benefits. There places with little to no transit that are
dangerous too.

[Jack May]

Even if that's true (it probably is, slightly), there are far more factors
to consider. It's not like you can pretend that transit stops don't have
benefits. There places with little to no transit that are dangerous too.

Oh god how pathetic.

You are now ranomly extrapolating to wild nonsense unrelated to any reality
and have totally lost any indication of having a valid argument. Gee after
all there are places where places where ........ you coul name anything
with your nonsense

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Even if that's true (it probably is, slightly), there are far more factors
to consider. It's not like you can pretend that transit stops don't have
benefits. There places with little to no transit that are dangerous too.

Oh god how pathetic.

Pot to the kettle.

Post by Jack May
You are now ranomly extrapolating to wild nonsense unrelated to any reality
and have totally lost any indication of having a valid argument. Gee after
all there are places where places where ........ you coul name anything
with your nonsense

What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life.
There are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and
too many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where
this whole question began before transit was thrown into the mix:
socioeconomic factors.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too many
dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this whole
question began before transit was thrown into the mix: socioeconomic
factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a significant
factor in what people worry about in surveys of their concerns. As crime
decreases it does receed into not important for most people.

We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.

Is that increased crime a major part of crime. My guess is percent incease
of crime is small because transit use is so small

Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance that
people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant amounts.
Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to use transit
is about as useful as talking about people flying around like Superman.

Since people going back to using much tansit is impossile and will probably
never be a major part of crime. Transit just remains something that is
supported by people that essentially have no understanding of the society
they live in. A fools game. Major crime is from a bigger pool of fools

[Philip Nasadowski]

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Only if the service sucks. Some of the highest ridership commuter lines
out here cut through some amazingly high rent districts. Oh heck, even
though the LIRR's Port Washington line isn't remarkably great (sluggish
and often late), it nonetheless is one of the highest ridership lines in
the system, despite a short length. it also terminates in one of the
richest areas on Long Island - Sands Point is only a few short minutes
from Port Washington, Great neck, Plandome, and Manhasset are popular
stops (well, Plandome isn't, but nobody lives there on account of the
huge houses there). These are places where parents give their kids a
BMW as a 'first car', and the local Aston-Martin dealer does well.

Post by Jack May
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.

Only on shitty systems that can't attract car users. History has shown
that systems that can exceed driving speed attract middle and upper
class riders, and the more often they exceed car speeds, the more 'by
choice' ridership they attract.

Post by Jack May
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance that
people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant amounts.

PATH moves about 200,000 riders a day on a system that's got 13 stops.
But then, at virtually any time of the day, PATH is by far the fastest
way to go from NYC to Hoboken or Jersey City, and it tends to do well vs
NJT to Newark.

Post by Jack May
Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to use transit
is about as useful as talking about people flying around like Superman.

If transit's faster than driving, people use it. This has been seen
numerous times in the past.

Post by Jack May
Since people going back to using much tansit is impossile and will probably
never be a major part of crime.

The NYC subway ridership is at record levels and expected to grow. A
BIG part of that is because crime's dropped in the system. These days,
even at night, the system enjoys fairly high ridership.

Right now, east side IRT traffic during the day is often to the point
were the T/A can't run enough trains to handle it all. IIRC,
Tokyo-style 'pushers' have been discussed at a few places along there in
recent years. what, if any relief the 2nd ave line will provide is
debatable, especially if East Side Access ever gets finished and the
LIRR hasn't collapsed through it's own ineptness by then.

[george conklin]

Post by Philip Nasadowski

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Only if the service sucks.

ACCESS said just this month that transit % is DOWN in all but a few major
cities. Sorry.

[James Robinson]

Post by george conklin

Post by Philip Nasadowski

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Only if the service sucks.

ACCESS said just this month that transit % is DOWN in all but a few
major cities. Sorry.

Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995. That is more than double
the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth
rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that
same period.

http://www.apta.com/media/releases/070312_ten_billion.cfm

Sorry

[Jack May]

Post by James Robinson

Post by george conklin

Post by Philip Nasadowski

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Only if the service sucks.

ACCESS said just this month that transit % is DOWN in all but a few
major cities. Sorry.

Public transit use is up 30 percent since 1995. That is more than double
the growth rate of the population (12 percent) and higher than the growth
rate for the vehicle miles traveled on our roads (24 percent) during that
same period.
http://www.apta.com/media/releases/070312_ten_billion.cfm
Sorry

Another damn lie that is no adusted for job, trffic growth or anything else
totally useless except for James to continue his display of his ignornce of
everything

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Philip Nasadowski

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Only if the service sucks. Some of the highest ridership commuter lines
out here cut through some amazingly high rent districts. Oh heck, even
though the LIRR's Port Washington line isn't remarkably great (sluggish
and often late), it nonetheless is one of the highest ridership lines in
the system, despite a short length. it also terminates in one of the
richest areas on Long Island - Sands Point is only a few short minutes
from Port Washington, Great neck, Plandome, and Manhasset are popular
stops (well, Plandome isn't, but nobody lives there on account of the
huge houses there). These are places where parents give their kids a
BMW as a 'first car', and the local Aston-Martin dealer does well.

Even when transit sucks it can be fairly successful in some areas.

About 15 years ago TriMet's bus route 35 was running every 10 minutes
during rush hour, went through the middle of Lake Oswego and Dunthorpe
(some of the richest areas of the Portland Metro area - a couple of highly
paid professional athletes own homes there) and was frequently standing
room only until downtown L.O.

I'm not sure what that route is like these days. I live in a different
part of town and no longer go throgh L.O., but when I see the #35 at the
stops downtown it seems reasonably full.

Wilsonville has become a colony for those in the high tech industry, and
there are some very rich people in that area. A few years ago TriMet was
running regular rush hour expresses to Wilsonville from downtown Portland
every 10 minutes, and many of them were standing room only.

Unfortunately, recent TriMet management took the "make service suck"
direction, and made it into a local to serve a few other areas. It's
still reasonably popular, but the city of Wilsonville left the TriMet
service district and operates its own bus service now. That connects with
TriMet, and TriMet still has a bus that serves the old route (but not
anywhere near as fast). Not too surprisingly, TriMet ridership on the
route is way down. The times I have seen Wilsonville's bus it is
generally reasonably crowded, but breaking the old route into two routes
served by two different transit districts didn't do ridership any favors.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too
many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this
socioeconomic factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a
significant factor in what people worry about in surveys of their
concerns. As crime decreases it does receed into not important for most
people.
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.
Is that increased crime a major part of crime. My guess is percent
incease of crime is small because transit use is so small
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance
that people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant
amounts. Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to
use transit is about as useful as talking about people flying around like
Superman.

A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't.

[Clark F Morris]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too
many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this
socioeconomic factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a
significant factor in what people worry about in surveys of their
concerns. As crime decreases it does receed into not important for most
people.
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.
Is that increased crime a major part of crime. My guess is percent
incease of crime is small because transit use is so small
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance
that people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant
amounts. Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to
use transit is about as useful as talking about people flying around like
Superman.

A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't.

Except in Nova Scotia where you know you are at a major ceremonial
function if there is a bagpiper. There dare major functions without
them but we are into the pipes.

Remember, Jack May has little contact with the real world and
endangers himself and those on the road with him by driving his
motorcycle between two lanes of cars. I assume he is single.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

..

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance
that people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant
amounts. Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to
use transit is about as useful as talking about people flying around like
Superman.

A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't.

Except in Nova Scotia where you know you are at a major ceremonial
function if there is a bagpiper. There dare major functions without
them but we are into the pipes.
Remember, Jack May has little contact with the real world and
endangers himself and those on the road with him by driving his
motorcycle between two lanes of cars. I assume he is single.

My point being that you don't use all the skills that you have all the time.
Nor is the most "advanced" technology always the most appropriate in all
situations, or even the one that is ultimately adopted. Look at the
VHS/Betamax situation, for instance.

-Amy

[Jack May]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
Remember, Jack May has little contact with the real world and
endangers himself and those on the road with him by driving his
motorcycle between two lanes of cars. I assume he is single.

The usual statement of people that accomplish very little in life and try to
inflate their ego by attacking someone that has been far more successful.
Successful people are well.known to take far more risks in many areas of
life (jobs, financial, business etc. than the average person.

Silicon Valley is dominated by people who are constantly taking risks in all
parts of their life. It is an inherent part of their personality

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
Remember, Jack May has little contact with the real world and
endangers himself and those on the road with him by driving his
motorcycle between two lanes of cars. I assume he is single.

The usual statement of people that accomplish very little in life and try to
inflate their ego by attacking someone that has been far more successful.
Successful people are well.known to take far more risks in many areas of
life (jobs, financial, business etc. than the average person.
Silicon Valley is dominated by people who are constantly taking risks in all
parts of their life. It is an inherent part of their personality

I nearly cracked up on a scooter when I was sixteen, but I never got to
be a CEO.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
Remember, Jack May has little contact with the real world and
endangers himself and those on the road with him by driving his
motorcycle between two lanes of cars. I assume he is single.

The usual statement of people that accomplish very little in life and try to
inflate their ego by attacking someone that has been far more successful.

Um, you realize you do almost nothing here but try to inflate your ego
by attacking people, right?

Post by Jack May
Successful people are well.known to take far more risks in many areas of
life (jobs, financial, business etc. than the average person.

And unsuccessful people take risks that could potentially remove them
from the gene pool.

Post by Jack May
Silicon Valley is dominated by people who are constantly taking risks in all
parts of their life. It is an inherent part of their personality

The wild west: where men are men, and the sheep are nervous!

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't.

Except in Nova Scotia where you know you are at a major ceremonial
function if there is a bagpiper. There dare major functions without
them but we are into the pipes.

Portland, Oregon uses them a lot too. Our recent Memorial Day services at
the Willamette National Cemetary included a pipe band. American patriotic
anthems actually sound quite nice on them.

But then, the first city in this part of the country was founded by a Scottsman.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:24:53 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too
many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this
socioeconomic factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a
significant factor in what people worry about in surveys of their
concerns. As crime decreases it does receed into not important for most
people.
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.
Is that increased crime a major part of crime. My guess is percent
incease of crime is small because transit use is so small
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance
that people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant
amounts. Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to
use transit is about as useful as talking about people flying around like
Superman.

A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't.

Except in Nova Scotia where you know you are at a major ceremonial
function if there is a bagpiper. There dare major functions without
them but we are into the pipes.

What a row, eh?

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too
many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this
socioeconomic factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a
significant factor in what people worry about in surveys of their
concerns. As crime decreases it does receed into not important for most
people.
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.

I remember reading that the median income for a Metro North rider was
something like $125K. And MN is subsidized by the taxpayer... we're
subsidizing people making six figures!!!

But for the most part you are right. The very poor tend to use transit the
most, which is why middle class people avoid it like the plague.

Post by Jack May
Is that increased crime a major part of crime. My guess is percent
incease of crime is small because transit use is so small
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance
that people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant
amounts. Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to
use transit is about as useful as talking about people flying around like
Superman.
Since people going back to using much tansit is impossile and will
probably never be a major part of crime. Transit just remains something
that is supported by people that essentially have no understanding of the
society they live in. A fools game. Major crime is from a bigger pool
of fools

[Peter Niessen]

Post by Joe the Aroma
I remember reading that the median income for a Metro North rider was
something like $125K. And MN is subsidized by the taxpayer... we're
subsidizing people making six figures!!!

So we're talking six figures here, but there's one thing I want to
make crystal clear:
I have to laugh and I have to scoff at people calling us well off.

http://telmedia.telarc.com/ramgen/telarc/80520/80520-17-mAMAB.smi

Cheers, Peter.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
What are you talking about? I was agreeing with George. And, yes, very
good: George's point that transit availability might increase odds for
crime doesn't really have any meaningful effect on quality of life. There
are too many perfectly safe neighborhoods with transit links, and too
many dangerous ones with or without. That takes us back to where this
socioeconomic factors.

crime
Crime has a strong effect on the quality of life and is often a
significant factor in what people worry about in surveys of their
concerns. As crime decreases it does receed into not important for most
people.
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.
We know people using transit are more poorly connected to society (the
bottom 16%) those social connection problems will lead to increased crime.
That would inherently lead increased crime at transit connections.

I remember reading that the median income for a Metro North rider was
something like $125K. And MN is subsidized by the taxpayer... we're
subsidizing people making six figures!!!

That's not too unbelievable. Pretty much any transportation is
subsidized by the taxpayer.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Jack May
We know that as income goes up transit use goes down and car use goes up.

Utter nonsense. A great many transit riders are extremely affluent
and a great many motorists are destitute, driving without a license
and insurance. Many motorists ruin other people's lives when they
crash into them.

We never have any problems with our train station parking lot. We
have continual problems in the car pool park 'n ride lot.

I guess at this point you'll throw out some of your meaningless
average "statistics" to support your idiotic claims. Is it necessary
to repost the facts about your statistical fiction?

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Jack May
Further the laws of technology say that there is essenttially no chance that
people will return to the past to ever use transit in sigificant amounts.
Talking about people moving backward in technology evolution to use transit
is about as useful as talking about people flying around like Superman.

I read in the May 7th, 2007 US News and World Report an article on
congestion and traffic. They said that Los Angeles was one of the few
cities in North America where drivers spend less time stuck in traffic
today than they did 10 years ago. They suggest this decrease in
congestion is due to the concentration in the 1990s of building high speed
transit routes that attracted people away from highways.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Even if that's true (it probably is, slightly), there are far more factors
to consider. It's not like you can pretend that transit stops don't have
benefits. There places with little to no transit that are dangerous too.

Oh god how pathetic.
You are now ranomly extrapolating to wild nonsense unrelated to any reality
and have totally lost any indication of having a valid argument. Gee after
all there are places where places where ........ you coul name anything
with your nonsense

What magnificent prose.

[Greg Gritton]

Post by george conklin
Except for the fact that it has been shown since the 1930s that if
your house is near a transit stop, you are more likely to be a victim
of crime. Facts speak for

Cite

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
Sometimes. Often, if you want to steal, you can steal locally. Transit
stops won't really make a difference. (And it's not like all thieves lack
cars.)
As for playgrounds, again, it varies from playground to playground. Parks
could easily be near things worth stealing, and, yes, mugging is probably
a bigger concern.

It obviously depends on the type of people using the area

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see where
a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a community
gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide communities. Of
course, voting constituencies have a hard time imagining how a park might
be anything but a good thing. Like any community amenity, parks are
probably safest when communities actually use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the park
then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and the crime
will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that tend to have
many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see where
a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a community
gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide communities. Of
course, voting constituencies have a hard time imagining how a park might
be anything but a good thing. Like any community amenity, parks are
probably safest when communities actually use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the park
then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and the crime
will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that tend to have
many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

"Bad behavior" is meaningless in relation to crime. According to many
customs, you behave badly every time you sip wine or masturbate. The
experience of New York City, besides the crack epidemic and numerous
other factors that probably weren't controllable for any one city, was
that certain types of public order crime affects the quality of life and
a poor quality of life welcomes public order crime.

As for your bizarre generalization at the end, I'm not seeing it. The
"experience in NYC" should be enough to show you the "tendency" isn't
there.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see
where a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a
community gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide
communities. Of course, voting constituencies have a hard time
imagining how a park might be anything but a good thing. Like any
community amenity, parks are probably safest when communities actually
use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the
park then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and
the crime will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that
tend to have many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

"Bad behavior" is meaningless in relation to crime. According to many
customs, you behave badly every time you sip wine or masturbate. The
experience of New York City, besides the crack epidemic and numerous other
factors that probably weren't controllable for any one city, was that
certain types of public order crime affects the quality of life and a poor
quality of life welcomes public order crime.
As for your bizarre generalization at the end, I'm not seeing it. The
"experience in NYC" should be enough to show you the "tendency" isn't
there.

This is where the NYC Mayor made his fame by cleaning up the small claims.
Itis really hard to talk to someone that is disconnected so badly from the
world

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see
where a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a
community gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide
communities. Of course, voting constituencies have a hard time
imagining how a park might be anything but a good thing. Like any
community amenity, parks are probably safest when communities actually
use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the
park then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and
the crime will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that
tend to have many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

"Bad behavior" is meaningless in relation to crime. According to many
customs, you behave badly every time you sip wine or masturbate. The
experience of New York City, besides the crack epidemic and numerous other
factors that probably weren't controllable for any one city, was that
certain types of public order crime affects the quality of life and a poor
quality of life welcomes public order crime.
As for your bizarre generalization at the end, I'm not seeing it. The
"experience in NYC" should be enough to show you the "tendency" isn't
there.

This is where the NYC Mayor made his fame by cleaning up the small claims.
Itis really hard to talk to someone that is disconnected so badly from the
world

Yes, you can be difficult to talk to sometimes. It's not only your
disconnect, but also your poor diction.

Anyway, yes, the mayor of New York at the time (his name was Rudy
Giuliani) achieved a great deal of fame for being credited with reducing
quality of life public order crimes. The method is called "fixing
broken windows," and it was in place in New York even in the mid-1980s,
before a peak in crime. Giuliani expanded it, though William J. Bratton
(whom you may recognize from from the Los Angeles police department)
implemented it in the NYPD.

Does the method work? Hard to say. Many other trends were happening in
New York at the time, and continue to happen. The crack epidemic ended,
there has been a decrease in the 16-24 age range (the range mostly
likely to commit crimes), the economy improved (nationally and in urban
economies). It has even been suggested that shootings aren't that much
less common - rather, murder is (you can't have murder unless someone is
actually killed, and ambulance response times are better nowadays).
Finally, people frequently overlook the effect that immigration has on
New York. Lots of dysfunctional communities may have been turned around
to be replaced with immigrant communities.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
Does the method work? Hard to say. Many other trends were happening in
New York at the time, and continue to happen. The crack epidemic ended,
there has been a decrease in the 16-24 age range (the range mostly likely
to commit crimes), the economy improved (nationally and in urban
economies). It has even been suggested that shootings aren't that much
less common - rather, murder is (you can't have murder unless someone is
actually killed, and ambulance response times are better nowadays).
Finally, people frequently overlook the effect that immigration has on New
York. Lots of dysfunctional communities may have been turned around to
be replaced with immigrant communities.

In general it appears to have worked and Bush in desperation even toyed with
it for Iraq

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better
opportunity for crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's
pretty easy to see where a park could have the unintended effect of
being anything but a community gathering ground. In extreme cases,
parks just divide communities. Of course, voting constituencies
have a hard time imagining how a park might be anything but a good
thing. Like any community amenity, parks are probably safest when
communities actually use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that
bad behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively
using the park then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad
activities and the crime will not start. Transit stops tend to be
people that that tend to have many social problems which willl tnd
to breed crime

"Bad behavior" is meaningless in relation to crime. According to
many customs, you behave badly every time you sip wine or
masturbate. The experience of New York City, besides the crack
epidemic and numerous other factors that probably weren't
controllable for any one city, was that certain types of public order
crime affects the quality of life and a poor quality of life welcomes
public order crime.
As for your bizarre generalization at the end, I'm not seeing it.
The "experience in NYC" should be enough to show you the "tendency"
isn't there.

This is where the NYC Mayor made his fame by cleaning up the small
claims. Itis really hard to talk to someone that is disconnected so
badly from the world

Yes, you can be difficult to talk to sometimes. It's not only your
disconnect, but also your poor diction.

Now, I want to be scrupulously fair to Jack here. How can you tell what
his diction is like by reading a newsgroup?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see
where a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a
community gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide
communities. Of course, voting constituencies have a hard time
imagining how a park might be anything but a good thing. Like any
community amenity, parks are probably safest when communities actually
use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the
park then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and
the crime will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that
tend to have many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

"Bad behavior" is meaningless in relation to crime. According to many
customs, you behave badly every time you sip wine or masturbate. The
experience of New York City, besides the crack epidemic and numerous other
factors that probably weren't controllable for any one city, was that
certain types of public order crime affects the quality of life and a poor
quality of life welcomes public order crime.
As for your bizarre generalization at the end, I'm not seeing it. The
"experience in NYC" should be enough to show you the "tendency" isn't
there.

This is where the NYC Mayor made his fame by cleaning up the small claims.
Itis really hard to talk to someone that is disconnected so badly from the
world

I'll drink to that.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Yeah. And park/recreation areas probably provide better opportunity for
crime than transit stops anyway. Actually, it's pretty easy to see where
a park could have the unintended effect of being anything but a community
gathering ground. In extreme cases, parks just divide communities. Of
course, voting constituencies have a hard time imagining how a park might
be anything but a good thing. Like any community amenity, parks are
probably safest when communities actually use them.

The experience in NYC especially before it was cleaned up is that bad
behavior breeds crime. If middle class people are actively using the
park then it will be unlikely to have people that do bad activities and
the crime will not start. Transit stops tend to be people that that tend
to have many social problems which willl tnd to breed crime

Experience also shows that middle-class use of mass transit changes
attitudes and behavior of others.

[DaveW]

Post by Sancho Panza
Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault and
the like.

What do you mean, "and the like". Drug dealing and prostitution aren't
crimes as far as I'm concerned. After all, the first is a huge business
dominated by CVS, Rite Aid, Wallgreens, etc.

The second is simply replacing the "dinner and a movie" with cash.

Robbert is a real crime. Assault is just words, but can be a real crime.
Battery is of course even worse.

DAve

[DaveW]

Post by DaveW

Post by Sancho Panza
Nope. We're talking about drug dealing, prostitution, robbery, assault
and the like.

What do you mean, "and the like". Drug dealing and prostitution aren't
crimes as far as I'm concerned. After all, the first is a huge business
dominated by CVS, Rite Aid, Wallgreens, etc.
The second is simply replacing the "dinner and a movie" with cash.
Robbert is a real crime. Assault is just words, but can be a real crime.
Battery is of course even worse.
DAve

Sorry for the typo. Make that robbery is a crime. Not Robbert.

[Clark F Morris]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:10:17 +0200, Robert Heller

Post by Robert Heller

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

Rail stations have *traditionally* been in 'bad' parts of town for
various reasons.
Often low-income people live near some rail/subway stations, mostly
because the more wealthly people have all moved to the suburbs (eg
'White Flight').
Neither of the above really releate to *new* rail stations and are
mostly a matter of historical happenstance, but most of the NIMBYs are
poor students of history...
OTOH, there is a certain amount of FUD going on. Some is probably
created by the non-rail interests (auto/oil/highway
industries/interests). There is also little understanding on the part
of the NIMBYs of cause vs effect. That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'. The stations where there is criminal activity --
stations in older, run-down 'bad' areas -- did not so much attact crime
as provide a place where a pre-existing or independently developing
criminal element could set up shop. The criminal element would have
developed in the absense of the stations, because other factors
were/are at work (homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc.). The
stations are just a 'convienent' location.
Also, it depends on what one defines as 'crime' -- is homelessness a
crime? Note some 'petty' criminals (like pick pockets), will be
attracted to *any* heated, sheltered 'public' place which has people
moving through it -- this includes shopping malls, [ball, ammusement,
etc.] parks, statiums, etc. Note one can also (convinvingly) make the
argument that 'wealth' attracts crime and that one way of elimating
crime would be to ban wealthy people. Actually, this would really work
-- if *everyone* was suffiently wealthy, there would be little crime (or
at least property crimes).

One the east side of the tracks at South Blvd. (the station cited in
the article, there is a cemetery to the south of South Blvd. with some
commercial and residential development, commercial development
including a Dominicks super market (may be another brand now) on the
east side of Chicago Avenue paralleling the L and mixed single family
and 3 story walk up apartment buildings from there to the lake. I am
not certain of what is west of the station in that area now but it was
not as well populated many years ago and was less affluent that near
the stations further north (Main St., Dempster St., Davis St., Foster
St., Noyes St., Central St. and Isabella). Davis Street is in
downtown Evanston and there are small business districts near all but
Isabella. South Boulevard also is the closest station to Chicago.

[Scott en Aztlán]

Post by Clark F Morris
One the east side of the tracks at South Blvd. (the station cited in
the article, there is a cemetery to the south of South Blvd. with some
commercial and residential development, commercial development
including a Dominicks super market (may be another brand now)

Nope - it's completely gone, replaced with a mid-rise condo building.

Post by Clark F Morris
on the
east side of Chicago Avenue paralleling the L and mixed single family
and 3 story walk up apartment buildings from there to the lake. I am
not certain of what is west of the station in that area now

More of the same, although the ratio of single-family houses to
apartments/condos is probably a bit higher.

Post by Clark F Morris
but it was
not as well populated many years ago and was less affluent that near
the stations further north (Main St., Dempster St., Davis St., Foster
St., Noyes St., Central St. and Isabella).

You're really dating yourself - there hasn't been an "L" stop at
Isabella since 1973. :)

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Robert Heller
That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'.

Train stations, even in lousy areas, do NOT provide a venue for crime
because of "convenience". They certainly do not encourage more crime
that would otherwise occur. Indeed, large stations have a police
presence, smaller stations are patrolled regularity. A train station
is a semi-public area, subject to the rules of the carrier, and
today's rules discourage trouble. They are not a public park, for
example. Train stations are too visible for criminal bases.

If an area is lousy, criminal elements will find a base regardless of
what is offered by transit.

More likely spots will include a vacant lot, back of stores, abandoned
stores or houses, cheap pizza joint, pool hall.

To put it another way, if an area has muggers, they will equally mug
someone going to their automobile (or steal their car) as they would
going to a train station.

[o***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Robert Heller
That is, it is not so much that rail
& bus stations 'attract crime' as these facilities provide a 'venue'
for pre-existing (or independly developing) criminal activity -- they
are heated, sheltered 'public' places with lots of room and often have
little 'supervision'.

Train stations, even in lousy areas, do NOT provide a venue for crime
because of "convenience". They certainly do not encourage more crime
that would otherwise occur. Indeed, large stations have a police
presence, smaller stations are patrolled regularity.

Maybe for NJ Transit, Penn Station in New York and Newark and Trenton.
Otherwise riders in the normal course of traveling basically never see
an NJ Transit officer and certainly not local officers, both of which
have to be summoned, for instance, by a train crew for assistance.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
A train station
is a semi-public area, subject to the rules of the carrier, and
today's rules discourage trouble. They are not a public park, for
example. Train stations are too visible for criminal bases.

Tell the people at a station like Elizabeth or Rahway about that.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
If an area is lousy, criminal elements will find a base regardless of
what is offered by transit.
More likely spots will include a vacant lot, back of stores, abandoned
stores or houses, cheap pizza joint, pool hall.

If this is based on personal experience, that is one thing. If it is
based on conjecture, that is another.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
To put it another way, if an area has muggers, they will equally mug
someone going to their automobile (or steal their car) as they would
going to a train station.

Except a traveler using a train station will be waiting 5, 10 or even
15 minutes at best. That is one sitting duck.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Maybe for NJ Transit, Penn Station in New York and Newark and Trenton.
Otherwise riders in the normal course of traveling basically never see
an NJ Transit officer and certainly not local officers, both of which
have to be summoned, for instance, by a train crew for assistance.

Not true. I've seen both NJT and local police officers repeatedly
visit a variety stations along the NJT network. Likewise with other
transit systems.

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
To put it another way, if an area has muggers, they will equally mug
someone going to their automobile (or steal their car) as they would
going to a train station.

Except a traveler using a train station will be waiting 5, 10 or even
15 minutes at best. That is one sitting duck.

Stations are often under CCTV watch with police close by or making
inspection trips, per above.

The safety record of passengers from crime is lower in transit
facilities than on the street above. Keep in mind in urban areas one
often must walk a few blocks to get their where they found a parking
space, and that is an opportunity for mugging. There is a huge
problem of car theft and breakins, not only in 'bad' areas, but in
good ones as well.

[o***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Maybe for NJ Transit, Penn Station in New York and Newark and Trenton.
Otherwise riders in the normal course of traveling basically never see
an NJ Transit officer and certainly not local officers, both of which
have to be summoned, for instance, by a train crew for assistance.

Not true. I've seen both NJT and local police officers repeatedly
visit a variety stations along the NJT network. Likewise with other
transit systems.

A handful of trips, at most, does not qualify as "repeatedly," and
certainly not for stations other than Trenton, Newark and New York.
How "repeatedly" were those visits to the "likewise other transit
systems"?

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
To put it another way, if an area has muggers, they will equally mug
someone going to their automobile (or steal their car) as they would
going to a train station.

Except a traveler using a train station will be waiting 5, 10 or even
15 minutes at best. That is one sitting duck.

Stations are often under CCTV watch with police close by or making
inspection trips, per above.
The safety record of passengers from crime is lower in transit
facilities than on the street above.

Neither the cameras nor the information signs function more than a
fraction of the time, and every regular rider knows that. Heck, the
slightly more reliable automated public address system is lucky if it
works half the time in any given week.

And the vast majority of NJ Transit operations is at grade level or
above, not below "the street above."

[Philip Nasadowski]

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Neither the cameras nor the information signs function more than a
fraction of the time, and every regular rider knows that. Heck, the
slightly more reliable automated public address system is lucky if it
works half the time in any given week.

Cameras are only as good as the people watching them. I've seen places
where the cameras are show static at the control room, other places
where they're actively used for EVERYTHING.

At a sewer plant I was at today, a fairly large facility north of NYC, I
was working on an unrelated system in the control room, when the
operator noticed as the automated gate was closing, somebody slipped by
it (along with the car that 'buzzed in'). While he went off to deal
with said person, me, and about 5 others were tracking the unknown guy's
every move on the system. Up close and personal enough to get a good
screen filling face shot.

He was quite surprised when a truck pulled up to him and asked what the
heck he was doing there....

The system has other uses:

* Monitoring contractors and general work.
* Monitoring machinery - we saw a centrifuge get upset
* Reading gauges - they actually can zoom in on control panels in places.
* Monitoring when there's trouble - A worker injury or major
malfunction, the camera's an extra set of eyes watching things.
* Watching the ducks.
* Checking traffic on the GWB to see if it's backed up.
* Watching employee/contractor cars in the parking lot.

But, of course, the system does none of that when nobody's looking at
the screens and operating the cameras (an adorable joystick system moves
each one around..). The operators in this case aren't rent-a-cops, but
rather regular plant employees, who look beyond the basic security
aspect (let's face it, anyone can look for intruders on a camera), and
have found a variety of uses for the system (we even used it to survey a
potential radio installation, checking out potential antenna sites and
obstructions.)

Sure NJT has cameras, but unless anyone monitors, they're useless. If a
knowlageable person is watching them, though, they're an amazingly
useful tool for lots of things.

One bad thing is some places have an attitude that only 'authorized'
poeple should use the cameras, as if it's a big deal if you break one
(which isn't easy anyway), or just plain bueraucratic stupidity. This
causes most people to ignore them, totally ("I'm not allowed to touch it
anyway"). Or they use the tapes (everything's taped, everywhere!) to
ask employees why they're watching XYZ, as opposed to the control panels.

Like most technologies, if applied right, it's great. If applied
poorly, it's useless.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Philip Nasadowski

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Neither the cameras nor the information signs function more than a
fraction of the time, and every regular rider knows that. Heck, the
slightly more reliable automated public address system is lucky if it
works half the time in any given week.

Cameras are only as good as the people watching them. I've seen places
where the cameras are show static at the control room, other places
where they're actively used for EVERYTHING.
At a sewer plant I was at today, a fairly large facility north of NYC, I
was working on an unrelated system in the control room, when the
operator noticed as the automated gate was closing, somebody slipped by
it (along with the car that 'buzzed in'). While he went off to deal
with said person, me, and about 5 others were tracking the unknown guy's
every move on the system. Up close and personal enough to get a good
screen filling face shot.
He was quite surprised when a truck pulled up to him and asked what the
heck he was doing there....
* Monitoring contractors and general work.
* Monitoring machinery - we saw a centrifuge get upset
* Reading gauges - they actually can zoom in on control panels in places.
* Monitoring when there's trouble - A worker injury or major
malfunction, the camera's an extra set of eyes watching things.
* Watching the ducks.
* Checking traffic on the GWB to see if it's backed up.
* Watching employee/contractor cars in the parking lot.
But, of course, the system does none of that when nobody's looking at
the screens and operating the cameras (an adorable joystick system moves
each one around..). The operators in this case aren't rent-a-cops, but
rather regular plant employees, who look beyond the basic security
aspect (let's face it, anyone can look for intruders on a camera), and
have found a variety of uses for the system (we even used it to survey a
potential radio installation, checking out potential antenna sites and
obstructions.)
Sure NJT has cameras, but unless anyone monitors, they're useless. If a
knowlageable person is watching them, though, they're an amazingly
useful tool for lots of things.
One bad thing is some places have an attitude that only 'authorized'
poeple should use the cameras, as if it's a big deal if you break one
(which isn't easy anyway), or just plain bueraucratic stupidity. This
causes most people to ignore them, totally ("I'm not allowed to touch it
anyway"). Or they use the tapes (everything's taped, everywhere!) to
ask employees why they're watching XYZ, as opposed to the control panels.
Like most technologies, if applied right, it's great. If applied
poorly, it's useless.

Another fine example of that principle was the overheight truck
carrying bathtubs and toilets that ripped up the ceiling of the middle
tube of the Lincoln Tunnel last week. Installed in the ceiling, among
quite a few other things, were traffic lights and cameras. It boggles
the mind that no one noticed the problem until the 53-footer exited on
the New York side.

[Philip Nasadowski]

Post by Sancho Panza
Another fine example of that principle was the overheight truck
carrying bathtubs and toilets that ripped up the ceiling of the middle
tube of the Lincoln Tunnel last week. Installed in the ceiling, among
quite a few other things, were traffic lights and cameras. It boggles
the mind that no one noticed the problem until the 53-footer exited on
the New York side.

I've heard of security cameras being stolen and not noticed for months.

Professional buglers will sometimes case a site for cameras, then
discretely disable one or two (by unplugging it or aiming it in a
useless direction), and then come back a few days/weeks later. If the
camera's not fixed, it's a good sign it's not looked at.

Then again, I know one place where they know the cameras are used
because they're scanning for women all the time...

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Philip Nasadowski
Cameras are only as good as the people watching them. I've seen places
where the cameras are show static at the control room, other places
where they're actively used for EVERYTHING.

True. But I've seen the cameras work on NJT. Someone was poking
around a fare machine for a while and a cop showed up. He told me it
was observed by camera monitor and they notified him. I visited the
control center of a transit system and the people watched the security
cameras quite carefully, with dispatch radio ready.

Another advantage is that now cameras record the scenes. Yes, that is
an after-the-fact record, but it does help identify perps. How much
of a deterrent cameras are to criminals I don't know. In New Jersey,
they seem to monitor and respond quickly which would act as a
deterrent. Criminals know what places are "soft" and what aren't;
they avoid the 'hard' areas.

I must admit I am not a fan of "1984" snooping which we have a lot of
today.

Post by Philip Nasadowski
Like most technologies, if applied right, it's great. If applied
poorly, it's useless.

True.

[Robert Heller]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Philip Nasadowski
Cameras are only as good as the people watching them. I've seen places
where the cameras are show static at the control room, other places
where they're actively used for EVERYTHING.

True. But I've seen the cameras work on NJT. Someone was poking
around a fare machine for a while and a cop showed up. He told me it
was observed by camera monitor and they notified him. I visited the
control center of a transit system and the people watched the security
cameras quite carefully, with dispatch radio ready.
Another advantage is that now cameras record the scenes. Yes, that is
an after-the-fact record, but it does help identify perps. How much
of a deterrent cameras are to criminals I don't know. In New Jersey,
they seem to monitor and respond quickly which would act as a
deterrent. Criminals know what places are "soft" and what aren't;
they avoid the 'hard' areas.
I must admit I am not a fan of "1984" snooping which we have a lot of
today.

In a *public place* there is no expectation of privacy. A camera in
such a place is no different than a police officer (possibly one in
'plain clothes') eyeballing the scene (possibly covertly). The cameras
just mean that several locations can be observed by one person and an
accurate record made of the observations.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Philip Nasadowski
Like most technologies, if applied right, it's great. If applied
poorly, it's useless.

True.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by o***@hotmail.com
A handful of trips, at most, does not qualify as "repeatedly," and
certainly not for stations other than Trenton, Newark and New York.
How "repeatedly" were those visits to the "likewise other transit
systems"?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

You had stated: "... riders in the normal course of traveling
basically never see an NJ Transit officer and certainly not local
officers..."

To which I replied, "I've seen both NJT and local police officers
repeatedly
visit a variety stations along the NJT network. Likewise with other
transit systems."

What I meant is that there ARE police officers on patrol at various
NJT stations, including smaller ones, throughout their network. The
stations of other transit networks also have police patrols. They
have been helpful to me as an out-of-town visitor in providing
directions and a sense of security. (The police may be the carrier's
or local town.)

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Neither the cameras nor the information signs function more than a
fraction of the time, and every regular rider knows that. Heck, the
slightly more reliable automated public address system is lucky if it
works half the time in any given week.

How would you know the functionality of the security cameras? What is
the basis for your claim they work only a "fraction of the time"?

[Sancho Panza]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by o***@hotmail.com
A handful of trips, at most, does not qualify as "repeatedly," and
certainly not for stations other than Trenton, Newark and New York.
How "repeatedly" were those visits to the "likewise other transit
systems"?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
You had stated: "... riders in the normal course of traveling
basically never see an NJ Transit officer and certainly not local
officers..."
To which I replied, "I've seen both NJT and local police officers
repeatedly
visit a variety stations along the NJT network. Likewise with other
transit systems."
What I meant is that there ARE police officers on patrol at various
NJT stations, including smaller ones, throughout their network. The
stations of other transit networks also have police patrols. They
have been helpful to me as an out-of-town visitor in providing
directions and a sense of security. (The police may be the carrier's
or local town.)

Was that station one of the ones listed?

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by o***@hotmail.com
Neither the cameras nor the information signs function more than a
fraction of the time, and every regular rider knows that. Heck, the
slightly more reliable automated public address system is lucky if it
works half the time in any given week.

How would you know the functionality of the security cameras? What is
the basis for your claim they work only a "fraction of the time"?

For the simple reason that NJ Transit does not respond in an efficient
manner to situations that would be clearly visible on camera. Besides,
two-thirds of the NJ Transit system doesn't even pretend to have anything
like cameras or security in any form.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
How would you know the functionality of the security cameras? What is
the basis for your claim they work only a "fraction of the time"?

For the simple reason that NJ Transit does not respond in an efficient
manner to situations that would be clearly visible on camera.

How would you know that?

As mentioned, I've personally seen police react to situations viewed
on the cameras. NJT employees also keep an eye on things and radio in
reports.

As mentioned, police patrol NJT stations. I've seen them repeatedly.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
How would you know the functionality of the security cameras? What is
the basis for your claim they work only a "fraction of the time"?

For the simple reason that NJ Transit does not respond in an efficient
manner to situations that would be clearly visible on camera.

How would you know that?

Because I and very other regular user have personally experienced that
problem numerous times over the years.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
As mentioned, I've personally seen police react to situations viewed
on the cameras.

Any details?

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
NJT employees also keep an eye on things and radio in
reports.

It can still take 30 to 90 minutes or more for a response, even when
near an NJ Transit police office. And there is a long list of
complaints from local police departments that have had to take over in
situations where NJ Transit police did not arrive until the situation
was basically ended.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
As mentioned, police patrol NJT stations. I've seen them repeatedly.

Second request to name which stations, presumably those that were
listed in the initial post of this subthread, Or will this question be
snipped again, too?

[Pat]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107...

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
They say they want to keep out "crime" because that's more politically
palatable than saying the want to keep minorities out of the area. I
would guess that some very a transit line as a way for minorities to
get into the community easier.

High levels of minorites, crime, poverty, and transit are all
correlated to "downtown", but not necessarily to each other. So when
a NIMBY-person says one, they are thinking all of them.

Legally, a person can go to a meeting and object to a proposal based
on race. Free speach is still allowed. But the board cannot consider
race. What is difficult is figuring out what the board is really
considering and what they are not.

[george conklin]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...


In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".

Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the
Boone, NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the
local population.

Maybe others are not fortunate enough to get work release.

[Pat]

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think. John
Doe homeowner doesn't research a disertation before he goes and
objects. He just goes and objects. Spin control is awfully difficult
because of it. The opponents of any given project don't care what the
facts are.

Othewise I agree with Amy. I think that blacks are disproportionally
jailed. Maybe your seeing a bit of racism where only the whites get
out. Or, maybe it's that they are doing lesser crimes. Or maybe it's
a predominantly white area and there are people from the county jail,
so it's predominantly white.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.

It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Years ago I was doing a public hearing for a CDBG. It was o/o rehab
at 80% of AMI. I was heckled by one guy for about half an hour. He
didn't want the money going to the riff-raff, to welfare cases, to the
"users" etc. Instead, he insisted, we should do a program for hard-
working, regular folk like him who never get any help when they need
it. I finally asked his family size and whether he was above or below
the income limit. He was below. I told him it wasn't for "those
people" it was for people just like him -- he was income-eligible. It
was those people, it was 'us people. I told him what he had proposed
was EXACTLY the project we wanted to do. That kept him mostly quiet
but he was in turmoil because he still objected to it, just because he
wanted to come out to the meeting and object to it. It didn't matter
what was real.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.

Sorry. If you recall, that is how I first got involved....getting that
room full. It is a lot of work. And I was on the planning board facing a
lot of screamers too.

Post by Pat
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Most of the screamers are more realistic than that because it is a lot of
work to get a group of people together. The pressure groups in Durham are
mostly made up of well-educated people who have been at it for years and
know the UDO inside out.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you can
see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows to be
wrong and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one? I
have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories in
using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured she did
not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no matter
what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to stop that
kind of abuse.


and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're

Post by Amy Blankenship
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

Most of the world knows that pedicabs are the wrong way to go. It is a
shame that idiots here want to pick up the worst of third-world labor
practices.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one? I
have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories in
using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured she did
not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no matter
what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to stop that
kind of abuse.

Like many Anglophones, she probably spoke a few simple sentences,
grammaticaly correctly, but with a strong accent. Really speaking a
language involves more than that. Also, Hindi taught to Anglophones
often has the accent of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, not the part where most
of them are likely to go.

[george conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one?
I have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories
in using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured
she did not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no
matter what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to
stop that kind of abuse.

Like many Anglophones, she probably spoke a few simple sentences,
grammaticaly correctly, but with a strong accent. Really speaking a
language involves more than that. Also, Hindi taught to Anglophones often
has the accent of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, not the part where most of them
are likely to go.

She was good enough to keep her diary in Hindi too. Yeh such hai.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by george conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one?
I have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories
in using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured
she did not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no
matter what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to
stop that kind of abuse.

Like many Anglophones, she probably spoke a few simple sentences,
grammaticaly correctly, but with a strong accent. Really speaking a
language involves more than that. Also, Hindi taught to Anglophones often
has the accent of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, not the part where most of them
are likely to go.

She was good enough to keep her diary in Hindi too. Yeh such hai.

I know a guy who has an MA in French. Presumably he has a good
understanding of French literature, but his accent is atrocious. Yeh
such hae (Western pronunciation)

[george conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by george conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs,
you can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he
knows to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one?
I have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories
in using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured
she did not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here,
no matter what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are
trying to stop that kind of abuse.

Like many Anglophones, she probably spoke a few simple sentences,
grammaticaly correctly, but with a strong accent. Really speaking a
language involves more than that. Also, Hindi taught to Anglophones
often has the accent of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, not the part where most
of them are likely to go.

She was good enough to keep her diary in Hindi too. Yeh such hai.

I know a guy who has an MA in French. Presumably he has a good
understanding of French literature, but his accent is atrocious. Yeh such
hae (Western pronunciation)

Well, they tell me my French accent is pretty good. And Pedicabs are
abusive of labor in any language.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one? I
have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories in
using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured she
did not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no
matter what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to
stop that kind of abuse.

No, but you know very well you are wrong.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you
can see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows
to be wrong

I never backtracked one inch. Further, have you ever ridden in one? I
have many times, in India. One of my wife's most interesting stories in
using Hindi in one one of these pedicabs and the driver who figured she
did not speak any Hindi. You don't want that kind of labor here, no
matter what. Pedicabs abusive and even third world nations are trying to
stop that kind of abuse.

No, but you know very well you are wrong.

I am glad someone who has never even seen what you push for someone else
to do can be so certain about nothing.

[Pat]

On Jun 2, 9:23 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in the Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you can
see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows to be
wrong and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

still waiting for my example on crime, too. I guess that'll never
happen, too.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
On Jun 2, 9:23 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you can
see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows to be
wrong and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

still waiting for my example on crime, too. I guess that'll never
happen, too.

I started with posting an example, which you rejected, so what is the
point? If you take the super-reactionary viewpoint that crime is committed
only by criminals, therefore nothing else matters, examples hardly matter to
you because you will reject the whole process. And pedicabs exploit the man
who has to peddle one.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jun 2, 9:23 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you can
see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows to be
wrong and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

still waiting for my example on crime, too. I guess that'll never
happen, too.

I started with posting an example, which you rejected, so what is the
point? If you take the super-reactionary viewpoint that crime is committed
only by criminals, therefore nothing else matters, examples hardly matter to
you because you will reject the whole process. And pedicabs exploit the man
who has to peddle one.

I never saw an example, so maybe you can repost it.

I'm not saying that crime is only done by criminals (leaving aside the
whole definitional thing). I'm just saying that I don't think that
"bad architecture" is going to turn a convent of nuns into a street
gang. I'm waiting for the example of architectures so bad, that it
would cause me to break a law I wouldn't otherwise break. If I missed
it, a repost would be quite simple. If it ain't going to flip me or
the nuns (or even Billy), then your theory doesn't hold water.

Can you design something to be nearly crime-proof. I suppose L.V.
casinos are sort of like that. But who'd like to live in an
environment with total security camera coverage and every 3rd person a
security guard. Sure you could design an environment like that, but
it wouldn't be liveable. But on the other side, I don't think that
something can be so bad as to corrupt a person.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
Can you design something to be nearly crime-proof.

You CAN design a city to have less crime than it would with grid streets.
That is what Newman's experiment was all about. It is what the MCA analysis
I showed you proved too.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
Can you design something to be nearly crime-proof.

You CAN design a city to have less crime than it would with grid streets.
That is what Newman's experiment was all about. It is what the MCA analysis
I showed you proved too.

That's twice you've said you've posted an example. I didn't see the
example (duh) that's why I asked you to repost it. So again saying
that you posted it makes no sense. Either you have an example of how
architecture will lead me to a life a crime or you don't. That's as
simple as I can say it.

If you have the example, please either repost it or directly to that
post. If it will truly lead me down the wrong path, I'll admit your
are right and sit quietly in the corner.

If you don't have an example, then shut up and stop saying that you
do.

One example George. Just one example. Something that will make me go
"of, I'm glad I didn't go there or I'd be mugging/knifing/raping/
robbing someone right now.

Just one example.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Pat
I'm not saying that crime is only done by criminals (leaving aside the
whole definitional thing). I'm just saying that I don't think that
"bad architecture" is going to turn a convent of nuns into a street
gang.

Not usually, but not impossible. On the other hand, take a group of indolent
rebellious antisocial people, and oppressive design can easily be a
sparkplug for violence and crime.

Post by Pat
Can you design something to be nearly crime-proof. I suppose L.V.
casinos are sort of like that. But who'd like to live in an
environment with total security camera coverage and every 3rd person a
security guard. Sure you could design an environment like that, but
it wouldn't be liveable.

Be sure not to visit England, especially London and other locales that
operate an astounding number of surveillance cameras. Also, take a look at
the brouhaha that Google Earth raised last week with its new street-level
cam. The eye is here now with us. Maybe they should use it at the border
crossing at Champlain, NY.

[Clark F Morris]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:57:56 -0700, Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On Jun 2, 9:23 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
Looking at the road gangs picking up trash along the highway in
the
Boone,
NC area, those on work-relase are mostly white, reflecting the local
population.

It doesn't really matter what is real. It is what people think.

That is pure planner-babble.

George, you need to get out of your red brick environment and get into
the real world once in a while. Until you've been in a room full of
residents who are yelling a nd screaming -- and who have no idea what
is being proposed, let alone how/if it will impact them -- than you
have no idea what you are talking about. Not a clue.
It doesn't matter how the project will impact them. What matter is
what they think the impact will be -- whether or not it is real.

Pat, give this one up. If you check out the thread about pedicabs, you can
see George will never admit he said something in haste that he knows to be
wrong and would take back if he had the character to say "oops, you're
right." Be happy in your own mind that you're right and reasonable people
will see that and don't argue it out till he quits arguing back or admits
you were right--neither will happen in this lifetime.

still waiting for my example on crime, too. I guess that'll never
happen, too.

I started with posting an example, which you rejected, so what is the
point? If you take the super-reactionary viewpoint that crime is committed
only by criminals, therefore nothing else matters, examples hardly matter to
you because you will reject the whole process. And pedicabs exploit the man
who has to peddle one.

I never saw an example, so maybe you can repost it.
I'm not saying that crime is only done by criminals (leaving aside the
whole definitional thing). I'm just saying that I don't think that
"bad architecture" is going to turn a convent of nuns into a street
gang. I'm waiting for the example of architectures so bad, that it
would cause me to break a law I wouldn't otherwise break. If I missed
it, a repost would be quite simple. If it ain't going to flip me or
the nuns (or even Billy), then your theory doesn't hold water.
Can you design something to be nearly crime-proof. I suppose L.V.
casinos are sort of like that. But who'd like to live in an
environment with total security camera coverage and every 3rd person a
security guard. Sure you could design an environment like that, but
it wouldn't be liveable. But on the other side, I don't think that
something can be so bad as to corrupt a person.

Bad architecture probably won't induce anyone to commit a crime but it
can provide better opportunities for those who are so inclined or for
those who would if they feel they can get away with it. Actually
defensible spaces can be provided either with grid street design or
cul-de-sacs and I suspect easier with grid. Since this is an area far
out of my knowledge and I haven't had a chance to digest the one
reference I downloaded, I would appreciate those who are aware of
examples of defensible spaces posting them. I might add that the high
rise low income projects probably violated the rules for goo design
using any kind of street system.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Pat
In my experience with house (which may or may not translate to
transit), any time anyone voices an object on the basis of "crime",
there's a better-then-even chance that they are really saying "race".
They say they want to keep out "crime" because that's more politically
palatable than saying the want to keep minorities out of the area. I
would guess that some very a transit line as a way for minorities to
get into the community easier.

Actually, you're putting thoughts in people's head. People are afraid
of crime. It has nothing to do with what's politically paltable.

I've seen social activists complain the crime concern was really on
race, but it wasn't, the social activists were just being paranoid and
looking for racists under beds (a kind of McCarthyism).

Post by Pat
High levels of minorites, crime, poverty, and transit are all
correlated to "downtown", but not necessarily to each other. So when
a NIMBY-person says one, they are thinking all of them.

There are plenty of places of crime and poverty that are not minority
populated.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Often times when a new rail line or station is proposed, NIMBYs will
object on the basis that "rail stations attract crime." An example can

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/evanston/news/407298,ev-yellowline-053107-s1.article

Post by Scott en Aztlán

Resident Tracy Davis, who lives near the South Boulevard Purple
Line station, expressed concern that the neighborhoods around
the stop would become a "corridor for crime." She noted police
often cite proximity to the el in explaining certain crime patterns.
Eighth Ward Alderman Ann Rainey acknowledged that police in the past
would tell residents who live near the el, "Well, what do you expect?"

Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

I think it depends on the city and environment involved, and how badly
read the statistics are.

In one of the communities near here they decreased bus service and crime
went up. If you want to put those statistics together and misread them
badly it means adding transit takes away crime.

I think the real problem (at least in our area) are the large numbers of
otherwise bored teenagers, which create substantial crime problems,
particularly drug and gang related crimes and petty theft.

The bad news for transit is that since most of those teenagers are too
young to drive anywhere, it means they get around by transit.

The other factor is population density: areas around transit tend to be
more densely populated, and the population density also increases crime
density.

If you look at the crime statistics on the city's Portland Maps page you
will find that in some areas crime areas correspond to transit service,
while in other areas there is no correspondence at all.

Try exploring these two web sites:
http://www.trimet.org
TriMet transit service, including maps.
http://www.portlandmaps.com
Portland area maps and statistics from the city of Portland and Multnomah
County, including crime statistics.

In one particular area near SE 92nd & Foster Road, for example, there is a
huge bull's-eye of high crime rate. However, the transit service to that
bull's eye isn't so very great (it's better at SE 50th & Foster or SE
Holgate & Foster or SE 82nd & Foster), and virtually all of the crimes
reported in that area seem to be associated with a particular bar/night
club.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Scott en Aztlán
Is there any factual basis for these claims? Or are these simply
irrational fears and/or BS excuses that the NIMBYs are using to create
FUD in the minds of potential supporters of these projects?

No, there is not.

Petty criminals must have a quick getaway. They are not going to
loiter around a bus stop waiting for the cops to catch up with them.
They are not going to schlep a stolen TV and other goods up the steps
to an el station.

The Phila Inqr did a story on suburban crime a few years ago and found
that the biggest crime problem was along the I-95 corridor. The
interchanges make for fast getaway.

My own pesonal experience, living near a train station, mirrors the
above.

Sadly, many people today have a prejudice--an unsubstantiated pre-
judgement--about public transportation facilities and pedestrians.
When sidewalks and bikeways were proposed in some suburban
communities, the residents went nuts, convinced that criminals would
use these paths for ill. The paths were built but no crime resulted.
Instead, they are well used by kids and adults, bikers, joggers, baby
strollers, walkers. They give people exercise, give kids an option to
get around without needing the parents to drive them, allows people in
a community to mix and mingle.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Sadly, many people today have a prejudice--an unsubstantiated pre-
judgement--about public transportation facilities and pedestrians.
When sidewalks and bikeways were proposed in some suburban
communities, the residents went nuts, convinced that criminals would
use these paths for ill.

Haha, as if criminals would use walking as preferred mode only. To my
knowledge, the big criminals usually drive cars, preferredly big ones,
and wear suits ... ;-)

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The paths were built but no crime resulted.
Instead, they are well used by kids and adults, bikers, joggers, baby
strollers, walkers. They give people exercise, give kids an option to
get around without needing the parents to drive them, allows people in
a community to mix and mingle.

Tadej