3 ms·
Living in proximity to a subway line doesn't necessarily mean you spend more time on the subway than people who live further away, nor does it mean that you use
by totalZero 7y ago
Living in proximity to a subway line doesn't necessarily mean you spend more time on the subway than people who live further away, nor does it mean that you use the subway more. Subway commuters who can't afford to live close to a subway line probably live further from their workplaces, too, which would mean they spend more time on the subway and have more transfers between lines. Those people may then carry germs back to their neighborhoods.
The subway is a shared space with poor air quality and many hard surfaces that are touched by many people every hour.
The blog post you are "citing" tries to draw conclusions by zip code in a map that is not granular enough to support the claims. You yourself acknowledge this so I'm not sure why you use that blog post as evidence.
Also, Jeff Harris (the MIT professor who wrote the paper with which the blogger disagrees) is a doctor as well as being an economist. That doesn't mean he is infallible, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his thoughts.
- simonh 7y agoAgreed, boroughs with high transit ridership are going to be the big hubs, but very few of the people going through those hubs live in the immediate vicinity of the hub, and the people who do live in that vicinity may not have a lot of direct contact with those commuters. The whole problem with transmission through subway transit is that the people using that transit scatter to all and every corner of the region and beyond. They don't stay concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the transit system. I use an inner city transit system every day on my usual commute, but the transit system hub I access it from is about 15 miles away from where I live. I use a bus and then a regional train network to get to it, then go into the underground.