[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh Census Data

[Jim Holland]

Fred Schneider wrote:
.

> Regarding the city of Pittsburgh, Yins might be interested in how the 
> census data compares to the national averages in 2000.
>
> Age 60 and over .. Pittsburgh 20% of the population is over age 
> 60.     The national average is 16.5%.

.
21.212121...% more than national average of this group  --  please see 
45-54 group for comment.
.
.

> Age 55-59 Pittsburgh is actually under the national average ... 4.2% 
> versus 5.9%.
>
> Ages 45 through 54 Pittsburgh 12.2%, U. S. as a whole 14.6%

.
A 2.4% difference on the downside doesn't seem like much At First Blush, 
but when that 2.4% is taken as a percentage of the U.S.A. as a whole, or 
of 14.6%, then the Burger has 16.4383% fewer People  
'In__This__Age__Group'  than the national average.       So with other 
age groups here.
.
.
.

> Ages 35 to 44 Pittsburgh 14%, the nation is 14.9%
>
> Ages 25 - 44 Pittsburgh is higher than the nation at 14.5%; the
> nation is 13.5%
>
> Age 20-24 Pittsburgh is 10.3% and the nation is 6.7%.
>
> Pittsburgh City had almost 23,000 people in the 2000 census living in 
> "group quarters" which can be institutional (such as jails or 
> hospitals) or non-institutional such as universities. The city has a 
> very high number of hospital rooms and actually exports hospital 
> services to the rest of the world. There may be an above average 
> number of old folks homes. We also know there are a large number of 
> university students (Carnegie-Mellon, Duquesne, University of Pittsburgh).
>
> What you see in the census data is a distortion or inflation if which 
> of the younger age group (18-22 or even older) because of college and 
> university students including those going on for advanced degrees) and 
> a very elderly population, and a diminished working population. The 
> people who used to ride the trolleys or buses (when the city had a 
> population of 650,000 instead of 330,000) are old, or dead, or have 
> moved out of town hunting jobs elsewhere.
>
> That spine line to Oakland might be nice but I wonder if I really want 
> my tax dollars invested in it?????        Albuquerque is just as big 
> and we never talk about it.

.
Anchorage might be just as big as well  --  and who talks about it 
except for some boondoggle bridge that was built With Our Money up 
there.       Has to be More Than Just size that qualifies a city for a 
transit need.       Pgh.  'Had'  the steel mills; what did Albuquerque 
have  --  what industries did Albuquerque have that needed to move large 
numbers of people??       Oakland  Is // Was  an educational and arts 
center  --  would Albuquerque have something similar where a direct need 
for transit could be compared?
.
Wonder how San Francisco compares  --  population is over 700,000 and we 
have SF-State, UCSF, USF, Golden Gate U, Hastings College of Law, Bryman 
College,  California College of the Arts,  Academy of Art which draws 
people from All Over The World,  Devry,  a multitude of City College 
campuses, Etc. in addition to multiples of colleges // Universities 
around the Bay Area including Stanford U, Santa Clara U., etc., etc., 
etc.       We May be Top Heavy with Students.
.
California  And // Or  Bay Area  is seeing a net loss of people on an 
annual basis on occasion so the net increase that was a trend for 
decades may be in the process of turning around for a trend of a net 
decrease!!!       Maybe when their education in CaliFornication is 
completed they shall move back to the Burger!!       BEWARE!!!!!!!
.
.
.
Jim___Holland