A lot of this data could be found and organized. I just don't have the data at my fingertips. Certain populations are more pressed upon to travel greater distances to get to a library than others. Kids in public schools without libraries, homeschoolers with young kids, elderly adults in particular rate high as frequent library users who are more heavily put upon to travel to farther branches, particularly as they travel greater distances through rougher neighborhoods. I would bet but don't have absolute data that the neighborhoods around the 11 closings have disproportionate numbers of all 3 groups.

What data I do have is that compared to other large cities, Philadelphia rates particularly low in terms of schools with adequate in school libraries and particularly low in internet access at home both of which would suggest to me that strong neighborhood coverage in our city in particular is a social investment with a lot of anciliary returns and that the Nutter-Reardon plan undervalues or ignores those considerations entirely.

The Nutter per-capita argument says that less neighborhood coverage for a better Central Branch is a good trade off. Marc's recent post does a lot to unpack the faulty assumptions and internal prejudices that would lead some library middle management to lean toward this view while neglecting neighborhood social benefits from branch libraries.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

We're all mostly arm-chair librarians here...but...usage alone is not even a meaningful measure compared to need. Need might be determined by demographic profiles of library users that include categories like level of access to computers, income, education level, age, race, etc. As Sean points out, lower levels of literacy and income do effect usage. But the library is chartered and staff are supposed to engage in outreach to bring in patrons. One reality is that lower-circulation libraries might have staff who are not as active in going out into the community and into schools to encourage folks to stop by the library.

And as Josh alludes to, service improvements like more hours, more materials, more computers, more programs, better customer service, or even innovations like Netflix-style lending (which is possible and which some public libraries do) would likely lead to more usage.

As I have said before, before the budget "crisis" wait times for computers at most libraries--especially in lower-income areas--were high. Potentially as much as a two-hour wait for only one hour of computer time per day. That tells me that simply keeping all 54 branches open alone is not the solution to the problem of need in our system.

That said, what lies beneath the debate on libraries is poverty in Philadelphia.

We do know--number of branches aside--that our city has a larger percentage of people living in poverty than other large cities. That poverty undermines our ability to collect and spend tax revenue and it makes us less likely to see new job or business creation here. Libraries are one of many tools that the city has at its disposal to reduce poverty. And therefore cuts are troubling.

I could be convinced in a purely academic context that if less branches meant significantly better service that we should do it. With a much better SEPTA (that includes less buses and more light-rail, cheaper intra-city Regional Rail, and more subway service), subsidized transportation by the School District from schools to libraries, safer streets with more police, and expanded branch hours, more library outreach, etc. it is possible that less branches could meet the need in the city.

Obviously that argument has not been made. Instead, Mayor Nutter is talking about transferring some of the poverty-reduction functions of public libraries to "knowledge centers."

I am open-minded about those, but the fact that he proposed them so late in the game, seemingly in response to the furor around libraries, makes me wonder how serious his commitment is. And of course, the bigger question is whether it is appropriate to transfer new economy needs like internet access, after school activities, community meeting spaces and more to privately funded-entities. Those services--not to mention the "roses" (we want bread AND roses too) like books, DVDs, CDs--seem like they should be funded publicly. I mean that is kind of the whole point of taxes, to fund that which is for the common good.

With that all in mind, why won't the Mayor and Siobhan Reardon chill on libraries for now? They should go back to work and come up with a plan on libraries--and poverty--in the next budget that actually has buy-in from the citizens of this city. That's a better process for all involved, if you ask me.

you sir are more patient than me.
that's a good thing.