San Francisco named "second best" transit city in the USA (airport, rail)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

So how does one determine a "healthy socioeconomic mix" if not through some numerical heuristic or standard?

From what I recall it seems like the more choice riders the better. Basically a system that doesn't cater disproportionately to captive riders, kind of like LA.

But AGAIN, since you claim that SF transit users "skews very poor". What do you or anyone else define as "very poor"? What income level is considered "very poor"?

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I still would love to see data that LA transit is comprised of the same levels of choice ridership as cities like SF, DC, NYC, BOS, CHI.

I'll totally take back what I said about poor people being the ones who ride it in LA.

You don't need to take anything back, the stats showed that primarily poor people ride transit not only in LA, but also in Oakland, SF, San Jose, and San Diego (thanks sav858).

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by sav858

From what I recall it seems like the more choice riders the better.

Do you have a source for that recollection? A book title? Author name?

[04kL4nD]

You are right. Having options is a bad thing. It is better to have no choice but to sit in traffic than to have transit choices.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Do you have a source for that recollection? A book title? Author name?

Do you have a source that defines what "very poor" is for SF transit users?

[ExeterMedia]

Yes I do actually, I have a very detailed cost of living calculator that shows what a true living wage would be in SF based on submissions from actual residents. It's very granular, and breaks down cost even by daily groceries, transit cost, and rents of course. San Francisco has over 41,000 submissions/points of data. The salary data for SF transit users is FAR below the wage calculated by this calculator.

I'll give you the link once you give me a book, author or source for your claim. Deal?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Yes I do actually, I have a very detailed cost of living calculator that shows a true living wage based on submissions from actual residents. It's very granular, and breaks down cost even by daily groceries, transit cost, and rents of course. San Francisco has over 41,000 submissions/points of data.

I'll give you the link once you give me a book, author or source for your claim. Deal?

Sure, please provide a link that shows the median income of SF transit users to be defined as "very poor" as you stated. You made that claim well before I made my comment about a healthy socioeconomic mix.

[ExeterMedia]

Alright, let me know when you have the author, or source for your claim about "healthy socioeconomics of ridership". Post it here, PM me, or otherwise and you'll get your link. I'll be waiting.

[sav858]

I have already provided you data, you have yet it post anything that backs up your claims. So you can go ahead and post your link first then I will gladly provide you some literature to chew on. Since you're the one that claimed SF transit users "skew very poor" well before I said anything about choice riders it's on you to prove that first.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by sav858

Since you're the one that claimed SF transit users "skew very poor" well before I said anything about choice riders it's on you to prove that first.

We already saw the Census data; it's LA that skews extremely poor, while every other major U.S. city has transit ridership incomes approaching local medians.