San Francisco named "second best" transit city in the USA (Los Angeles: how much, median income)

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Folks3000

Can someone in Palmdale take public transit to the Hollywood sign? You question is ridiculous.

Actually yes. At Hollywood & Highland you can get one of the best views in the city of the sign. Also from Griffith.

Can someone from Tracy CA do the same thing for the Golden Gate Bridge? As far as I know, Greyhound bus is the only option there, lol.

[Folks3000]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Actually yes. At Hollywood & Highland you can get one of the best views in the city of the sign. Also from Griffith.

Can someone from Tracy CA do the same thing for the Golden Gate Bridge? As far as I know, Greyhound bus is the only option there, lol.

I meant literally to it. The Presidio really isn't an important place for most people to go apart from tourists. Also there are plans to extend ebart to Tracy, and ACE does serve Tracy with connections to Bart and Caltrain. You have to remember the many different systems around SF. For example, BART does not serve Marin, but BART will take you to the SF Ferry building which does serve Marin (and there will soon be commuter rail connecting the ferry to other places in Marin and Sonoma).

[Chava61]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

The Cities With The Best Public Transportation In The U.S. | Co.Exist | ideas + impact

"Somehow, San Francisco comes in second place after New York City. If that's actually the case, the U.S. transportation system is in big trouble. Because while San Francisco is served by many different transit types (subway, light rail, buses), it still can take hours to cross the seven mile by seven mile city using public transportation."

I agree that US transportation is in trouble. I would put DC, Chicago, Boston and SF all roughly tied for second place. Each has advantages and disadvantages with no real winner. NYC is the only true transit city in this country.

Having lived both in San Francisco and NYC this doesn't surprise me at all.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Anecdotal. Your friend, cousin, mother-in-law, brother's half sister's cousin twice removed is an exceedingly small sample size and in the realm of statistics is not considered statistically reliable or trustworthy when making claims like the above.

Why don't you write a dissertation on the subject if you're so interested? I would imagine that would be quite a paper- trying to prove that LA transit isn't primarily used by lower income groups.

Again, anyone knowledgeable about LA, and who has actually ridden transit in LA, knows it skews poor. One doesn't need to have a PhD dissertation on the subject; you just need a pair of functioning eyes. The highest transit usage in LA is in the poor Central American neighborhoods just west of downtown.

If you're really interested in the subject, the Census has data of transit usage by income quartiles, plus transit usage by census tracts.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

The same could be said for MetroLink in LA. A monthly pass from OC/Riverside/Lancaster can cost upward of $275 a month. That's not exactly cheap.

Why are you talking about Metrolink in a discussion of LA public transit?

There are over 1 million transit trips in LA, of which around 40,000 are on Metrolink. Metrolink is essentially meaningless in the overall transit rider profile.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

I'm not taking anything out of the context for which it was presented, not sure what you want from me exactly?

Point 1 - Only poor people take mass transit in LA. Disproven.
Point 2 - SF is full of tons of white collar riders and is a middle class ridership. Disproven.

I'm satisfied. Why aren't you satisfied again?

No, both points were proven.

It is a fact that Point 1 (LA skews much poorer than other cities) is proven per Census data. Of course, you misrepresented the point by literally trying to argue that everyone else was saying not one poor person in the history of LA has ever ridden transit. Obviously even in Detroit, or Gary, or Mogadishu for that matter, I can find non-poor riders; that's not the point.

And it is a fact that Point 2 (SF has far more choice riders than LA) has also been proven per Census data. Of course, you try and misrepresent this one two by arguing over the meaning of a "ton", but in the context of the conversation, SF has far more non-poor riders than LA.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

No, both points were proven.

I disagree, that stats are pretty evident about where most riders land on the income scale especially considering what income bracket is truly middle class, let alone white collar, in the city (according to the stats most riders in SF cannot afford to rent an apartment in the city). But you are free to interpret the stats anyway you see fit. My own questions were answered quite clearly.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

But you are free to interpret the stats anyway you see fit. My own questions were answered quite clearly.

There's no "interpretation"; the stats were posted.

LA's riders skew poor relative to other major U.S. cities, in fact other major cities are nowhere close in terms of transit riders and relative poverty.

If you choose to interpret the fact that LA ridership is massively poorer than everywhere else to mean some other conclusion, that's your choice, but argue with the Census, not other forumers.

[ExeterMedia]

Yes LA does have a poor ridership but so does SF contrary to what was posted. I don't use public transportation nor do I commute daily, so I don't have any real vested feelings one way or another but the stats are pretty clear. No argument, just facts.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Yes LA does have a poor ridership but so does SF contrary to what was posted.

No, you just made that up.

Again, argue with the Census, if you think there's some grand conspiracy. The numbers are so far apart as to be almost absurd; LA transit riders make half the local median, while in almost every other city transit riders make around the local median.

LA isn't just an outlier; it's a huge outlier, relative to other cities.