3 ms·
interesting. the authors made the statement "The results show the Bay Area's economic inequality and its relationship with transit and urban form." you are say
by tks2103 13y ago
interesting. the authors made the statement "The results show the Bay Area's economic inequality and its relationship with transit and urban form."
you are saying that a fair conclusion is "there is no clear relationship between transit and income in the bay area", which could be the conclusions the authors were drawing (i think it's not clear exactly what conclusion if any they drew).
i actually was not thinking about it correctly in retrospect. i saw the nyc graph and i thought "manhattan = rich, everywhere else = poor". i saw these graphs and i thought "don't see anything". i assumed the conclusion from the nyc graphs was superior, because there was a clear positive relationship there. you are saying that the "don't see anything" conclusion is just as valid, even though it is not a positive relationship.
i (now) agree with you.
- throwaway1980 13y agoYeah! Well, another point comes up here too. Do we really need to look at subway lines to find out if rich people live in Manhattan? It seems like you only need income tax returns to answer that one. It's more like, are the stops on subway lines segregated into rich and poor clusters the same way that physical neighborhoods of rich and poor people are segregated on a map? And then speculation as to why or why not is interesting. For SF it's hard to answer, but for New York, well, to build a train track that leaves Manhattan is expensive unless you're going to the Bronx, so you're going to put all the Manhattan stops together.