3 ms·
In the Bay Area, most jobs aren't in SF. That's why SF has one of the largest proportions of reverse commuters in the country. So the idea that it's a transit s
by tomkarlo 13y ago
In the Bay Area, most jobs aren't in SF. That's why SF has one of the largest proportions of reverse commuters in the country. So the idea that it's a transit situation where folks are trying to live close to work doesn't really make sense.
- muzz 13y agoNo, the opposite is true. SF population increases by 20% because of the net increase due to commuters. Table 2 on page 11: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Adjusted%20Population%20Paper.pdf http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Commuter%20Ad...
- SamReidHughes 13y agoThat's not the number the parent is talking about. The question is how many people are commuting out of the city, not the difference between in and out.
- muzz 13y agoSure, but his claim is still wrong. Even nearby San Jose has a much higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco. http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls
- tomkarlo 13y agoThe proportion of reverse commuters in a region has nothing to do with how many commute in each day. It's just reverse commuters divided by residents. As far as the increase due to commuters, 20% is very low for any area with corporate offices and not just residential neighborhoods. Manhattan grows 95%. In the Bay Area, Mountain View has 75,000 residents, and Google alone brings 25,000 people in each day. Palo Alto (the next town up the 101) also grows ~80%.
- muzz 13y agoYour original claim is still incorrect. Even nearby San Jose has a higher proportion of reverse commuters than San Francisco, much higher: http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/ACS/Table3.xls