[wgoodwin]

Well done (I'd say better than the original).

One of the things I find most surprising is the data on the bus lines. I'd assumed, as a recent LA transplant, that the bus lines would generally serve worse off neighborhoods (it is always thus in LA; minority and lower income neighborhoods get mediocre bus service, while wealthier neighborhoods get expresses and light rail).

Of course, it would be interesting to overlay the stops of the various corporate buses on top of this information. My guess is all those high points have private alternatives serving them.

Final point: this might be best for the questions it raises. How does service compare across lines? How many people does a line move and how fast? How much is the line getting subsidized (BART, I'm guessing, crushes the others in that regard).

[potatolicious]

The bus routes are indeed IMO the most interesting bits of the data.

The trick with San Francisco is that because of the buckshot nature of public housing developments in the city, poor areas as mixed in surprisingly evenly with wealthy areas. This creates a lot of negative effects for residents - the expensive and trendy Hayes Valley for example, is right next door to an extremely high-crime area, the Western Addition. Keep going a bit further and you hit the Fillmore, which is again a wealthy, trendy area.

SF does this at micro-scale. In a given neighborhood there can be extremely good blocks that are directly next to extremely bad blocks. It's not hard to walk 300 feet and end up in a completely different-seeming universe.

One thing that's interesting to note is that SF buses stop very often, so the highs and lows aren't really spread across a large geographic distance, they are often separate only by a block or two. The "cliffs" in the graph really are that steep when you project it onto a map.

[glurgh]

Hayes Valley is arguably _in_ the Western Addition which, in turn, is not an extremely high-crime area, even in relation to the rest of SF.

The visualization does show drastic transitions but the majority of them seem to be the buses crossing the seedier areas of downtown which are, indeed, quite seedy.

[guelo]

Having crime spread into rich neighborhoods instead of being concentrated in only poor neighborhoods seems like a positive for residents overall since the more affluent neighborhoods have more resources to deal with it. Unless when you say "residents" you mean only the rich ones like yourself.

[djcapelis]

It's an interesting question of how that shakes out! Here's the map of police districts: http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=868

You'll notice the Tenderloin (a high crime area) has its own station partitioned off from the rest of the districts. The others are also interesting. The Mission station for instance, serves a really broad community which includes both the Mission District (currently undergoing gentrification) and the Castro (gentrification complete). On the other hand, districts like Bayview, Ingleside, Taraval and Richmond are just larger, generally more residential and less in the center of everything. The Park and Northern districts on the other hand, are mostly affluent with a few outliers.

[aerolite]

The Western Addition is not an extremely high crime area.