Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
Forty-four percent of SF residents drive, either alone or together. Fifty-six percent of SF residents are non-drivers. Ergo, drivers are in the minority compared to non-drivers.
the 2006-2010 american community survey has the following numbers for commuters in SF:
drive alone or carpooled: 46.1%
public transit: 32.6%
work at home: 6.0%
And once again, that does not take into account people who do not drive to work but still have vehicles that they use at other times. There were 461,797 motor vehicles registered in San Francisco, as of 2008...yet there are 372,560 housing units in SF. So that's an average of more than one vehicle per housing unit. Does that sound like a city where motorists are an elite minority?
"in a survey of 4.5 million people who stayed in SF hotels, 25.9% engaged "a rental car in San Francisco"
Even more motorists!
"only 28.5% of city families own no car at all
, with an overall average of 1.10 vehicles per household in the city"
Even if motorists are a minority (44%-47% isn't much of one by the way, and they're STILL the largest single commuter group...and like I said, that's just in regards to commuting), it's still pretty dumb to call them all "elite". Some of the poorest people in SF have cars. How elite of them. The majority of lower and middle class people I know have cars, and/or often carpool with others who have them. How elite of them.
As someone who has spent most of my life in SF, but who has also travelled to quite a few other places (so i do have some perspective), the claim that motorists in SF are an elite minority just sent giant bullshit signals through my head. And stats seem to prove that it's BS. Flint makes it sound like the vast majority of SF residents do not ever drive or utilize motor vehicles in some way, and are being oppressed by the evil wealthy motorists or some shit.