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.