(I was able to get to reading 4.2 by using this URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230516092143/https://projects.newyorker.com/story/subway/)

1.Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

After reviewing both readings 4.1 and 4.2 I can only see one similarity in both 4.1 & 4.2, which is that people that live in the ‘suburbs’ are more likely to see themselves as middle-class or working-class. This is clearly shown in 4.1 “People living in rural areas are less likely to identify in a higher social class compared with those living in urban and suburban areas“. The graphs in reading 4.2 strongly suggest the same, and are based on data collected by census. The data shows the NYC subway map as a guide to social classes. Each station on the subway map corresponds with an average income level of the people living around that stop. Unlike 4.1, this data is based not on how people see themselves, but rather on ‘cold’ data and statistics.
For example, in reading 4.2, at Jamaica Center – Parsons-Archer station of the Z line, we can see that the median income of the average household is $37,184 which puts the average household at the lower-middle class or the working class. On the other hand we have the Canal St. station or Chambers St. station, which are both located in the heart of Manhattan. We can see that the median income of the average household is $135,573 which puts the average household at the upper-middle class. So as we can see there is a correlation between the two readings on the point that not only do people would more likely see themselves as lower-middle class if they live in the suburbs, they are in fact more likely to be lower-middle class if they live in the suburbs.

Of course the most obvious difference between the two reading is the fact that 4.1 is really about the subjective perception of how people classify themselves and 4.1 is far more fact-based.
Another major difference is that in 4.2 the social classes are based solely on the annual income, but in 4.1 there are multiple different factors that help people classify themselves into social classes (income, age, sex, political affiliation, region of living, etc).

2.Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

I live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the closest Station to me is the 86th St, station of the 4,5,6 train.
As seen in the map in reading 4.2, the median household income is $104,514 , which would put many nearby household at the upper-middle class. I am not surprised at all by the answer. It is well known that this part of the city is considered strong in terms of socioeconomic classes. There are many luxury buildings in the neighborhood and there are many top-end stored on its avenues. When walking the streets you can sense that this is a wealthy neighborhood, and I am sure that many would agree and see the same. Thus, I do feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood.

3.Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

Based on Reading 4.2, it seems clear that the further away you go from the center of Manhattan into other boroughs, the level of social classes are more likely to go down. It is much more evident in the last/first stops of most subway lines which start/end in the boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx.
The stronger population of NYC (in terms of annual income and social class) is more likely to live in Manhattan than other boroughs.