A thick stack of benchmark reports comparing San Francisco with other municipalities was released this week, and while much of the information confirms what residents already know, it’s interesting to see how the city stands out.

San Francisco has more rush hours per day than other cities. It also has the highest cost of living, population density and average household income, at $112,459, coupled with the lowest percentages of children and African American residents. San Franciscans love their libraries, logging an average eight visits each per year, and visiting their parks.

The city’s Charter mandates that the city analyze its policies every few years. The report compares San Francisco with 16 other cities, like Oakland, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia and Seattle.

New York City isn’t in the group because it’s too large to compare reasonably with San Francisco, a spokeswoman in the controller’s office said — they try to stick to apples-to-apples comparisons, a policy that excludes the Big Apple.

The findings come from data gathered in 2014, and “provide useful context for the public and policymakers to assess how San Francisco compares (with) similar peer jurisdictions and to identify areas for further research,” the report said.

This is the first time the city has combined the reports into an all-encompassing 98-page document — they’re usually released in 25-page chapters every few years.

But the controller’s office doesn’t rate the services, and there is no correlation between where money should be spent. The report shakes down to a hodgepodge of interesting factoids about San Francisco and the people who live in the city.

“What this does is tell us what some of these comparisons look like,” said Natasha Mihal, performance program manager in the controller’s office.

“There is no specific action to say, we do better or worse in this area. But it can highlight areas where we want to investigate and do a deeper dive. For example, speed of transportation. We are going to be slower because our city is made up differently than a place like Houston.”

The average speed of San Francisco’s buses is 8.1 miles per hour — the slowest among its peers. On average, residents hopped on public transportation 272 times, a number that is 65 times higher than other cities’ systems.

“We are always looking for ways to improve transit service,” said Municipal Transportation Agency spokesman Paul Rose.

“The data points point to the value of the projects we are doing. You see that 8.1 miles per hour, which is slow, and then you see the work we are doing on transit signal priority and transit-only lane projects to get people to their destinations faster. We use this information to confirm that we are doing the work that needs to be done.”

San Francisco earned high marks on many of the livability measures, bringing plenty of back-patting from officials in charge of the departments. The city uses 42 gallons of water per day, well below the 68 gallons per day average. San Francisco ranked No. 2 in air quality, with 301 good air days compared with San Mateo’s 332 — Los Angeles ranked last at 28 days.

San Francisco’s pavement-condition score was 68 out of 100 in an updated 2015 analysis, the second-highest among its peers behind Denver, which might chagrin San Francisco residents who complain about the city’s pothole-riddled streets.

“We are actually up to 69 now,” said Public Works spokeswoman Rachel Gordon. “We have been intent and committed to improving the conditions of our roads. Through voter approval of the street bonds in 2011, we have seen a steady improvement of the pavement condition. We’re going after the Rockies’ road score.”

Park lovers will also be pleased: The city’s Recreation and Park Department spent more money per resident on services, at $213 per head, compared with $151 on average in the other cities. Residents also spent more time in the open spaces, with 33 visits per capita annually — more than double the 14 per-capita average.

“We are gratified to see that San Francisco parks continue to enhance quality of life in San Francisco,” said Rec and Park spokeswoman Sarah Madland. “These great results reflect the incredible support the public has shown the department and the excellent work of our staff.”

Residents also spent more time in libraries, with eight visits per capita, three more than the average. It ranked No. 2 in the category, only lagging behind Seattle.

“San Franciscans love their library, and the strong financial support had direct impact,” said City Librarian Luis Herrera.

“The SFPL is poised to respond to our changing community needs and poised for a vibrant future. We certainly want to push hard to have every San Franciscan become a library-card holder.”

Lizzie Johnson is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: ljohnson@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @LizzieJohnsonnn