Replacing buses with rail has boosted ridership in Los Angeles

[Slick Vik]

When rail goes in, ridership goes up. At least, that's what's happened in Los Angeles, where the county's transportation authority, Metro, has gone on a more than two-decade binge of light rail and subway development. A new analysis of transit ridership before and after the four lines opened shows that overall ridership has dramatically increased with rail in the picture.

Scott Page, a planner with Metro, has analyzed ridership stats and documents to see how transit use patterns changed along corridors formerly reliant solely on buses but now augmented with rail lines. By comparing average ridership before and after the rail options were in place, Page shows that adding rail service has grown ridership on these corridors anywhere from 95 percent to nearly 350 percent. His results and data have since been published on Metro's blog The Source. Below is a breakdown of those figures, using average weekday boardings counted during specific ridership survey periods to compare pre- and post-rail ridership:

Blue Line corridor

Before: 41,971 (Most recent previous ridership count: 1990)

After: 104,001 (2012)

Increase: 147 percent

Red Line corridor

Before: 51,306 (Most recent previous ridership count: 2003)

After: 161,168 (2012)

Increase: 214 percent

Green Line corridor

Before: 11,074 (Most recent previous ridership count: 1993)

After: 49,640 (2012)

Increase: 348 percent

Gold Line corridor

Before: 31,199 (Most recent previous ridership count: 2002)

After: 60,922 (2012)

Increase: 95 percent

For public transit advocates – especially rail proponents – these numbers are easy to love. They can also be used to make the case that investing in rail projects (in addition to less expensive bus projects) can help to achieve transit ridership goals. These numbers paint a very appealing picture: more people will ride transit when it involves trains and not just buses.

[TGM]

Equally stunning is the study of teenagers that have lost their car privileges, and the resulting uptick in school bus ridership.

[ToryGattis]

Not surprising. The first question is the cost per additional rider (who weren't on the buses before). And the second question is much harder: how many bus routes were altered after the rail line started? Usually any competing parallel bus routes get axed, and all buses feed the rail line. So of course ridership increases, because alternatives were removed.

[editor]

When topology isn't a factor, I prefer trains to buses. Mostly because they're faster, and more predictable.

I saw something cool in Berlin last year that I think would really benefit transit systems everywhere.

Unlike in every American city I've ever lived in where there are bus stops on every block, or every other block, in Berlin the bus stops are very far apart -- about the same distance as subway stops.

In my observation and riding, it seemed to significantly improve traffic flow and predictability.

In essence, the buses act as cheaper surface trains, the way rail opponents in Houston always pretend they do. But the reality is that having to stop every few hundred feet causes problems that make trains a better option. Unless you go the Berlin method with your buses.

[editor]

Actually, the thread title is a little misleading. Nowhere in Vick's post did he say the buses were replaced by trains. Train service was added to existing bus corridors. So the previous sarcastic posters failed to read TFP.

Chicago does this, too (151, 22, 4=Red Line; 56=Blue Line, 157=Pink Line; etc...). I've never understood the point of the redundancy. Maybe it makes temporarily switching to buses easier when something goes wrong underground.

[jgriff]

I've never had a problem with Houston buses taking too long or not being on time. The biggest problem I've had with them is that there aren't enough routes. I've worked all over Houston over the years and only in a couple of my jobs was it feasible to take the bus. No light rail that has been proposed would have helped me in any way with any of the places I've been employed. Unless they plan on putting a track down Memorial drive that won't change. If they ever do propose putting light rail down Memorial I'm sure it will be finished about 100 years after I'm dead.

[ToryGattis]

When topology isn't a factor, I prefer trains to buses. Mostly because they're faster, and more predictable.

I saw something cool in Berlin last year that I think would really benefit transit systems everywhere.

Unlike in every American city I've ever lived in where there are bus stops on every block, or every other block, in Berlin the bus stops are very far apart -- about the same distance as subway stops.

In my observation and riding, it seemed to significantly improve traffic flow and predictability.

In essence, the buses act as cheaper surface trains, the way rail opponents in Houston always pretend they do. But the reality is that having to stop every few hundred feet causes problems that make trains a better option. Unless you go the Berlin method with your buses.

Here they call them Signature bus lines (there's one on Bellaire), and Metro could certainly use more of them.

[TheNiche]

Not surprising. The first question is the cost per additional rider (who weren't on the buses before). And the second question is much harder: how many bus routes were altered after the rail line started? Usually any competing parallel bus routes get axed, and all buses feed the rail line. So of course ridership increases, because alternatives were removed.

Other factors to consider regarding the predictive validity of this study, especially since we're looking at 10- to 20-year intervals of time:

- Has there been population and employment growth (i.e. daytime population) along these corridors? Is densification an endogenous or exogenous variable with respect to fixed-guideway rail transit?

- Did demographic profile of the neighborhoods change; for instance, did the proportion of the population that are adults of a working age increase? And again, endogenous or exogenous?

- What happened to ticket prices as compared to the costs of operating automobiles over this period of time? (Please note, I'm sure that transit agency costs went up, too, but ridership decisions are made on the basis of the costs experienced by the end consumer, not a government agency.)

- Differences between California and other places are not adjusted for, in particular relating to culture, costs of living, and the effect of state law. Nor are changes to these factors being accounted for internal to California.

- Opportunity cost is unaccounted for. Transit routes do not exist in a vacuum, but rather as segments within a system that encompasses multiple modes, including other forms of transportation that are not administered by the same agency. As a rule of thumb for whether transit has been effective, you might as whether the percent of commuters using single-occupant automobiles been reduced at all. In the case of the Los Angeles MSA, the 1990 figure was 72%, the 2000 figure was 72%, and the 2010 figure was 73.5%.

[samagon]

Not surprising. The first question is the cost per additional rider (who weren't on the buses before). And the second question is much harder: how many bus routes were altered after the rail line started? Usually any competing parallel bus routes get axed, and all buses feed the rail line. So of course ridership increases, because alternatives were removed.

Well, it says corridor, to me that means the operational area, so any bus routes that were removed would have been considered part of the corridor.

an interesting comparison, would be a count for Houston of a similar nature.

Lets see numbers for all the bus routes that were replaced with the red line (for the year previous to construction starting), then lets see today's numbers for light rail.

Of course the nay-sayers for LR would attribute any uptick in usage for LR vs bus to gas prices, or population, but then the same would be true of normal bus routes, no? so maybe a comparative number of bus service then vs bus service now would be in order too! This would be really neat to see!

[samagon]

Other factors to consider regarding the predictive validity of this study, especially since we're looking at 10- to 20-year intervals of time:

- Has there been population and employment growth (i.e. daytime population) along these corridors? Is densification an endogenous or exogenous variable with respect to fixed-guideway rail transit?

- Did demographic profile of the neighborhoods change; for instance, did the proportion of the population that are adults of a working age increase? And again, endogenous or exogenous?

- What happened to ticket prices as compared to the costs of operating automobiles over this period of time? (Please note, I'm sure that transit agency costs went up, too, but ridership decisions are made on the basis of the costs experienced by the end consumer, not a government agency.)

- Differences between California and other places are not adjusted for, in particular relating to culture, costs of living, and the effect of state law. Nor are changes to these factors being accounted for internal to California.

- Opportunity cost is unaccounted for. Transit routes do not exist in a vacuum, but rather as segments within a system that encompasses multiple modes, including other forms of transportation that are not administered by the same agency. As a rule of thumb for whether transit has been effective, you might as whether the percent of commuters using single-occupant automobiles been reduced at all. In the case of the Los Angeles MSA, the 1990 figure was 72%, the 2000 figure was 72%, and the 2010 figure was 73.5%.

So adjust the numbers for population density, I doubt the population in LA grew on the corridors in the percent that service use increased.

Also, we'd want to compare vs other corridors that didn't have bus service replaced with rail service, and adjust for density. if your theory that cost of gasoline vs cost of public transit holds up, it would be true of ALL types of public transit, not just rail, and since rail use wasn't even consistent in its growth vs bus service on different corridors, I'm fairly confident that your theory would not be borne out.

[RedScare]

Usually any competing parallel bus routes get axed, and all buses feed the rail line. So of course ridership increases, because alternatives were removed.

Surprised no one has caught the blatant math and logic error. If a parallel bus route is axed, ridership on the train does not increase. It simply carries the same riders who previously rode the bus.

[mfastx]

I love how anti-rail folk are scrambling to find other reasons for an increase in transit riderhsip.

Surre, an increase in transit riderhsip has nothing to do with that new rail line...

As for the question regarding cost per additional rider, rail's operational cost are known to be much lower on a per-rider basis than buses. Los Angeles is not only carrying more riders, they are doing it at a lower subisdy per rider.

The capital cost is what's killer. Over a long period of time, I feel that high capital costs are worth a huge improvement in city infrastructure.

[TheNiche]

So adjust the numbers for population density, I doubt the population in LA grew on the corridors in the percent that service use increased.

I would expect that an increase in traffic congestion would accompany an increase in density and that there should be an accelerating rate of increase of transit use. Although I know the structure of the formula and the data seems to fit within it, I do not know the coefficients that would provide for an accurate or precise adjustment for density. I welcome any suggestions you may have.

Also, we'd want to compare vs other corridors that didn't have bus service replaced with rail service, and adjust for density. if your theory that cost of gasoline vs cost of public transit holds up, it would be true of ALL types of public transit, not just rail, and since rail use wasn't even consistent in its growth vs bus service on different corridors, I'm fairly confident that your theory would not be borne out.

Come again? I'm not sure whether its your logic, your grammar, or poor reading comprehension on my part, but I didn't understand that.

[samagon]

I would expect that an increase in traffic congestion would accompany an increase in density and that there should be an accelerating rate of increase of transit use. Although I know the structure of the formula and the data seems to fit within it, I do not know the coefficients that would provide for an accurate or precise adjustment for density. I welcome any suggestions you may have.

Come again? I'm not sure whether its your logic, your grammar, or poor reading comprehension on my part, but I didn't understand that.

probably my fault, sometimes I post while talking on the phone, chewing gum and walking, it's not a successful combination.

what I was trying to say is that the growth that was seen from bus to rail, if it is purely an economical factor from then to now, it should be the same growth for other corridors that stayed bus.

so a 100% increase in use for corridor A that changed from bus to rail. we should see a 100% increase in corridor B that is still bus service.

of course, we'd also need to take into account the potential rise in density for these potential corridors and adjust accordingly.

but then, since corridors that switched from bus to rail didn't do so uniformly, while there's probably some shift attributable to economic factors, I doubt that's the whole reason, nor do I believe that density could be the whole reason either.

Either way, density and economic factors are some of the specific reasons that having a more effective and reliable public transit in place is important. whether that density is a product of more reliable public transit, or higher ridership is a product of higher density, doesn't really matter. Houston is growing to be more dense, and the cost of living is increasing as well.

[ToryGattis]

Surprised no one has caught the blatant math and logic error. If a parallel bus route is axed, ridership on the train does not increase. It simply carries the same riders who previously rode the bus.

It does increase compared to the bus route that used to follow the same corridor. Imagine 3 bus routes on parallel arterials carrying 20k riders each. The middle one is switched to rail and the other two are canceled and require either walking to the rail or, more likely, perpendicular routes that feed the rail. The rail gets 60k riders. Did it triple ridership? No, not compared to the 3 lines it replaced.

Overall, I would expect rail to increase ridership vs. bus. It is certainly a preferred mode of transit. The issue is cost-benefit. Not how much was paid to for each rider of the rail, but for each *new* rider of transit that wasn't riding the buses before. In most cases where I've seen numbers, the costs are crazy high for new riders.

Here's one example:

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6220

"This 7.3-mile line line is expected to cost $1.5 billion and carry just 9,300 new riders (that is, people who weren’t previously riding the bus) each weekday. Since most people ride round trip, that 4,650 round-trip riders a day. The high cost is enough money to buy each of those new round-trip riders a new Toyota Prius every year for the 30-year life of the project."

[TheNiche]

what I was trying to say is that the growth that was seen from bus to rail, if it is purely an economical factor from then to now, it should be the same growth for other corridors that stayed bus.

so a 100% increase in use for corridor A that changed from bus to rail. we should see a 100% increase in corridor B that is still bus service.

of course, we'd also need to take into account the potential rise in density for these potential corridors and adjust accordingly.

but then, since corridors that switched from bus to rail didn't do so uniformly, while there's probably some shift attributable to economic factors, I doubt that's the whole reason, nor do I believe that density could be the whole reason either.

My criticism of the predictive validity of the data from Los Angeles stands. Offer better data, additional data, or logically-sound contradictory hypotheses.

Please remember, I am not arguing that bus and rail are perfectly interchangeable. I think that rail is qualitatively superior to buses. The issue in question is the degree to which it is superior relative to its cost effectiveness, and not just along any single corridor but as a part of a larger system and given the finite budget of a transit agency.

Either way, density and economic factors are some of the specific reasons that having a more effective and reliable public transit in place is important. whether that density is a product of more reliable public transit, or higher ridership is a product of higher density, doesn't really matter. Houston is growing to be more dense, and the cost of living is increasing as well.

All of Los Angeles became a lot more expensive in a fairly short period of time. This was a consequence of geographic and political constraints that affected their entire region simultaneously. (If you drove as far north from downtown LA as Beltway 8 is from downtown Houston, you'd hit mountains; drive as far west as Beltway 8, you hit the ocean; drive as far south as Pearland, more ocean; drive as far southeast as Galveston, you hit a huge military base; drive as far east as Baytown and you're in the next mountain valley, Riverside. And in between these points, LA has mountains.)

By contrast, Houston's built-up area is essentially the same size of LA's except that it only houses about one third the number of people. And it keeps growing outward. The fraction of it that is densifying or that is becoming particularly expensive is very small.

Since we have room to grow whereas LA does not, it wouldn't surprise me if it were another century before transit can be as effective as it is in LA. By that time (and hopefully sooner), transit as we know it today will probably be irrelevant, technologically obsolete. I'll bet that we will have pulled up the rails yet again.

[samagon]

My criticism of the predictive validity of the data from Los Angeles stands. Offer better data, additional data, or logically-sound contradictory hypotheses.

Please remember, I am not arguing that bus and rail are perfectly interchangeable. I think that rail is qualitatively superior to buses. The issue in question is the degree to which it is superior relative to its cost effectiveness, and not just along any single corridor but as a part of a larger system and given the finite budget of a transit agency.

There are certainly questions, Tory brought up a good one, it doesn't specify if the total numbers were all bus routes that were axed for the rail, or just the specific one that was replaced with rail. I'm less skeptical. I probably should be more skeptical. Even without context, it's impressive numbers. One of the corridors went up over 300%.

Either way, El Toro is gone and a huge park now (and tons of posh new houses being built east of 5 around Lake Forest, not just the old stock around Mission Viejo), the south is limited in that there are 2 freeways that are slow as hell all the time getting from LA southward. It's probably closer from downtown LA to the coast than it is from downtown Houston to BW8.

Although, the last time I was in LA, which was about 3 years ago, it certainly seemed like it was equally sprawling to Houston, just a much larger sprawl of single family houses.

[Slick Vik]

My criticism of the predictive validity of the data from Los Angeles stands. Offer better data, additional data, or logically-sound contradictory hypotheses.

Please remember, I am not arguing that bus and rail are perfectly interchangeable. I think that rail is qualitatively superior to buses. The issue in question is the degree to which it is superior relative to its cost effectiveness, and not just along any single corridor but as a part of a larger system and given the finite budget of a transit agency.

All of Los Angeles became a lot more expensive in a fairly short period of time. This was a consequence of geographic and political constraints that affected their entire region simultaneously. (If you drove as far north from downtown LA as Beltway 8 is from downtown Houston, you'd hit mountains; drive as far west as Beltway 8, you hit the ocean; drive as far south as Pearland, more ocean; drive as far southeast as Galveston, you hit a huge military base; drive as far east as Baytown and you're in the next mountain valley, Riverside. And in between these points, LA has mountains.)

By contrast, Houston's built-up area is essentially the same size of LA's except that it only houses about one third the number of people. And it keeps growing outward. The fraction of it that is densifying or that is becoming particularly expensive is very small.

Since we have room to grow whereas LA does not, it wouldn't surprise me if it were another century before transit can be as effective as it is in LA. By that time (and hopefully sooner), transit as we know it today will probably be irrelevant, technologically obsolete. I'll bet that we will have pulled up the rails yet again.

The LA region is not as small as you make it, and in fact similar in sprawl to Houston. Your selective criteria is clever though.

[RedScare]

The LA region is not as small as you make it, and in fact similar in sprawl to Houston. Your selective criteria is clever though.

Not only is it not as small as Niche insinuates, the Los Angeles MSA is 20% larger than the Houston MSA.

[TheNiche]

Not only is it not as small as Niche insinuates, the Los Angeles MSA is 20% larger than the Houston MSA.

Nope.

I was initially just eyeballing it on Google Earth, but now I've checked the Census data for urbanized areas and Los Angeles is at 1,736 square miles compared with Houston's 1,660 square miles, a difference of 4.6%. I think that this is within a margin for error that allows me to proclaim that my eyeballs were materially correct. (Red was probably citing the urbanized area defined from the 2000 Census, but these things grow continuously, unlike the political boundaries that comprise MSAs and municipalities. And since Houston isn't hemmed in by geography and politics, ours grew outward whereas theirs grew upward.)

Since we're running numbers, I'd point out that the Los Angeles urbanized area is actually the densest UA in the nation, at 6,999.3 residents per square mile. This is typical for California. Of the 30 densest urbanized areas in the nation, 24 of them were in California. (As I had previously mentioned, I don't think that Californian experiences with transit have very much predictive validity for Texas.)

Houston's urbanized area had 3,978.5 residents per square mile, 67th on a list of all UA's ordered by density even though it was the 7th most populous urbanized area and even though it had experienced the fastest numerical growth over the last decade.

The data still fits my hypotheses. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that I'm actually just as smart as I think I am.

[Slick Vik]

Nope.

I was initially just eyeballing it on Google Earth, but now I've checked the Census data for urbanized areas and Los Angeles is at 1,736 square miles compared with Houston's 1,660 square miles, a difference of 4.6%. I think that this is within a margin for error that allows me to proclaim that my eyeballs were materially correct. (Red was probably citing the urbanized area defined from the 2000 Census, but these things grow continuously, unlike the political boundaries that comprise MSAs and municipalities. And since Houston isn't hemmed in by geography and politics, ours grew outward whereas theirs grew upward.)

Since we're running numbers, I'd point out that the Los Angeles urbanized area is actually the densest UA in the nation, at 6,999.3 residents per square mile. This is typical for California. Of the 30 densest urbanized areas in the nation, 24 of them were in California. (As I had previously mentioned, I don't think that Californian experiences with transit have very much predictive validity for Texas.)

Houston's urbanized area had 3,978.5 residents per square mile, 67th on a list of all UA's ordered by density even though it was the 7th most populous urbanized area and even though it had experienced the fastest numerical growth over the last decade.

The data still fits my hypotheses. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that I'm actually just as smart as I think I am.

Houston and LA are similar in size, rail has proven ridership gains in LA, but no, this won't work in Houston. Why? Because niche says so, and that's that. Awesome hypothesis.

[TheNiche]

Houston and LA are similar in size, rail has proven ridership gains in LA, but no, this won't work in Houston. Why? Because niche says so, and that's that. Awesome hypothesis.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

[samagon]

Nope.

I was initially just eyeballing it on Google Earth, but now I've checked the Census data for urbanized areas and Los Angeles is at 1,736 square miles compared with Houston's 1,660 square miles, a difference of 4.6%. I think that this is within a margin for error that allows me to proclaim that my eyeballs were materially correct. (Red was probably citing the urbanized area defined from the 2000 Census, but these things grow continuously, unlike the political boundaries that comprise MSAs and municipalities. And since Houston isn't hemmed in by geography and politics, ours grew outward whereas theirs grew upward.)

Since we're running numbers, I'd point out that the Los Angeles urbanized area is actually the densest UA in the nation, at 6,999.3 residents per square mile. This is typical for California. Of the 30 densest urbanized areas in the nation, 24 of them were in California. (As I had previously mentioned, I don't think that Californian experiences with transit have very much predictive validity for Texas.)

Houston's urbanized area had 3,978.5 residents per square mile, 67th on a list of all UA's ordered by density even though it was the 7th most populous urbanized area and even though it had experienced the fastest numerical growth over the last decade.

The data still fits my hypotheses. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that I'm actually just as smart as I think I am.

The numbers from the 2010 census say people per square mile is 8092. the numbers from the 2000 census say people per square mile were 7990.

http://quickfacts.ce...06/0644000.html

http://www.cesla.med...9db012301878193

The density increased per square mile by about 100 people. That doesn't justify a 100% increase in public rail use, and certainly not a 300% increase they displayed. again, it would be nice to see if/how the bus corridor ridership changed over the same period to bear out your theory that it's all based on density.

How much density does it take to justify a satisfactory solution for public transit rather than the craptastic one we currently have? The way our bus system works now, we might as well not have a transit system. the LR system, at least they are on time and come at their expected frequency, and don't decide to just skip a stop if they aren't on schedule.

[TheNiche]

The numbers from the 2010 census say people per square mile is 8092. the numbers from the 2000 census say people per square mile were 7990.

http://quickfacts.ce...06/0644000.html

http://www.cesla.med...9db012301878193

The density increased per square mile by about 100 people. That doesn't justify a 100% increase in public rail use, and certainly not a 300% increase they displayed. again, it would be nice to see if/how the bus corridor ridership changed over the same period to bear out your theory that it's all based on density.

How much density does it take to justify a satisfactory solution for public transit rather than the craptastic one we currently have? The way our bus system works now, we might as well not have a transit system. the LR system, at least they are on time and come at their expected frequency, and don't decide to just skip a stop if they aren't on schedule.

Why do you people not READ stuff before you respond!? This is extremely frustrating.

You're looking at figures for the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles, which are political entities whose boundaries do not conform at all with the machinations of a city as an economic entity, much less a transit authority whose service area extends beyond them.

The Census attempts to cope with these issues by defining MSAs wherein commuting patterns between outlying counties and core counties indicate a decidedly one-sided flow. However, these entities are delineated by County. As a result, western MSAs have a tendency for being ridiculously large in terms of square mileage and for not conforming very well with commuting patterns that decidedly change within the same county. For instance, both San Bernadino County, CA and Riverside County, CA adjoin Los Angeles County and include portions of the Los Angeles urbanized area as defined by the Census (see below) and also include public transit connections to Los Angeles, but those counties extend all the way to Arizona and Nevada, three hours distant. We obviously shouldn't be factoring in the density of Death Valley. Each of these counties also include mountain ranges and national parks, and these should no sooner be factored into density than should Lake Houston or the Addicks Reservoir.

This is why I am using Urbanized Area. The official definition from the U.S. Census Bureau is as follows:

URBANIZED AREA (UA)

The Census Bureau delineates urbanized areas (UA's) to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. A UA comprises one or more places ("central place") and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory ("urban fringe") that together have a minimum of 50,000 persons. The urban fringe generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The urban fringe also includes outlying territory of such density if it was connected to the core of the contiguous area by road and is within 1 1/2 road miles of that core, or within 5 road miles of the core but separated by water or other undevelopable territory. Other territory with a population density of fewer than 1,000 people per square mile is included in the urban fringe if it eliminates an enclave or closes an indentation in the boundary of the urbanized area. The population density is determined by (1) outside of a place, one or more contiguous census blocks with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile or (2) inclusion of a place containing census blocks that have at least 50 percent of the population of the place and a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The complete criteria are available from the Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233.

The use of a UA allows for a more direct comparison of geographies wherein public transit has even the potential to be relevant.

[samagon]

Why do you people not READ stuff before you respond!? This is extremely frustrating.

You're looking at figures for the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles, which are political entities whose boundaries do not conform at all with the machinations of a city as an economic entity, much less a transit authority whose service area extends beyond them.

The Census attempts to cope with these issues by defining MSAs wherein commuting patterns between outlying counties and core counties indicate a decidedly one-sided flow. However, these entities are delineated by County. As a result, western MSAs have a tendency for being ridiculously large in terms of square mileage and for not conforming very well with commuting patterns that decidedly change within the same county. For instance, both San Bernadino County, CA and Riverside County, CA adjoin Los Angeles County and include portions of the Los Angeles urbanized area as defined by the Census (see below) and also include public transit connections to Los Angeles, but those counties extend all the way to Arizona and Nevada, three hours distant. We obviously shouldn't be factoring in the density of Death Valley. Each of these counties also include mountain ranges and national parks, and these should no sooner be factored into density than should Lake Houston or the Addicks Reservoir.

This is why I am using Urbanized Area. The official definition from the U.S. Census Bureau is as follows:

The use of a UA allows for a more direct comparison of geographies wherein public transit has even the potential to be relevant.

Sorry Niche, I did read it, I don't doubt that your numbers of Urbanized Area are correct, however, since I don't know where to look for UA numbers to try and find the 2000 numbers, so I went off the entire city, which I found easily, I figured it would be better to compare similar stats (entire city density vs entire city density, rather than city density vs UA density) than to really frustrate you and compare dissimilar stats.

You showed only 1 data point, the current state, nothing concerning when the routes were served by bus. what good is that to the overall discussion?

None of this matters, though.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

It's my belief that bus routes that didn't become rail would not have seen a significant increase in ridership as the bus routes that became rail lines. I have no data to back it up, which is why I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. And since I have no real way to back it up, I stated it as my belief. If you want to show me why my belief is incorrect, I'm glad to see it.

It's my understanding that you are trying to say that they have a density sufficient to support significant mass transit, and have offered points to that belief. I have no reason to disagree with you, especially since I have no data to support my thoughts on that subject.

So, I don't even know why we're arguing? Other than we just enjoy it? If my understanding of what you're arguing about is incorrect, let me know.

[Slick Vik]

Why do you people not READ stuff before you respond!? This is extremely frustrating.

You're looking at figures for the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles, which are political entities whose boundaries do not conform at all with the machinations of a city as an economic entity, much less a transit authority whose service area extends beyond them.

The Census attempts to cope with these issues by defining MSAs wherein commuting patterns between outlying counties and core counties indicate a decidedly one-sided flow. However, these entities are delineated by County. As a result, western MSAs have a tendency for being ridiculously large in terms of square mileage and for not conforming very well with commuting patterns that decidedly change within the same county. For instance, both San Bernadino County, CA and Riverside County, CA adjoin Los Angeles County and include portions of the Los Angeles urbanized area as defined by the Census (see below) and also include public transit connections to Los Angeles, but those counties extend all the way to Arizona and Nevada, three hours distant. We obviously shouldn't be factoring in the density of Death Valley. Each of these counties also include mountain ranges and national parks, and these should no sooner be factored into density than should Lake Houston or the Addicks Reservoir.

This is why I am using Urbanized Area. The official definition from the U.S. Census Bureau is as follows:

The use of a UA allows for a more direct comparison of geographies wherein public transit has even the potential to be relevant.

Clever of you to pick urbanized area when Los Angeles itself refers to an entire region: Hollywood, Pasadena, Sen Bernadino, Santa Monica, Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Huntington Beach, Cypress, Torrance, etc. This is a smoke and mirrors argument, but the smoke cleared a long time ago.

[TheNiche]

Clever of you to pick urbanized area when Los Angeles itself refers to an entire region: Hollywood, Pasadena, Sen Bernadino, Santa Monica, Laguna Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Huntington Beach, Cypress, Torrance, etc. This is a smoke and mirrors argument, but the smoke cleared a long time ago.

Yes, it is clever.

It is clever because the Los Angeles urbanized area takes in Hollywood, Pasadena, Torrance, et al. The UA takes in everything up until Fontana, CA, everything up until Ventury County, CA, and everything up until the Laguna Hills. In general, the Census tries to acknowledge and separate out the Inland Empire as its own urbanized area. And that makes sense in principle. There is a difference.

Likewise, Houston's UA takes in Pasadena, Pearland, Sugar Land, Baytown, et al., but stops just short of Dickinson, allowing Texas City's UA to take in all points south and for Galveston to have its own UA. Just as with Los Angeles, the precise delineations may be controversial, but the underlying principle is sound.

[RedScare]

Reading comprehension FAIL.

Speaking of reading comprehension fail, read my post. I said the LA MSA is 20% larger than the Houston MSA. Changing the terms so you can claim to be correct is pretty lowbrow debating...even worse than using big words hoping no one will bother to look them up.

[TheNiche]

Speaking of reading comprehension fail, read my post. I said the LA MSA is 20% larger than the Houston MSA. Changing the terms so you can claim to be correct is pretty lowbrow debating...even worse than using big words hoping no one will bother to look them up.

I was never talking about the MSA because, as I've explained, those boundaries are inappropriate for a comparative analysis of density. Your comment was tangential at best, meaningless in fact, and intended to mislead in the worst possible case.

[MetroMogul]

I've never had a problem with Houston buses taking too long or not being on time. The biggest problem I've had with them is that there aren't enough routes. I've worked all over Houston over the years and only in a couple of my jobs was it feasible to take the bus. No light rail that has been proposed would have helped me in any way with any of the places I've been employed. Unless they plan on putting a track down Memorial drive that won't change. If they ever do propose putting light rail down Memorial I'm sure it will be finished about 100 years after I'm dead.

You have the 70 - Memorial (which is pretty much a maid shuttle) and the 131 - Memorial Express. Combined with the 6 - Tanglewood, all three buses cover the entire length of Memorial Drive.

And Metro seems to have halted any significant bus expansion for the foreseeable future. If you look at older bus maps from the HouTran and early Metro days you'll see that buses ran out ti the very edge of the suburbs. That doesn't happen anymore.