Pete is a great example of, and an answer to 3751's question.

Yeah, there are studies and models based on data, of how many folks make the trip from the IE to OC, I did many of them, and the distribution of jobs from cut line surveys on the 91 were among some of the most dramatic, with folks going to LA and beyond the Pasadena, LAX, Glendale, and every major jobs center, including places as distant as Warner Center, from places as far away as Temecula and Palm Springs.

We have years of surveys to calibrate these models and data from large scale "cut line" surveys like we did for the 91 at Lakeview, for 12 hours, sending out over 120,000 post cards to registered vehicle owners, and received over 23,000 responses, who told us the where they were coming from, and where they were going to, trip purpose, how many folks in the car.....

We also have nearly 40 years of PEMS data from our loop detectors on our freeways, and on ramps, so we can calibrate volumes with places that "attract" the most trips. We have census 'journey to work" survey data. And, finally I and others have done surveys of employers or cities, like Pasadena, where large employers were surveyed on where there work force was coming from, and when they came to work.....

How well we use the data and what the surveys tell us, or how we conduct valid or useful data, can be another matter. As I have noted with the atrocious and ludicrous passenger forecasting methodologies and the largely useless survey work used by the CHSRA fiasco.

Pete is a reverse commuter, because while we are building more housing density around transit, we have continued to put and/or move many of our jobs into "commercial" zoned, fully housing segregated/separated/even retail free, non transit accessible, suburban business park.....? So he is actually lucky to be able to access his suburban employer at all by transit.

Reverse commutes to Pasadena, from LAUPT, exceeded inbound trips on the first segment of the GL, now it is almost equal, as far as Pasadena from ELA and LAUPT. Commuters are only about half of ridership, as well. Downtown LA is our "largest" job center, but with only about 3 or 4 percent, of all of the region's total jobs, And, it must be noted during my career, that percentage has fallen over the years, with suburban center job growth, in places like Irvine Center.

So job dispersion in LA is very real, and suburb to suburb commutes are a much larger share of work trips than all suburb to large centers trips. So one major failure of the TOD "new urbanist" planning movement has been the failure to put more "jobs", rather than just "housing", at or near rail stations.

Remember that folks making travel decisions don't care if it is called "commuter" rail, or is "true" light rail provided by a U2B# Bremen car or not, nor any of that other train fan, planner jargon, trolley jolly, over thought horse manure, we like to spread. They only care about relative cost, access, reliability, convenience, and finally total travel time, including wait times and transfer times.

In terms of total trip cost, including time, (but often ignoring and underestimating variable mileage depreciation costs, by falsely assuming that this is a "sunk" cost of ownership) as , it is)the car, even in sucky traffic, that still beats transit on over 90% of our work trips, Which maybe explains why the 210 is so crowded, and why the Gold Line (because for many trips in that corridor)is doing so well, since it does provide those attributes that make it more useful than ML...?