Ridership increased steadily, according to the Metro chart, from 2004-2008.
(** CORRECTION/EDIT: in the past, according to a Metro representative, fares were raised sporadically and for more than 5%. And they still couldn't manage. So now we get an automatic increase every 2 years, and still no guarantees that service will remain stable.)
Was there any change, with the increased riders, in types of fares used to board? (More two hour transfers? more weekly passes? more one-way Metrolink cash fares?)
In what geographical locations did the ridership increase the most?
Were they suburban, park and ride, train commuters? Or was there an overall increase in people using the buses and trains more after the economy crashed and the price of gas got to high?
Did the steady increase in riders (from 2005-2008) result in more revenue or less? Because if more riders means more revenue (and it may not), why did the system fail so badly in 2009?
Sorry, no information to be found.
EDIT/CORRECTION: I have been informed by Metro representatives that there are heat sensors that count -- as far as I could understand-- humans by their body heat, over the train doors when they open and close. They assured me they were accurate. I suppose they are.
Metro operates with 160 million a year budget. Yet they offer no coherent, understandable breakdown on where that money goes. Or where it comes from.