Okay, this time by census tract
Previously posted on July 24th at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!123.entry
So, I noticed after I made my last post that it’s probably better to switch the view to be by census tract rather than by postal code. It breaks out the density variabilities a bit better, but it certainly doesn’t demonstrate a good reason for the current concentration of transit (we’re still about the same density or higher than the more heavily transit-served areas).
If anything, it probably shows that the high density just east of I-5 is probably underserved… but I can’t speak to that at all. 
Here’s the updated query link and image:
