# A GIS-Based Analysis of the Light Rail Transit Systems in Spain
## 5 Results and Discussion  
The results enabled us to find out several things. In Group I (Table 3), annual users varied from 5.10 million in Murcia to 28.2 in Zaragoza. The shortest length was 12.72 km (Vitoria) and the longest, 18 km (Murcia). Systems usually had one or two lines where stations were located a mean distance of 400 m to 666 m away from each other. Potential users (people who live no more than 500 m from a station) varied from almost 18,000 in Vitoria to almost 30,000 in Tenerife. Daily users per station (from 1525 in Zaragoza to 325 in Murcia) and acceptance rate, which varied from 42% in Murcia to 226% in Zaragoza were more representative. The population density in the capture areas was never below  
Figure 5: Cities in Groups 1 and 3. Left-hand column: Granada, Murcia, Tenerife; right-hand column: Vitoria, Zaragoza, Alicante. 1514 pop/km\({}^{2}\). Lastly, the ratio of passengers per unit line varied from 2.20 in Zaragoza to 0.28 in Murcia. In Group 2 (Table 4), the ranges were wider. Annual users varied from 29.10 million in Barcelona to 2.99 million in Bilbao. The shortest system was in Seville (3.97 km) and the longest in Barcelona (29.20 km). The network composition varied from one line to six in the whole Barcelona system, although distributed between subway and light rail. The mean distance between stations varied from 405 m in Valencia to 685 in Madrid. Potential users varied from a little over 2000 in Seville to over 46,000. Users per station also varied widely, from 355 in Valencia to 1417 in Seville, and also the acceptance rate, which was 26% in Bilbao compared to 426% in Madrid. We also note that the population density in the capture areas was hardly 251 in Madrid while it was 4002 in Bilbao. Finally, the ratio of riders per unit of line varied from 1.80 in Zaragoza to 0.42 in Valencia. Table 4 also shows data for Group 3, which as mentioned, includes only the city of Alicante. The results show some interesting aspects of this characterization. First, it would be hard to imagine an LRT in a city with population densities of less than 1500/km\({}^{2}\) on consolidated urban land. This figure is lower when the system is a feeder or complements a conventional subway system, or when it is a tram-train system. Not in vain, light rail transit systems are limited to cities of at least a certain population: Santa Cruz de Tenerife \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group 2**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group 3**} \\  & **Barcelona** & **Bilbao** & **Madrid** & **Seville** & **Valencia** & **Alicante** \\ \hline
1 & Annual service users (million pax) & 29.10 & 2.99 & 16.90 & 3.97 & 8.80 & 11.10 \\
2 & Line length (km) & 29.20 & 5.57 & 35.64 & 2.20 & 21.10 & 112.60 \\
3 & Number of lines (unit) & 6.00 & 1.00 & 4.00 & 1.00 & 3.00 & 5.00 \\
4 & Number of stations (units) & 53.00 & 14.00 & 55.00 & 5.00 & 43.00 & 69.00 \\
5 & Number shared stations (units) & 10.00 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 0.00 & 12.00 & 9.00 \\
6 & Capture area (km\({}^{2}\)) & 23.36 & 5.06 & 28.20 & 2.62 & 20.03 & 40.52 \\
7 & Potential users (pop) & 22,287.00 & 20,255.00 & 7080.00 & 2165.00 & 46,428.00 & 30,638.00 \\
8 & Daily users (pax) & 51,964.29 & 53.39.29 & 30.178.57 & 7.089.29 & 15,714.28 & 19.821.43 \\
9 & Users per station & 980.46 & 381.38 & 548.70 & 1.417.86 & 365.45 & 287.27 \\
10 & Acceptance rate & 233\% & 26\% & 426\% & 327\% & 34\% & 65\% \\
11 & Density of capture area & 954.07 & 4.002.96 & 251.06 & 826.34 & 2317.92 & 756.12 \\
12 & Mean distance between stations (m) & 512.18 & 428.46 & 685.38 & 550.00 & 405.77 & 1.542.47 \\
13 & Passengers per unit line & 1.00 & 0.54 & 0.47 & 1.80 & 0.42 & 0.10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results for Groups 2 and 3.