Is Ridership the Gold Standard for Transit Success?

February 3, 2025

Ridership numbers often dominate transit discussions, but should they be the ultimate measure of success? Levi and Christian unpack the pros and cons, exploring how accessibility, service quality, and community impact factor in. Is a packed bus always a sign of a great system, or is there more to consider? Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation on what truly makes public transit effective.

Woman Using Phone On Bus.jpg

Episode Transcript

00:00 Stop Requested.

00:01 Levi McCollum: Welcome to Stop Requested, the podcast where we discuss everything transit. I’m your co host, Levi McCollum, director of operations at ETA Transit.

00:10 Christian Londono: And I’m your co host, Christian Londono, Senior Customer Success Manager at ETA Transit. Hey, Levi, how you doing?

00:23 Levi McCollum: Hey, Christian. I’m doing pretty well. How are you?

00:26 Christian Londono: Doing great. Doing great. Very excited about today’s episode for Stop Requested.

00:31 Christian Londono: And this episode is going to be very interesting, not only because this is going to be a debate that we’re going to be holding during this episode, but also because it’s connected to our previous episode. If our listeners that are right now listening to this episode had the opportunity to listen to last week’s episode—when we interviewed Yash Nagal from Palm Tran—we were discussing when you are evaluating the effectiveness of public transit or how well public transit in a given community is doing, very often we tend to go into the ridership metric. You know, how much is the ridership, is the ridership increasing or decreasing? And we were actually talking about ridership trends during that previous episode. But the debate today is, is it the best metric to measure public transit or is it not? And I think it is. Well, I mean, I think it’s—it’s for a lot of reasons—a really strong metric to evaluate public transit.

01:43 Levi McCollum: Yeah. There are other sides to it, though, and that’s where I’m going to chime in and give the counterargument to your ridership argument.

01:51 Christian Londono: Awesome. So you ready? You ready to dive into it?

01:55 Levi McCollum: I’m ready. Let’s do it.

01:57 Christian Londono: Excellent. So, you know, one of the main things I’m going to put out there—and again, I want to say that all this is also for the sake of having an argument, of choosing a side for the comfort of the conversation. So it’s not ultimately my own opinion, but I do believe, as I’m presenting arguments tonight, that ridership is one of the most important, if not the most important, metric. And it’s because, you know, a high level of ridership—if a transit system is reporting a lot of ridership, maybe in the millions—it means that people in the community are riding it. And of course there are ratios that help you measure effectiveness and so on. But high-level ridership—if I tell you my system carries 3 million people a day, right off the bat—that’s an impressive number. You would think, like, whoa, that’s a significant number. And it also indicates that the transit option is aligning with people in the community with the travel patterns. A lot of people are getting to jobs, are getting to education, are, you know, going out there in the community, spending money by riding the system and getting to all these destinations. So I just think that it really helps justify expansion in transit infrastructure improvements and, you know, further growing and investing into transit in that community. Transit works in that community.

03:32 Levi McCollum: Yes, it might show that there is demand there, but it’s also ignoring a large portion of what I would consider a more holistic way of viewing public transportation. For example, you might see that the demand is high because the ridership is high. But if the demand is low, does that mean that the system is completely unnecessary? I would say not really. Right, because a lot of the transit services in the United States are serving lower-density areas. Not every place is New York or LA or Chicago. So does that mean we just eliminate public transportation because their ridership is lower than, you know, downtown New York City or downtown LA? No. It could be indicative of other things that are happening there, such as land use or poor route planning. It might also be that there’s just a lack of awareness that public transportation is an option. Additionally, I would not measure public transportation success based on ridership alone, because in the end, public transportation is an essential service. It’s a public service. And I don’t know of any other public services that are measured based on this type of metric. You don’t see that a fire department is successful based on the number of fires it puts out. That’s not the math that’s happening for fire departments. You know, are they able to put a fire out in a certain number of minutes? I’m kind of getting outside of my area of expertise, but I doubt that those are the metrics that are being used to determine if a fire department is successful or not. Why are we using that to determine if public transportation is successful?

05:33 Christian Londono: Yeah, that argument about the fire department really puts things into perspective. And like you said, there are rural areas and maybe you don’t have a robust transit system—and maybe because of that it is expected that there’s not a lot of ridership. But putting out service costs money. Right, like, you know, there’s an investment into the community. And you know, the American Public Transportation Association says that every dollar invested into public transit translates into five dollars of economic return, which is a good reason to invest and think about public transit. But then as a community is making an investment, we have to see that there is a return—that there is some activity that is matching a little bit that investment. So when you’re looking at higher ridership and the community is reporting that level of ridership in the system, it does translate in a lot of cases to more fare revenue. And therefore, if there’s more fare revenue, then maybe there’s a need for slightly less government subsidy for that community’s public transit. And it also helps to justify continuing to invest in public transit. You know, you go to those people that are providing the funding and say, “Here, the people in the community are using the system. This system is not only something that we’re investing in—buying vehicles, hiring people to do the work and put out the service—but people are actually riding it. So therefore your investment is justifiable.” And the next thing is that those systems that have higher ridership typically tend to have a lower cost per rider. So there’s less subsidy per person, which is more financially efficient. So in a ridership still, when you’re looking at it from that point of view in terms of financial stability, it keeps being an important metric to keep in mind.

07:54 Levi McCollum: Yeah, I would make the argument that public transportation, at least in the United States as it currently exists in most communities, is not ever going to be at a break-even level—and we shouldn’t expect it to be. I don’t think that public transportation should be analyzed solely on how you’re getting your bang for your buck or your ROI in a financial way. Because what you’re comparing it to—it makes sense if you were to look back 100 years and say, “Oh, well, the public transportation systems of old used to be revenue generating. They used to be private businesses.” But that isn’t the case anymore. A lot of these public transit agencies have been taken under the umbrella of a city or a county or made their own public transportation authority. And it’s more akin to roads, police, and libraries. And I don’t think that we have that same financial expectation of our police—where are they going to give out an equal number of tickets to be able to pay for their salaries? No, I don’t think that’s the case. The same with libraries. I mean, are we going to fine people for not returning their books just so we can pay the librarians to break even on the books? I doubt it. I just don’t think that’s a very good metric to understand if the agency is doing a good job or not. As I mentioned, I don’t think that transit agencies in the US—and in most communities—are going to be profitable. But the idea that you put forth, and that APTA has put forth previously, is that for every dollar put in, you get five dollars out. I mean, that seems like you’re getting a one-to-five ratio regardless of how much money you’re putting in. So we should put more money in because we’re going to end up getting more money out of it in the end. And if you’re trying to overemphasize being profitable for a transit agency, then what’s going to end up happening is that all the “unprofitable” routes are going to be removed—and that has drastic implications on trying to get the folks in your area, in that service area, to be able to access the opportunities provided in their area, you know, jobs, health care opportunities, groceries, and being able to provide for their family. So it really overlooks, in my opinion, the myriad ways that you’re going to get a return if you’re only looking at the financials.

10:53 Christian Londono: Yeah, I mean, and definitely not only in the financials. And like we both said about APTA, altogether it tells us that investing in transit is already a profitable return for society in general. Because it’s not just about the people riding, it’s about the impact that it has on the community as a whole. You know, when you’re talking about roads, road maintenance, and traffic reductions when goods and services are stuck in traffic trying to be delivered—if more people would ride transit, it will be easier for the economy to operate in a community.

11:37 Levi McCollum: Are you coming over to my side now?

11:40 Christian Londono: A little bit. A little bit. But also, you know, you mentioned the social aspect of it and access—talk about access and some of the folks that maybe cannot necessarily afford transit.

11:54 Christian Londono: Right. Because we’re talking—I mentioned fares—and when there’s ridership, there should be more revenue in terms of fares. But fares cover, you know, at most 15% to 17% of the operational cost of transit. So fares are not necessarily saying, “Okay, we’re getting people to pay for the service,” just like you wouldn’t expect fines for not returning library books to pay for the librarian. But there has to be a level of ridership. Because the reflection of accessibility and affordability is that some of those folks that are low income—who maybe have some issues in terms of accessibility, or maybe, I don’t know, they’re not ADA, or they just don’t have access to a car—have to get to places. And now they can get to that job because they don’t have a vehicle, and now there’s a route that goes through their community that allows them to take that job. So because of those aspects, there has to be a reflection of the ridership. There have to be some numbers showing that people are actually using it and that they can rely on public transit to go from point A to point B. And also, if that is actually happening in underserved areas—if you have all these communities that are identified as underserved, and then if those routes in those areas are showing good ridership activity—then it means that as a transit system, we’re addressing those mobility gaps. We’re allowing those folks to actually get to places as well that folks with their own private vehicles—and maybe even suburban or rural communities—might not have.

14:04 Levi McCollum: Well, in those areas where you’re going to have higher demand and you have a fare, of course you’re going to be able to rake in more money as a transit agency. But, you know, one thing I didn’t hear you say is just how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars are spent in the fare collection process. Right? You have to hire people to oversee the fare, to count the fare, to, you know, ensure that people are paying the fare. It also has a whole hardware portion, as well—fare boxes, turnstiles—there’s a lot that goes into fare collection. And I think you’re right that the demand is going to generate higher revenue for the agency, and in turn it might be able to cover a few percentage points of its operating cost. But is that really what we’re after? Is that what we’re after—to be able to pay for itself so it’s not subsidized? I don’t know. I don’t see that as the aim of public transportation.

15:21 Christian Londono: Yes, affordability. And like you said earlier, there’s no transit system that can say that just by collecting fares, they’re able to pay all their operational cost and don’t need any grants or government assistance. So, but that’s not the only aspect.

15:46 Levi McCollum: Right.

15:46 Christian Londono: It’s something that is still reflected in ridership. If you have some ridership and you charge fares, there are a few transit systems out there that even after COVID decided to stay fare-free—and that doesn’t mean they’re not providing a service to the community. I think they’re actually doing a really good job, and there are many reasons why they decided to stay fare free. But still they have the ridership. It’s not necessarily about looking at the ridership and its reflection in terms of fares, but at least people are using it. And actually, a lot of times when fares are lowered or removed, you see high ridership as a result because people end up taking more trips. But the other aspect is that ridership tells us that in a given community when more people are using public transit, you have higher ridership. In many cases, that means fewer cars on the road and reduced congestion. Also, consider emissions—zero emissions. That is why many transit agencies are transitioning to zero-emissions technologies.

17:03 Christian Londono: I think, you know, we had an episode where we spoke about that—and it’s because higher ridership on buses, trains, or subways makes them more energy efficient per capita than riding personal vehicles. So you have to have sufficient ridership to reflect that. It’s actually happening in the community, and expanding ridership in transit supports climate goals and makes urban sustainability efforts attainable. So it’s not just about the revenue generation (which can be connected with ridership) but also about all these other aspects: a higher ridership means a better impact on the environment and a reduction in traffic.

17:57 Levi McCollum: Yeah. There’s no doubt that public transportation is going to be more environmentally friendly and more energy efficient than a personal vehicle—I think that’s pretty clear. But you’re going to get that same benefit even if there’s low ridership on a route as opposed to high ridership with a standing-room-only bus or train. That particular benefit is there regardless. So I would put the personal vehicle argument aside. Public transportation is environmentally friendly—point blank. So yes, Christian, the environmental impact is going to be greater if ridership is higher on a bus, train, or any other type of public transit vehicle. But that doesn’t mean that a transit system can’t be environmentally beneficial. A transit vehicle with five people versus 65 is still public transportation and is still environmentally better than using a personal vehicle. So when we compare it to personal vehicles, it’s just a win overall. And if we can get more people on public transportation—even if that means having a route with relatively low ridership compared to a high-ridership route—we still have public transportation, and I think that’s an overall plus.

19:42 Christian Londono: Yes, definitely. There’s no argument there. Of course, as you just stated, higher ridership means an even greater impact in terms of sustainability and potentially reduced traffic congestion. Although New York City is still very congested, they also have really high ridership numbers. A well-run transit system should naturally attract high ridership. And the other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of times when we’re investing in improving service frequency by throwing more buses onto a given route, the way we measure that is by looking at ridership—more people using the service. Often, transit agencies add more service or put more buses on a route simply because there is demand: the buses are getting crowded and people are complaining, so more service is added. There should be a reflection of that in the ridership. And if ridership is declining on a given route or system, it may signal that there are issues with the service—maybe the service is not that good, maybe it’s not as reliable, or perhaps there are safety issues. For instance, I learned that in Bogotá, Colombia—the home of what many say is the number one BRT system in the world—a lot of women are buying e-bikes and riding bicycles instead of using the system because they perceive it as unsafe, overly crowded, and not comfortable. So sometimes ridership is still a good way of measuring whether the system is performing well or if the quality of the service is suffering.

21:57 Levi McCollum: Well, I think that latter point about Bogotá is really important because it shows that the quality of the service may be declining in some way. Or people feel less safe on public transportation, and as a result, the ridership starts to decline. If you’re only looking at ridership, you might not be able to tell what is causing that drop. But if you’re looking at other metrics like safety or the overall customer experience, then you can determine the root cause. It really shows that using ridership as the only—or even the primary—metric is one-dimensional. The quality of service is not always strongly correlated with high ridership. For example, if a vehicle is overcrowded, that might mean the quality of the ride itself is pretty low. I don’t want to be in a crush-load situation 100% of my transit trip because that’s very uncomfortable. Or let’s say the vehicle is so packed that it starts to degrade the interior over time, which in turn might require taking vehicles out of service and reducing frequency—and that then impacts ridership. If you’re only measuring ridership, it might not be so obvious. I would also argue that metrics like on-time performance, cleanliness, and the condition of the train or bus car are really important and should be looked at alongside ridership. Through surveys and other methods, we can figure these out; it’s not a complete black box. We need to understand how safe people feel on transit, how satisfied they are with the ride—and raw ridership numbers alone won’t reveal these nuances.

24:41 Christian Londono: Yeah, definitely. One thing is looking at the symptoms, and another is getting to the root cause. Sometimes low ridership could be a symptom of something wrong in terms of safety or the quality of service. So those are really good points about not looking at ridership alone. However, ridership is one of those metrics you tend to look at first, and it can be indicative of many things beyond just the quality of the service. In our case, it can signal aspects of urban development—how well we’re using our land or whether our land is designed for public transit. I would argue that the top systems in the country with really high ridership tend to be in areas that are more walkable, denser, and feature more efficient land use. All of those factors also enable ridership to be at those levels. So ridership is still a good indicator of those things—even if it isn’t the only indicator. And on that same vein, ridership can also help guide transit-oriented development (TOD) by ensuring that new housing or commercial centers are well served by public transit. Often these developments have very limited parking or no parking at all because they are located right next to a strong transit system. And if the transit system goes to all the major employment centers, it just works for a lot of people.

27:02 Levi McCollum: Well, would that mean that you don’t invest any money in those areas where ridership is not high? I wouldn’t think so. It also requires some investment initially in the public transportation system to build ridership—if that’s the metric you’re looking at. But those low-ridership transit corridors can still drive long-term urban land use development. There are many cases—new transit projects, or new streetcar projects especially—that take a while to build ridership. If you’re only looking at the numbers immediately, then you’re missing the bigger picture, because the transit project can still drive and reshape urban growth patterns. It can bring new capital into an area, but it just takes time. So expecting the ridership to be there instantaneously after a new project might make you miss out on other ways to measure success. You have to be able to discern whether land use policies are being effectively implemented—and sometimes that takes more than just looking at ridership numbers.

28:46 Christian Londono: That’s a really good point—something you just mentioned. I wouldn’t say it entirely counters my first argument, but I want to revisit it and say that I support the idea that higher ridership is a good indicator of sound land development and that the infrastructure is in place to support it. And then you mentioned, well, does that mean that a community should not invest in infrastructure because there’s no ridership? I actually think they should invest. In a lot of cases, it’s a build-it-and-they-will-come scenario. If you create an ecosystem—an environment that is pro-transit, where transit is convenient, accessible, goes to all the major destinations, and where travel times are pretty comparable to driving—then you’ll see that the community takes advantage of it and the ridership numbers eventually reflect that.

30:10 Levi McCollum: And you’re saying that because you see that there’s low ridership on a particular route, perhaps those land use policies are not driving ridership like they should. Am I understanding that correctly?

30:24 Christian Londono: Right. And maybe those are some things that agencies should look at when ridership is low in a given corridor—it can be very challenging. For example, in some communities here in Florida, there are many gated communities (sometimes over 500,000 houses) where it’s just not easy to bring a 40‑foot bus inside. So if people want to ride transit, they have to walk like 30 minutes just to get outside the community to reach a bus stop. By design, it’s just not inviting for people to ride transit. So it’s challenging to make some of those changes. But if there’s any way to make headway in terms of improving land use and transit infrastructure—improving walkability, adding sidewalks—I think the result will be higher ridership.

31:22 Levi McCollum: But the likelihood of that land use pattern changing over time—especially if it’s a large urban development that’s mostly housing (like single-family homes rather than high-rise buildings)—is low. Most agencies are likely to see that particular land use pattern and, looking only at ridership, decide to pull their money from that route. They might cut the route because, after all, no one’s using it. Of course, no one’s using it because the land use pattern isn’t conducive to high ridership. However, there are still people who benefit from public transportation on those routes. So I understand what you’re saying, but the likelihood is that the transit agency might pull funding and then reinvest it—perhaps in on‑demand services—thus sustaining the poor land use pattern. In that case, we’re not really changing behaviors; we’re essentially bowing down to the paradigm of using an automobile as the primary mode of transportation.

33:02 Christian Londono: That’s a good point, Levi—hard to counter that one.

33:09 Levi McCollum: All right, well, I think this has been a good conversation and I hope our listeners see that we’re both pretty strong in our viewpoints here. We can certainly see that the counterarguments on each side add a lot of value because we can learn from each other—without claiming that this is our definitive take. There are certain things that I think ridership can be good for, and I’m sure, Christian, that you see other metrics—especially given your background in performance management—that ridership might fall short on.

33:47 Levi McCollum: Oh yeah, ridership is a crucial metric for evaluating public transportation. There’s really no doubt in that. A high-ridership system is really efficient—it’s going to be more environmentally friendly and could potentially gain some financial sustainability over the long term. So all of those are good things. But when you hone in specifically on ridership and see it as the sole metric of success, then you’re not looking at system quality. You’re not trying to understand transit’s impact on the community, especially if you’re considering social, environmental, or economic impacts. You have to have a balanced approach. There are metrics that should also be included—like equity and accessibility, environmental impact, and service reliability. After all, everyone wants their transit service to arrive and depart on time. That’s what makes an effective transit system.

34:58 Christian Londono: I like it. It has to be a holistic look at the system. Ridership is usually the first metric that elected officials—and folks who aren’t transit nerds—look at. But we, as transit professionals, have to be good at painting the entire picture. Looking at all the other metrics would be beneficial, and that could be a conversation for a future episode—one where we explore other important metrics used in public transit and why they’re relevant, especially for transit agencies that aren’t yet tracking them. But definitely, this has been a great conversation about performance.

35:57 Christian Londono: I love it.

35:59 Levi McCollum: Absolutely. All right, well, Christian, thank you so much. This has been a really good episode, and I hope our listeners have enjoyed it. We’ll catch you next week with the next episode of Stop Requested.

36:10 Christian Londono: Thank you for listening.

Brought to you by

Levi Headshot.png

Levi McCollum
Co-Host
Product Manager

Christian.jpg

Christian Londono
Co-Host
Senior Customer Success Manager

Jose Headshot

Jose Mostajo
Producer
Business Development Manager