Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

New ridership is the holy grail of many a transit planner. It’s a demographic with strong allure — catch a newbie and you potentially remove a car from congested streets, give the environment a boost and, of course, increase revenue.

While there are many compelling reasons for chasing new transit customers — not to mention federal incentives — more often than not, the pursuit involves expanding service via new construction. Engineer Scotty at Network blog Portland Transport points out the inherent problem in privileging the new rider over existing users:

Portland's Tri-Met is plowing ahead on construction of the Milwaukee MAX passenger rail line. Expanding service is great, but it will do nothing for the majority of those who already use Tri-Met's services, says Engineer Scotty at Portland Transport. Photo: The Outlook Online

While many objections are given (some of which, such as concerns over transit workers’ jobs and allegations of pork-barrel projects, won’t be further discussed in this article), a common theme seems to be that TriMet is spending most of its money trying to attract new riders, when it should be improving the lot of existing ones. Many existing riders would rather see money spent on improving existing services in the system core, or providing basic service to areas where none presently exists, rather than building expensive rail lines out to suburban park-and-rides.

In some ways, TriMet acts like telecom companies offering teaser rates to new subscribers, while insisting that loyal customers pay full price (unfortunately, rewarding loyal customers with higher prices is a time-honored tradition in business). TriMet is hardly unique — transit agencies over the world have the bad habit of segmenting their ridership into “choice” and “dependent” riders, and then focusing energy on the former while taking the latter for granted.

Ridership (and new ridership) is also used in ex-post-facto evaluations and analyses of transit projects and modes. A recent post here at Portland Transport, Can We Intersect the Politics of Bikes and the Politics of Thrift, contained the following factoid: Regional spending per new commuter, 1995-2010: bike/ped $5,538, auto $18,072, transit $84,790. Yes, read that again.

Portland Transport goes into quite a bit of detail about the new-rider paradox. We recommend reading the post in its entirety. Meanwhile, what do you think?

Elsewhere on the Network today: Deron Lovaas at NRDC’s Switchboard blog makes the case for devoting revenues from terminated oil subsidies to projects that reduce U.S. dependency on petroleum. Rights of Way details a major transit-oriented development proposal in Portland, Maine. And the Cascade Bicycle Club reports on a Seattle architecture firm’s strategy for encouraging cycling: paying $1 to local biking groups for every mile logged by employees on bicycle month.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Congestion Pricing Gets Kids To School On Time, Data Shows

Data shared with Streetsblog shows school buses traveling faster and being late less since congestion pricing began.

January 17, 2025

‘Transportation Cannot Do It Alone’: US DOT Dep. Sec. Polly Trottenberg Signs Off

As USDOT's second-in-command, Polly Trottenberg oversaw massive shifts in America transportation policy — and she says the work is not done yet.

January 17, 2025

Confusion as Portland’s Road Death Toll is Alarmingly High

A spike in traffic deaths has tarnished Portland’s image as a bike-forward oasis, but advocates hope street safety improvements will accelerate in 2025.

January 17, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Gaze Into the Future

Driverless cars still face challenges but seem more inevitable than ever. There are two ways it could go.

January 17, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Reimagining the Civic Commons

Bridget Marquis of Reimagining the Civic Commons on better ways to think about community engagement.

January 16, 2025
See all posts