Beyond Ideology: Passengers, Customers or Transport Users?
Key Takeaways
- The passenger versus customer debate has persisted for forty years, but it's fundamentally an ideological proxy war about governance models rather than a genuine discussion about what works.
- "Passenger" was the standard term before the 1980s. "Customer" emerged with New Public Management reforms, privatisation, and the application of private sector principles to public services.
- No evidence exists that using either term leads to better transport outcomes. The quality of service depends on execution, not terminology.
- The debate is stuck in 1980s thinking and focused almost exclusively on public transport, ignoring how modern transport systems actually function.
- Modern transport is multimodal. People combine driving, cycling, walking, and public transport in single journeys and across their daily lives.
- "Passenger" only works for some modes (buses, trains) and fails as a universal term. Someone driving or cycling is not a passenger.
- “Transport User” suffers from being too people-centric and risks deprioritising the movement of goods to the detriment of the overall transport system.
- Using "customer", whilst not perfect, enables holistic thinking about the transport needs of people and goods.
What Next?
Are you considering transport needs holistically, or are you stuck in silos, depending on the mode and what is being moved?
Introduction
I recently listened to a transport podcast where a significant portion of the discussion focused on a single word: whether we should call people "passengers" or "customers." The debate was passionate, detailed, and ultimately, missing the point entirely.
This argument has been going on for forty years. The same positions, the same ideological battle lines, the same failure to recognise that the world has moved on.
The problem is not which word we choose. The problem is that this debate is rooted in transport thinking from the 1980s; a time when we thought of people’s transport needs in silos.
Today's reality needs to be different. People use many different modes to meet their needs, and sometimes on a single journey. They drive, catch trains, walk and cycle. Modern transport thinking needs to be multimodal, interconnected, and consider the whole system.
So why are we still arguing using a framework designed for a simpler, single-mode world? It is a proxy for an ideological battle over transport governance.
Rather than fighting over what was appropriate forty years ago, we need language that fits modern transport thinking. We need terms that help us think about all transport needs, not just one trip.
That's what this blog post is about: moving past an outdated debate and finding language that actually supports modern transport thinking.
The Origins of the Debate
Up until the 1980s, calling people using public transport "passengers" was completely uncontroversial. It was simply the word everyone used.
Then everything changed.
The 1980s brought sweeping reforms to how public services were governed and delivered. Governments around the world introduced privatisation, competitive franchising, and what became known as New Public Management. This approach applied private sector management techniques and market principles to public services, with the goal of improving efficiency and value for money.
These reforms fundamentally changed how transport services were run. And with these changes came new language.
"Customers" often replaced "passengers" as the preferred term. For those driving the reforms, this wasn't just a word swap; it represented a philosophical shift. The term "customer" was meant to signal a new focus on service quality, responsiveness, and treating people as empowered consumers rather than passive recipients of government services.
For critics of these reforms, the term "customer" became symbolic of everything they opposed: privatisation, commercialisation, and the erosion of public service values. To them, "passenger" represented a more dignified relationship, one that wasn't reducible to a commercial transaction.
And so the battle lines were drawn.
Forty years later, many are still fighting the same fight. The podcast I mentioned earlier is just one example where people spend considerable time and energy debating this terminology.
But this debate is puerile; it is really a proxy war about governance models. It's about whether you think transport services should be run by the public sector, the private sector, or some combination. The choice between "passenger" and "customer" has become a tribal marker, a way to signal which side you're on.
What the debate is not about is which term actually helps us build better transport systems. That question has been almost entirely ignored in favour of ideological positioning.
The Outcomes the two terms deliver
So here's the question that should matter most: Does using "customer" or "passenger" actually lead to better transport outcomes?
As far as I know, there's no comprehensive study that answers this question. No one has definitively proven that one term produces better service quality, higher satisfaction, more efficient operations, or any other meaningful measure of success.
My strong suspicion? The answer is the same as asking whether the private sector, public sector, or a mix is better at delivering transport services. It's complicated. There are excellent examples and terrible examples of all governance models. The term you use matters far less than the competence, resources, and commitment of the people running the system.
Consider the complexity of real-world ownership structures. Keolis Downer operates franchised public transport services around the world and has used the motto "think like a passenger." Is this a private company using passenger-focused language? Not exactly, Keolis Downer is owned by SNCF, France's national rail operator, which is wholly owned by the French state. So, is this the public or the private sector?
The reality is messy. Governance models are hybrid. Ownership structures are complex. And the outcomes depend far more on execution than on whether you call someone a passenger or a customer.
However, this debate is genuinely problematic: it focuses almost exclusively on public transport and people. And that narrow focus is exactly what makes it obsolete.
Modern transport systems are multimodal. People don't just use buses and trains; they drive, cycle, walk, use e-scooters, and combine multiple modes in single journeys. Yet the passenger versus customer debate acts as if public transport exists in isolation.
This is the real issue. Not which term is ideologically correct, but whether our language helps us think about transport systems as they need to function today.
And on that measure, the forty-year debate is failing.
What term do we need for a modern way of thinking about transport systems?
My focus is on understanding transport systems holistically, how people and goods actually move through cities, the choices made between different modes, and the system-wide impacts of those choices on congestion, pollution, equity, and health.
This requires thinking about complete transport needs, not just one particular mode.
People rarely, if ever, use just one mode. Even over the course of a week, most people use multiple modes depending on their purpose, the weather, time constraints, and countless other factors.
So we need a term that represents the individual traveller regardless of which mode they happen to be using at any given moment, a term that lets us think about their needs holistically, not fragment their journeys into disconnected pieces.
This immediately rules out "passenger."
Think about it: is someone driving from point A to point B a passenger in any normal sense of the term? Of course not. They're the driver. Similarly, someone cycling or walking isn't a passenger either. The term only makes sense for people being transported by someone or something else, such as buses, trains, and taxis.
"Rider" has the same problem as passenger. Someone walking isn't a rider. Most people wouldn't consider a driver to be a rider either. It's too mode-specific to work as a universal term.
Many people think “Transport User” is now the best term. But to consider its use for the entire transport system, we need to consider a core and fundamental purpose of the transport system that is often forgotten - the movement of goods.
What about freight?
Transport systems don't just move people, they move goods. Trucks, freight trains, and cargo bikes are all integral parts of modern transport networks. Yet the passenger versus customer debate acts as if they don't exist.
Try applying "passenger" to freight and the absurdity becomes immediately obvious. The goods on a truck aren't passengers. The term simply doesn't work.
What about “Transport Users”? Freight companies are undoubtedly users of the roads and rail systems. However, I think that it brings humans to mind as the default.
If you are a rail infrastructure provider with both commuter trains and freight rail moving through, a focus on “Transport Users” could prioritise trains with people over those with goods.
Given that many jurisdictions want to increase freight on rail and that it would benefit transport systems (and people) overall, language that implies prioritising moving people on rail is problematic.
What is the best term?
It is clear that we do not have a single term that meets all of our needs.
“Passenger” is clearly a non-starter for all the reasons outlined above.
"Transport User" is better. Yes, people are users, regardless of mode. The term is technically accurate and genuinely universal.
But there's a problem: most people associate "transport user" with people. It potentially biases the movement of people over goods, at the expense of the overall system and ultimately people.
That leaves us with the term "Customer".
Everyone using transport is a customer, regardless of mode or whether they are moving goods. A driver is a customer of the road provider. A cyclist is a customer of the cycling infrastructure provider. Someone walking is a customer of the local council, even if there's no footpath provided; they're still a customer; it just means the service being delivered is inadequate.
A person on a bus or train? Also a customer.
Freight companies are, quite clearly, customers. Customers of road networks, rail freight operators and logistics infrastructure.
The term is universal. It applies to every mode, every journey, every transport choice. It doesn't fragment people's experiences based on which mode they're currently using. It allows us to think about their complete transport needs as one coherent whole.
Is "customer" a perfect term? No. But it has one critical advantage none of the other alternatives offer: it works everywhere, for everyone, all the time.
Conclusion
The passenger versus customer debate has consumed too much energy for too long. It's a forty-year argument that generates heat but no light, driven more by ideology than by what actually works.
Here's what matters: the outcomes our transport systems deliver. Whether we call those who use the services passengers or customers means nothing if the system fails to meet their needs. And right now, clinging to terminology designed for single-mode thinking actively works against building better multimodal systems.
The term "customer" isn't perfect. No single word can capture the full complexity of how transport systems operate. However, it has two critical advantages: it works across all modes and is also suitable for freight. It helps us think about complete transport needs, not just when people happen to be on a bus or train.
When you hear someone passionately arguing for "passenger," ask yourself: are they thinking about modern multimodal transport systems, or are they fighting a battle from the 1980s? Are they focused on outcomes, or on ideology?
The transport challenges we face today, congestion, emissions, equity, and accessibility, require us to think holistically about how people and goods move through our cities. That requires language that doesn't fragment needs into disconnected pieces.
It's time to move on from this debate. It's time to focus on what actually matters: building transport systems that serve all needs.