← All projects/Mobility/No. 33
2020 · Mobility · Demos Helsinki

Riga Mobility Metrics

Mapping how far Riga’s public transport actually reaches — and testing one specific street, Tērbatas iela, as a case study for what better transit access could unlock.

Riga Mobility Metrics

Understanding a transit network on paper is different from understanding how far it actually reaches people and places. This study combined ridership, population, and social-media activity data to measure Riga’s public transport catchment in concrete terms.

Commissioned by Demos Helsinki, comparing conditions in 2018 and 2020, and benchmarked against the European Commission’s official Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators (SUMI) framework. A specific street, Tērbatas iela, received its own dedicated case-study analysis — the reasoning for that focus isn’t accessible in the currently synced files.

Combined the full Rīgas Satiksme GTFS transit feed, smart-card validation (ridership) data, Latvia’s official 100m population grid, and Foursquare check-in data classified through SPIN Unit’s necessary/optional activity framework — measuring how population and activity fall off with distance from transit stops, in 300m increments out to 3km.

Gave Demos Helsinki a quantified picture of how well Riga’s transit network actually serves its population and its most active places — with Tērbatas iela singled out as a specific case for deeper study.

About the project
ClientDemos Helsinki
PlaceRiga, Latvia
Year2020
LensMobility
TopicsMobility, Social Media Data, Transit Accessibility
What we found
Transit accessibility drops off sharply with distance: roughly 98,500 residents live within 300m of a bus or tram stop, but only 22,000–37,000 in each successive 300m band beyond that.
Amenity visits collapse even faster than population does — visit counts near transit stops reach into the hundreds of thousands for consumption-related venues at 300m, falling to a few tens of thousands by 3km, a clear demonstration that transit proximity drives footfall.
A handful of mega-hubs dominate ridership and check-ins — Riga’s central shopping centres and railway station alone account for hundreds of thousands of check-ins.
Central Riga’s functional diversity is already high and fairly saturated (Shannon-Wiener scores of 9–11 out of a possible ~11 categories across most of the inner city), with only a few less-diverse peripheral pockets.
Pictures

More mobility projects

All 61 →
Mobility
City of Tallinn
2019
SPIN Unit · Helsinki — Tallinn
Project record No. 30
Lens:
Mobility
Reports:
4
metaPARK — Performance-Based Parking Policy for Tallinn
SPIN UnitRead the record →
Mobility
City of Tallinn
2020
SPIN Unit · Helsinki — Tallinn
Project record No. 38
Lens:
Mobility
Reports:
1
metaYLE — Ülemiste Mobility Nudge
SPIN UnitRead the record →
Mobility
Fyma
2021
SPIN Unit · Helsinki — Tallinn
Project record No. 41
Lens:
Mobility
Reports:
1
Mobility KPIs for Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
SPIN UnitRead the record →
Mobility
City of Tallinn
2021
SPIN Unit · Helsinki — Tallinn
Project record No. 42
Lens:
Mobility
Reports:
1
Kiida Peatust / Laida Peatust — Crowdsourced Bus Stop Survey
SPIN UnitRead the record →
Mobility
Association of Municipalities of Harju County
2021
SPIN Unit · Helsinki — Tallinn
Project record No. 43
Lens:
Mobility
Reports:
1
The New Modal — Mobility Equity in Harju County
SPIN UnitRead the record →