[citrate05]

I don't think the problem is that we can't identify routes that would get a lot of use. It's that people running public transit have been charged with balancing those high-usage routes with service that's meant to serve as a social safety net, so that people aren't left completely without any transit. These are very different goals, and because transit agencies are not typically funded well enough to do both well, they are often in tension.

Jarett Walker writes well about this coverage vs. ridership tradeoff: https://humantransit.org/2018/02/basics-the-ridership-covera...

[bit_logic]

That's a great article and shows exactly the issue. The bus system has become the transportation of last resort. It's not meant for this and isn't good at this. It's only good at highly used routes that can maximize bus capacity. Let rideshare handle these social safety net transportation issues. Ask a low income rider using the bus system, would they prefer to continue using it or get a free rideshare card with a few hundred dollars in it every month? Most would probably very enthusiastically go for the rideshare card.

And I know rideshare has a bad reputation because of Uber/Lyft. But government can create rules they must follow to accept these funds. They can either accept those rules or some other company will. Or maybe a government rideshare service is a better option. This is a classic free market vs government service question and there's many options here. But the important point is allowing everyone to use rideshare as a transportation option.

[bombcar]

This is exactly true, and small towns with no transit almost always have a paravan or other setup (usually it's just a minivan that can take a wheelchair and is basically a city-funded taxi).

Heck, the ridership on some extended bus lines is so bad and so expensive the city would have been much better off buying each person a small car and focusing the rest on more used lines.