It feels like I just clicked into the 1990's.
In sparse areas, I don't know why buses run on routes at all. You take a $100,000 vehicle, which requires $200,000 worth of driver, fuel, and maintenance a year, and send it out at 30 mph to collect information about desired trips, via a physical visit.
The Transit system needs to know:
1) Where does your trip start?
2) When are you ready to go?
3) Where do you need to be?
4) When do you need to get there?
5) How much is it worth to you?
These questions are best answered tele-informatically, not by sending a guy out on patrol, who then blinds himself to most of the answer:
1) I'm only going to look along my route (not on side streets) and only at stops (not before or after).
2) I'm only going to look as I pass by, not earlier or later.
3) I'm going to assume you're going someplace on my route (and not ask where you'd really rather be)
4) I'm going to assume you need to get there (long) after we pick you up
5) The fare is fixed.
These are all mental shortcuts that were invented for crowded cities where there was no other way to collect and process such information.
Similarly, the rider needs to know:
1) Where will my trip begin (where is the vehicle now?)
2) When will it get here?
3) At what time will it get me to my destination
4) How much will it cost?
And all we offer is a printed timetable. Sheesh.
Totally sounds like a problem best solved by a centrally-dispatched taxi service. Or are there "Relay Rides" --private citizens and do-gooders--who would give an old lady a ride to the supermarket, if only she knew how to ask?
Instead of trying to close the gap with more buses, we should close it with cheaper ways of getting passenger-demand information in and ride-sharing information out.
