Bus stops here: Shanghai lets riders design their own routes

Bottom-up route design and “desire paths”

• Many see this as “desire paths for transit”: let riders reveal real demand instead of planners guessing, especially in dense cities like Shanghai.
• Commenters stress it should complement, not replace, proper transit studies and long-range planning.
• Frequent, low-friction feedback could avoid “analysis paralysis” and help adjust routes faster than traditional multi-year studies.

Data quality, bias, and participation

• Several people worry the app only captures motivated, tech-savvy users, missing those who’d use a route but won’t or can’t vote.
• That selection bias can distort planning unless balanced with other data (ridership, traffic, demographics).
• Some argue statisticians already have better, less-biased tools than voluntary app input; others reply that this is still valuable extra signal.
• There’s skepticism that many riders actually want to constantly “co-design” routes; a noticeable segment just wants service that works.

Dynamic vs fixed routes and microtransit debate

• A big subthread disputes Uber-style dynamic routing:
  • Proponents imagine app-based minibuses, virtual stops, and guaranteed pickup windows, possibly with autonomous vehicles.
  • Critics (including those citing microtransit failures) argue you can’t simultaneously have low cost, predictability, and door-to-door flexibility at scale. Fixed, frequent, legible routes remain the backbone of good transit.
  • Prior European and Citymapper experiments reportedly suffered from complexity, low adoption, and high cost per rider.

State capacity, governance, and culture

• Many contrast Shanghai’s ability to pilot and deploy quickly with U.S. and some European cities, where adding a route can take years and is highly politicized or underfunded.
• There’s debate over whether such agility depends on authoritarianism, a “strong state,” oil money, or simply competent local agencies; examples from Switzerland, Warsaw, Dubai, Mexico City, and others are cited on both sides.
• U.S. commenters emphasize car culture, NIMBYism, and political incentives as major barriers, not just money.

Existing analogues and edge cases

• Informal or semi-formal systems—Hong Kong minibuses, Eastern European marshrutkas, South African taxis, New York dollar vans, Dubai route tweaks—are highlighted as real-world cousins of demand-led routing.
• Concerns arise about route gaming (e.g., orchestrated votes in India), smartphone dependence, and what happens to “unpopular” but essential destinations like hospitals.