Uber to introduce fixed-route shuttles in major US cities

“Isn’t this just a bus?” and what’s actually new

• Many call this “Uber invents the bus,” or, more precisely, a long‑known concept (dollar vans, jitneys, marshrutki, Telebus, SuperShuttle).
• Some note the only real novelty is UX: an easy app, live tracking, turn‑by‑turn directions, and dynamic route selection from aggregate trip data.
• Others point out the current version isn’t even a proper bus: it’s just regular Uber cars with at most ~3 riders on fixed routes and special pricing.

Real‑time tracking and why many US cities lack it

• Commenters from Europe, Canada, and parts of the US say live bus location and ETA boards are already standard, even in small cities.
• Explanations for patchy US deployment: underfunded agencies, expensive hardware rollout and maintenance, old patents on bus tracking, clunky procurement, and political meddling or corruption.
• Some argue this is exactly the kind of upgrade public transit could and should have delivered without Uber.

Public vs private transit, subsidies, and “competition”

• One side: public transit is a natural monopoly and social service; splitting off profitable corridors to Uber undermines cross‑subsidy for low‑income and low‑demand routes, then opens the door to later price hikes.
• Other side: duplication and competition are good; many US systems are already so poor that private services are just filling obvious gaps.
• Intense back‑and‑forth over who’s more subsidized: buses vs cars (roads, parking minimums, gas taxes, registration, etc.).

Efficiency, congestion, pollution, and road wear

• Critics: many small shuttles or cars doing what one full bus or train could do increases congestion and emissions; buses are best for moving lots of people at peak.
• Counter: large buses run mostly empty off‑peak, are heavy polluters if diesel, damage roads, and block lanes; smaller vehicles can scale better with demand.
• Others rebut that even “mostly empty” buses often carry more people than the equivalent space in private cars, and that electrification changes the pollution math.

Safety, comfort, and who actually rides

• Multiple US commenters (especially SF Bay Area) describe frequent exposure to harassment, visible hard‑drug use, and occasional assaults on buses/trains, saying they’d pay extra to avoid that.
• Others say their systems are fine or improving, and that fear is often perception amplified by media or limited anecdotes.
• There’s debate over banning misbehaving riders, practical enforceability, and whether fare enforcement or surveillance is acceptable.

Coverage, equity, and last‑mile problems

• Municipal systems must serve the “long tail” (pueblos, far‑flung clinics, low‑density suburbs, people who can’t use apps), not just profitable corridors.
• Uber is seen as likely to cherry‑pick high‑demand commuter routes, ignoring low‑profit areas and leaving the public system weaker but still responsible for everyone else.
• Some see potential for Uber‑style shuttles as feeders to main bus/rail lines, if tightly regulated and possibly charged for bus‑lane use.

Past experiments and economic viability

• Many examples cited: Chariot in SF, Citymapper’s London bus, Uber boat branding in London, Ukrainian and Latin American minibus systems, LA Metro’s Micro service, employer and hospital shuttles.
• Pattern noted: private shuttles often struggle financially, especially when competing with heavily subsidized buses or trains; several folded despite higher fares.
• Skeptics expect Uber to loss‑lead, undercut transit, then raise prices once entrenched; supporters argue that hasn’t yet led to total monopoly in ride‑hailing.