The Bus Is Late —The Future Has Ordered an Uber

The Bus Is Late
— The Future Has Already Ordered an Uber

By Lynn Terlaga, Contributing Writer at OOH TODAY

There’s something almost admirable about our determination to keep doing public transportation the way we’ve always done it.

Buy an expensive electric bus. Hire a driver. Establish a route. Publish a schedule.
Maybe install a shelter or two. Then hope enough people show up to make the whole operation financially respectable.

We’ve spent decades building a system around vehicles, routes, schedules, and government budgets. Whether it works for the people riding those buses seems like a secondary consideration to some cities.

Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft have figured out something fairly obvious: Most people would rather have transportation come to them than arrange their day around the possibility of catching a bus.

Now add autonomous vehicles to the mix. Elon Musk, Waymo, and others are moving toward a world where the driver will eventually become optional.

For smaller cities and towns, this isn’t just interesting technology. It could fundamentally change the economics of public transportation.

And considering what’s happening in Washington, the timing couldn’t be better.

Washington Is Tightening the Purse Strings

In September 2026, federal legislation omitted $4.25 billion in annual advance appropriations for public transit. According to the American Public Transportation Association, that represents a 20% reduction in federal transit investment compared with fiscal 2026 levels.

Congress could restore the funding, but municipalities might want to consider what happens if federal support becomes less dependable.

A 40-foot diesel bus cost about $560,000 under a 2023 procurement benchmark cited by the Government Accountability Office. An electric version was around $1 million. Hydrogen fuel-cell buses were approximately $1.3 million.

Those prices get you the bus. They don’t get you the driver, maintenance, insurance, fuel, charging infrastructure, administrative staff, or a place to park the thing.

And qualified drivers aren’t exactly lining up around the block. Labor can be a huge issue in some communities.

Now picture that million-dollar bus making its scheduled rounds with four passengers aboard. It’s difficult to call that an efficient use of taxpayer money, no matter how attractive the federal grant may have been when the city purchased it.

Certainly, buses make sense in densely populated areas where dozens of passengers board at each stop. Nobody is suggesting Manhattan replace its subway system with a fleet of Ubers.

But what about a town of 15,000? Or 30,000? Even 70,000?

At what point does the traditional bus become less of a public service and more of a very expensive sightseeing tour?

Uber and Lyft Have Already Changed the Conversation

Consider Monrovia, California, where the city partners with Lyft through its GoMonrovia program.

Residents can request qualifying rides within the program’s service area rather than wait for a conventional bus. Riders pay the first $6, and the city subsidizes up to $15 of the remaining fare.

Monrovia also provides a separate accessible transportation program for qualifying seniors and residents with disabilities.

Is the program free? Nope. Monrovia increased its passenger fare in 2025 to help control costs.

But that’s hardly a reason to dismiss the model. Every public transportation system requires someone to pay the bills.

The more relevant question is whether taxpayers are buying transportation people actually use.

Wilson, North Carolina, took an even bigger step. In 2020, the city replaced its traditional fixed-route buses with an on-demand microtransit service operated by Via.

A federal evaluation subsequently reported a 58% ridership increase during a service-expansion demonstration.

That should get the attention of a few transit directors.

And there’s research to support taking these alternatives seriously. A February 2026 University of California study modeled ride-hailing partnerships in three Northern California communities. The proposed arrangements were more cost-effective than existing microtransit in two of the three locations, while potentially improving service levels.

Sure, those were modeled results, not guaranteed savings. And Uber and Lyft aren’t practical solutions everywhere, especially where drivers are scarce.

Still, the principle deserves consideration.

Why purchase, maintain, and operate a fleet of buses if contracting for actual passenger trips can provide better service at a lower public cost?

We’ve spent years measuring how many buses a city operates.

Maybe we should spend more time measuring how many people those buses actually move.

Elon Musk, Waymo, and the Driverless Wild Card

If Uber and Lyft changed the way people think about transportation, autonomous vehicles could change the economics even more.

Waymo reported approximately 500,000 paid driver-less rides a week across ten American cities in March 2026. Half a million weekly rides without a driver behind the wheel. That’s a long way from the futuristic concept cars we used to see at auto shows.

Tesla is pursuing its robotaxi strategy, and Uber has already partnered with autonomous vehicle companies, including Waymo. Check out OOH Today’s article on driver-less cars. https://oohtoday.com/the-future-of-out-of-home-in-a-self-driving-world-what-happens-when-no-one-is-looking-at-the-road-2/

Obviously, we’re not ready to send a driver-less Tesla down every snow-covered rural road in America. Insurance, safety, maintenance, accessibility, and regulatory issues aren’t going away. Nor has anyone conclusively demonstrated that autonomous vehicles can profitably serve every small town.

But consider the possibilities five or ten years from now.

A municipality contracts for a small fleet of autonomous electric vehicles. Residents request rides as needed. Routes adjust to demand. Vehicles can operate extended hours without requiring a driver for every trip.

The city doesn’t necessarily need to buy the vehicles or operate a conventional bus garage.

It still needs to pay for service, and someone still carries the liability and operating costs. But it may have considerably more flexibility than it does with a traditional fleet.

That should give city officials something to think about before committing millions to buses they expect to operate for the next 12 years.

Technology has a habit of making expensive long-term investments look rather dated.

Just ask anyone who bought a commercial DVD rental business in 2005.

And Then There’s the Bus Shelter Business

While everyone debates electric buses and robotaxis, there’s another piece of the transit equation that doesn’t get nearly enough scrutiny.

The bus stop itself.

Benches, shelters, concrete pads, accessibility improvements, cleaning, repairs, and insurance all cost money.

Henrico County, Virginia, reports that complete bus stop improvement projects involving concrete pads start at approximately $28,000 for a stop with a bench and $42,000 for one with a shelter.

Those aren’t the prices of standalone benches and shelters. They’re costs associated with preparing and improving the locations.

But multiply those figures across dozens of stops, and suddenly a fairly ordinary municipal amenity becomes a substantial infrastructure expense.

Enter the advertising contractor.

For decades, advertising companies have offered cities what sounds like an irresistible proposition: We’ll install the benches or shelters, maintain them, sell advertising, and perhaps even share some revenue.

What’s not to like?

Well, quite a bit, depending on the contract. The first question is whether the company is really in the transit amenity business or the advertising business.

Because an advertiser wants visibility. Preferably lots of it, from motorists passing through commercially attractive locations. A transit rider wants somewhere safe, accessible, and comfortable to wait.

Those aren’t always the same locations.

Research on Los Angeles bus shelters has documented how advertising considerations historically influenced placement decisions. A 2023 UCLA study found that only 26% of LA Metro bus stops had shelters providing shade.

For a city with no shortage of outdoor advertising, that’s quite a statement. Apparently, selling the advertising can be easier than providing the shade.

To be fair, properly managed advertising-supported programs can provide valuable public amenities, reduce municipal expenditures, and support local businesses.

But there are legitimate questions about ownership, maintenance, exclusivity, contract length, liability, and what happens when a city wants to relocate or eliminate a stop.

And what happens when the advertising isn’t selling? Or when the contractor decides a particular location isn’t sufficiently profitable?

More importantly, what happens when the city no longer needs the traditional bus route? A 15- or 20-year advertising agreement starts looking rather different when transportation technology is changing every few years.

Which brings us to a problem the shelter advertising industry may not be particularly eager to discuss.

What If We Don’t Need All Those Bus Stops?

Consider how the business model changes when residents begin requesting transportation from their homes, workplaces, medical offices, and shopping centers.

Why would a city need the same number of permanent bus stops? Why would passengers walk three blocks to sit beneath an advertising-supported shelter if a shared vehicle could pick them up closer to home?

Future transportation systems will still need safe pickup areas, wheelchair-accessible boarding locations, lighting, seating, and weather protection.

In fact, strategically located mobility hubs may become more important as cities combine on-demand shuttles, conventional buses, and autonomous vehicles. But those locations may bear little resemblance to today’s fixed-route networks.

And that presents an interesting dilemma for advertising companies whose inventory depends on the continued existence of those networks.

That’s not to say bus shelter advertising is headed for extinction. Busy urban corridors and high-ridership routes will continue supporting traditional amenities. But the notion that every small-town bus stop remains a valuable long-term advertising asset seems increasingly optimistic.

The transportation business is changing. The advertising business attached to it had better pay attention.

What About Grandma?

Whenever on-demand transportation comes up, someone inevitably asks about seniors, people with disabilities, and residents who don’t own smartphones.

Fair question.

Not everyone can use an app, and not every Uber or Lyft vehicle accommodates a wheelchair.

Telephone reservations, accessible vans, subsidized rides, and specialized transportation services already exist in various communities.

And municipalities remain responsible for meeting applicable federal accessibility requirements, even when transportation is provided by private contractors.

Frankly, making an 85-year-old resident walk several blocks to wait 40 minutes for a bus doesn’t strike me as an especially enlightened transportation policy.

If we can bring the vehicle closer to the passenger, shouldn’t we at least explore the possibility?

So What Does Public Transit Look Like in 2035?

My guess is that the biggest changes won’t happen in cities like New York or Chicago, where high-volume public transportation remains essential.

They’ll happen in the smaller communities that have struggled for years to justify the expense of conventional fixed-route service. Some will retain productive bus routes while using microtransit for lower-density neighborhoods.

Others may contract directly with Uber, Lyft, Via, or emerging transportation providers. Autonomous vehicles could eventually become part of those agreements, particularly if operating costs fall and service areas expand.

Instead of maintaining dozens of underused stops, cities may concentrate public amenities at strategically located transportation hubs.

Instead of buying every vehicle, they may purchase transportation services. And instead of measuring success by the size of the transit fleet, they may finally start focusing on the cost, reliability, and accessibility of each completed trip.

None of this eliminates the need for oversight. Cities will still need fair contracts, competitive bidding, dependable providers, passenger protections, and transparent accounting.

Trading an expensive municipal operation for an expensive private contract isn’t progress. But having more transportation options—and more ways to deliver them—certainly gives local governments an opportunity to rethink the status quo.

A Question for Every Mayor and City Council

Suppose you’re running a town of 30,000 residents.

Your buses are aging. Drivers are difficult to recruit. Maintenance expenses keep climbing. You’d like to improve a few bus stops, but shelters aren’t cheap. Federal funding is uncertain, and some of your routes carry only a handful of passengers.

Do you automatically order another bus and hope things improve? Or do you ask a more uncomfortable question?

If we were building our public transportation system from scratch today, would we build the one we already have?

I suspect a growing number of municipalities would answer no. And that may be the most important transportation discussion of the next decade.

The Bus Isn’t Dead. But Its Business Model Is Getting Old

I don’t expect traditional buses to disappear. They serve an essential purpose in communities where passenger volumes justify them.

But the days when municipalities had few practical alternatives to running fixed routes are changing.

Uber and Lyft have already demonstrated that publicly subsidized, privately operated transportation can work.

Micro-transit is proving that service can be organized around passenger demand rather than rigid schedules.

Autonomous vehicles could eventually remove one of the industry’s largest operating expenses.

And all of this raises legitimate questions about how many traditional bus stops—and how many advertising-supported benches and shelters—cities will actually need in the future.

Perhaps it’s time for municipalities to stop assuming they need to own and operate everything associated with public transportation.

The objective was never to preserve the transit industry.

The objective is to move people safely, conveniently, and affordably

If a subsidized Uber, a shared shuttle, or a driver-less vehicle can do that better in a particular community, why shouldn’t taxpayers get the benefit?

There’s a transportation revolution underway, whether the traditional transit industry likes it or not. Washington just opened the door to an American car unlike anything sitting in your driveway.  No driver. No steering wheel. No pedals. Federal regulators recently cleared up to 5,000 purpose-built Robotaxis that don’t have traditional driving controls.  Elon’s new Cybercab was designed for precisely this kind of driver-less future.  Tesla Robotaxis are already operating in six American cities, and more will follow.

And the most appealing part?

You may no longer have to stand on the curb waiting for it.

What do you think?

Will small cities still be investing in million-dollar buses in 2035, or will on-demand transportation finally give taxpayers and passengers a better alternative?

#PublicTransit #Micro-transit #Uber #Lyft #AutonomousVehicles #SmartCities #MunicipalGovernment #OutOfHomeAdvertising #Mayors #CityManagers #Bus #Transit