Several readers (well, two that I can remember) have commented that Metro is difficult to use “cold.” I admit that this is true. If you are new to the bus, you will probably have to do a little work to figure out how to get where you’re going. Until now, I never thought of it as a huge issue. I assumed that making a minimal effort up front was part of the deal–like getting directions to a place you’ve never driven to before. Still, the easier and more brainless a transit system is, the more likely people (including visitors) will be to ride it.

It would be nice if riding the bus didn’t seem so difficult and intimidating to newbies, but I don’t have many ideas about how Metro could make it easier. I liked kd-westseaattle’s suggestion that we put route maps in the ad slots, so people will know where they’re going and where they should transfer. Are there other ideas out there? Let’s think of some good ones (especially those that are actually feasible, given the current funding constraints) and pass them on to the folks at the county.

One of my favorite things about the bus is that, in theory, everyone who rides is equal. No matter your income or social station, you get on, pay your fare, and sit (or stand) by your fellow citizens. In practice, of course, your income and social station can greatly influence your bus-riding experience. It doesn’t take a transit authority to notice the difference between the ST 545 and MT 7, routes that serve very different demographics. And while I love wireless on Metro as much as the next bus chick (OK, more), I am sensitive to the fact that this is a service that very few riders can take advantage of.

When it is next to impossible for me to visit my girlfriends in Renton and Skyway, do I really need Metro to enable my obsessive e-mail habit? On the other hand, how many obsessive e-mailers and workaholics (not to mention porn addicts) might commute by bus if they had the option to use the Internet while they rode?

In February, I traveled to Detroit for the Super Bowl. If you want to find out why, read my February 15th Real Change column. If you don’t care why, you should at least know that I watched the game at a bar–not at Ford Field.

But I digress.

While I was in Detroit, I met with Megan Owens of Transportation Riders United, an organization “dedicated to improving transportation access and mobility in Greater Detroit.” (This is no small task. It’s not nicknamed the Motor City for nothing.) TRU is advocating for some major rail lines in the region, but currently, the only form of public transportation available in Greater Detroit is the bus.

Having ridden the bus in Detroit, I can tell you that the experience is less than positive. Stops are poorly marked (the signs don’t even tell you which routes stop there), coverage is spotty, and extreme lateness is the norm. In Detroit, the only people who ride the bus are those who have no other option. As it turns out, that’s a fair number of people. According to Megan, fully one-third of Detroit’s residents do not have access to a car. Poor people don’t have much political power–certainly not the kind of power that can rival GM and Ford’s stranglehold on the region–and people who don’t ride the bus are unlikely to care how well it works. So, service does not improve.

On the flip side, a fellow bus rider from London told me that, after the city began charging commuters for driving into the city, the number of people who rode public transit increased dramatically. Suddenly, affluent people used to the comforts of their SUVs were stuck on the subway. Not long after, the condition of subway cars began to improve, and everyone benefited.

And so, dear readers, the question I constantly struggle with is this:

What does it mean to create a public transportation system that truly benefits everyone?

My take is that investing in innovations that will improve the overall efficiency of the system is a necessity. On the comforts and amenities, I’m not as sure. While I understand that more riders=more support for transit and eventually, more and better public transportation (and fewer car trips, which is pretty much the point), I am not convinced that reclining seats and park-and-ride artwork are more important to greater good than improving service and coverage for those who aren’t “choosing” to ride.

What do you think? Any strong opinions out there? Any information to add?