I am an idiot, I didn't mean to cause go through all that trouble of drawing examples, sorry about that.
There are routes like that here, direct non-stop along the freeway from subway station in the city to an office park, but they are funded by the employers, not by the city. Such a route is not sustainable normally, because problem is the buses get full, they don't pick up any more riders, no more revenue, despite the long destination. And of course, the agency needs to find a way to get the buses back to the subway station for further trips.
Normal transit system means non-express service, two-way service instead of one-way, all-day and not just rush hour only. The thing is, rapid transit measures such as limited stop or express service, especially rush hour only, are not a solution for low ridership, they are a solution for high ridership. When ridership is too high, the buses are too crowded, that's when you start looking at express/limited stop services to provide relief to those crowded buses.
A low ridership system like Trinity Metro should be looking at solutions for high ridership, it should be trying to solve the problem of low ridership first, which means building a basic transit system, laying the foundation for rapid transit, with normal local two-way bus routes. Speed is not going to be a problem for low ridership system like Trinity Metro because the buses and bus stops are empty. The buses don't have to stop to let anyone on or off so the buses are already fast. When people start using those buses and waiting at those stops, that when the buses will start to slow down, and that is when the system will need to start considering ways to speed those buses including limited stops, signal priority, all-door boarding, articulated buses.
With 16k riders per weekday, 5 million annually before COVID,Trinity Metro just not at that point yet. Glancing at the system map, I can see many gaps in Trinity Metro network that can be filled with more routes and 60 minute routes upgraded to 30 minutes. To worry about speed is just thinking way too far ahead, and that is the mistake being made all across the USA, spending so much on light rail and subway instead of normal bus service, and it hasn't gotten US systems anywhere, including DART with the largest light rail system in the US, and it won't get Fort Worth and its Trinity Metro anywhere either.
Best way to serve decentralized city is what I've already mentioned, the grid-based network. One north-south corridor and one east-west corridor can get anyone anywhere as long as parallel corridors are close enough, and frequencies high enough to make transfer from one bus route to an intersecting bus route easy. To focus instead on serving "Transfer Centres", resulting in all those broken and meandering routes and 60-minute frequencies, that's what holding transit in Fort Worth back. Trinity Metro needs to forget about hubs altogether, and just focus on serving corridors.
NYC MTA is not hub-and-spoke, it is grid-based. TTC is grid. Montreal STM is grid. These are the most successful systems, all grid-based. Of course, there are also commuter rail like Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, GO, AMT, that are focused on serving hubs, but those systems are supplementary, providing some much needed relief to the much higher ridership main system. Again, to solve the problem of high ridership, not the problem of low ridership. The foundation for transit in these cities are really their grid-based systems. To serve corridors is main focus of those successful cities, and corridors should be the main focus of transit in Fort Worth as well.