Should buses (and public transport in general) be a "safety net" or a tool to cut congestion?

[johncrossley]

Should buses (and public transport in general) be a "safety net" or a tool to cut congestion?

@RT4038 says

Bus Fare Cap will be £2 from January

It slows down boarding with cash, but if most are paying card (as they are) tap on tap off solves that, leaving only a few who have to have a chat. But that's no different to normal, and even with the cap in place, there are still a few journeys even First don't think they can get away with...

www.railforums.co.uk

Buses should be a safety net of affordable transport, concentrated in those areas and catering for the demographic that have no other option, and the next tier up who are struggling. This demographic appreciates the efforts to make this mode of transport affordable, and of course welcomes any initiatives to improve coverage (by time, day, area) to enable them to access employment, education and other crucial life chores. I think they'd rather have low fares, better coverage and reliability than fancy buses, however welcome [the gradual move to electric vehicles is improving that somewhat, but not to a luxury degree, and that will take some time to complete]. My view is that trying to get completely non bus users out of their 'own control' bikes, walking and cars is an uphill battle very steep and should take a back seat to catering and honing to the likely bus riding demographic first. Of course, nothing to stop the others using the product, and we could make a start in better marketing of the detail (ugh!) .

@Bletchleyite says

Bus Fare Cap will be £2 from January

It slows down boarding with cash, but if most are paying card (as they are) tap on tap off solves that, leaving only a few who have to have a chat. But that's no different to normal, and even with the cap in place, there are still a few journeys even First don't think they can get away with...

www.railforums.co.uk

High quality, appropriate use of buses appeals to me. That is, fully integrated with rail, with rail doing the high capacity trunking, both in fare and timetable terms, and with high quality vehicles and appropriate enforcement against antisocial behaviour.

These things exist in other European countries, but you're probably right that British buses are unlikely to ever appeal because we simply don't do buses properly, with just the odd exception, not even really in London. The money isn't there and neither is the will and attitude.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is certainly a conflict in trying to serve both elements of this.

To get people out of their cars, you need high quality (=more expensive), faster bus services that don't wander through estates and ideally accept only tap on tap off card payment to keep them moving as expediently as possible. Coach style vehicles appeal even more, but even if bus style vehicles are used you need niceties like quality seats and aircon. Buses that just take you to the nearest station are also part of this use case, with rail being typically fast but more expensive.

To serve social need, a low cost service is more likely to be needed, serving more places directly and with low floor vehicles. But this type of service is likely not to be popular with car drivers.

In some countries you have multiple "classes" of bus to do this, but this is unlikely to be economic in a high wage country.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think you can have buses that serve one or the other of these, but I don't think you can have one service that does both. Or at least in our current environment, you can't have simply a bus on it's own do this.

To reduce congestion you need to make the car journey more expensive, longer and less convenient. You could argue that some direct express bus services can achieve this, but I would argue that in the UK this is likely more the role of coaches / trains. Why take a slow bus between two cities for £2 when you can get an air conditioned flix bus for £5?

As a safety net, I believe the local bus network largely already does this and the £2 cap will only enable more low income people the option to take the bus more frequently or to allow them to spend their money on other things - save £10 a week on travel can then use this to either save to improve their lifestyle or to put back in to the local economy through shopping etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To reduce congestion you need to make the car journey more expensive, longer and less convenient. You could argue that some direct express bus services can achieve this, but I would argue that in the UK this is likely more the role of coaches / trains. Why take a slow bus between two cities for £2 when you can get an air conditioned flix bus for £5?

Flix is in a different market - it operates low frequency long distance service that are mostly about going to London. Rail will get the market where it exists and isn't awful (where it is you get stuff like Red Arrow between Derby and Nottingham) but there are lots of routes between urban areas that are not or are poorly served by rail.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Flix is in a different market - it operates low frequency long distance service that are mostly about going to London. Rail will get the market where it exists and isn't awful (where it is you get stuff like Red Arrow between Derby and Nottingham) but there are lots of routes between urban areas that are not or are poorly served by rail.

Sorry, I didn't just specifically mean coaches by Flix. There is of course also Nat Express, Red Arrow, various Arriva coach services etc. etc.

They are a different market and that's exactly the point. They are a low cost, high capacity, high specification public transport mode that are the next step up from a bus and these are the ones that tempt people out of their car. Many times I've opted to take a Nat Express or a Flix to another city because it's slightly longer than a car but it's comfortable, cheap and I can get some work done on the way. The bus can never be this and it shouldn't be trying to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bus can never be this and it shouldn't be trying to be.

Interestingly in Scotland it often is, with coach vehicles being used on what England would see as stage carriage bus services. I wonder why the difference?

 

[BuhSnarf]

Interestingly in Scotland it often is, with coach vehicles being used on what England would see as stage carriage bus services. I wonder why the difference?

If you're meaning Citylink I would argue this is more of a stopping coach network than an actual bus network (while it more or less functions as a local stopping service in rural areas.)

It could and does work in England (with examples like Red Arrow, X5 etc.)

 

[RT4038]

Interestingly in Scotland it often is, with coach vehicles being used on what England would see as stage carriage bus services. I wonder why the difference?

Can you give some examples of these routes in Scotland, and what their English equivalents are? I think the Scottish ones have, by and large, long non-stop sections, and/or motorway sections, and/or are very long routes compared to England with lots of long distance traffic on them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you give some examples of these routes in Scotland, and what their English equivalents are? I think the Scottish ones have, by and large, long non-stop sections, and/or motorway sections, and/or are very long routes compared to England with lots of long distance traffic on them?

The Scottish interurban and rural coach services are what I'm referring to - what Citylink called "6 cities" at one point but I don't know if they still do. England's more developed rail network and higher traffic congestion means there are fewer examples, but the Oxford-Bedford X5 was one and still sort of is, but is ruined by the use of inappropriate vehicles. There is stuff like the Witch Way into Manchester which plugs gaps with higher quality vehicles but they're still buses rather than coaches and still don't have aircon or toilets and have a poorer ride than coaches (the constant lurching is the main thing that puts me off the X5 in its bus form).

The Bristol "Falcon", the Luton Airport X1 and the Red Arrow might be the only English ones using coach vehicles now? Though there might be the odd other one.

Services that would be far nicer to use if they did use coach style vehicles or at least ones a bit more like coaches with stuff like aircon and air suspension*? The X5, the MK1, the Witch Way and Ripon 36, most of Trawscymru, the Lakes 555 (which is just about tolerable between Keswick and Ambleside/Windermere, but is a real endurance exercise if you go all the way to Lancaster)?

* This style of "posh bus" vehicle, essentially a part-low-floor bus but with aircon, air suspension and proper coach seats (though usually not toilets), is very common in mainland Europe on stuff like Swiss Postauto services. An example was tried on the Trawscymru T10 but seems to have gone now, presumably due to cost. The 1990s TransPeak vehicles were also this sort of thing, though that's going back a bit and they were high floor as per their era.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I live about 5 1/2 miles from Northampton town centre in the 'Eastern Area'. Northampton was a development town of the 1970s to provide housing in the Eastern Area for people from London, to solve housing shortages there. It's interesting to compare the development in Northampton, where providing public transport was considered important from the start with Milton Keynes where the assumption seemed to be that every household had enough cars for every journey. Here, compact developments adjoin roads suitable for bus operation.

The nearest bus stop to my home is 'Rectory Farm - Daimler Close' From here, the service to town during the daytime has a frequency of 10 buses per hour, and the service (although obviously not as frequent at those hours) starts at 05.30 and finishes just before midnight. Most of the journeys are operated by electric double-decks. Walking in the oipposite direction there's a stop with a theoretical frequency of 2 buses per hour, but reliability hampered by congestion on the A45.

I wonder which is exceptional - the Northampton one I have, or the Milton Keynes experience?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The original MK concept was of kilometre grid squares with a bus stop by each roundabout and each midpoint. These estates are quite easy to serve and the service is, aside from the quality issues, reasonably usable as such.

It's where the irregular pattern led to bigger grid squares that it really fell down - you have a choice between a long walk and a long bus journey due to wandering through estates, and the latter impacts quality too as bouncing over speedbumps leads to a very uncomfortable ride.

Runcorn is the New Town that really did it well, though many would argue a tramway would have been preferable.

 

[Djgr]

They should be both and also help the environment

 

[johncrossley]

There is certainly a conflict in trying to serve both elements of this.

In the countries that are best at getting people out of cars, the ones which offer the best vehicles and the best services overall, are there still people who lose out and would prefer a more "no frills" bus service?

 

[Farigiraf]

In the countries that are best at getting people out of cars, the ones which offer the best vehicles and the best services overall, are there still people who lose out and would prefer a more "no frills" bus service?

Those countries are a lot more willing to actually pay for both. In the UK, with the current levels of political and public will to make buses better (Thatcher-era mindset still very common unfortunately), it's very much one or the other, or a mediocre compromise.

Worth also adding that most neighbourhoods weren't really designed around public transport usage. There's little reason not to take your car if it's faster, cheaper, more comfortable. Disincentivising car use while there are only mediocre alternatives also won't go down well with the populace.

Even in the best countries for bus transit - Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, driving is very much the status quo unless you live in a transit-oriented neighbourhood. Where they're ahead on is that most drivers will only drive to the train station, not the whole way, but it's by no means perfect.

Places with the highest mode share for buses compared to cars (although high cycling & walking levels are good too) are those where either buses can avoid congestion (e.g. busways, bus lanes) and are genuinely more convenient to use most of the time than driving, or new/new-ish transit-oriented developments.

Realistically we're not going to see many large scale urban redesign projects in the UK, particularly not in outer suburbs or smaller towns. Even in places where they do happen, car dependency is still assumed and built around. So if the goal is to encourage more public transport usage, I'd say:

- In places which do suffer from, or contribute the most to urban congestion (e.g. commuter towns, older suburbs), where taking the bus would actually be the better choice if it wasn't so unpleasant to use, things like bus priority, reliability improvements, and bus comfort do go a long way. A shift from a £3 fare to a £2 fare won't hugely influence people's choice, unless you're on the lowest income bracket. Unless the place is really low-income and most people don't drive anyway, then bus priority and comfort improvement measures are more effective.

- For those places where you can genuinely integrate the bus/tram/train well into people's lifestyles - e.g. big cities or new housing developments, bus improvements are still important but won't increase usage much because people will take it anyway. Improving will just improve the business case for more similar developments, but you won't see a 10-20% mode shift in these places even if you make the bus more comfortable, or increase frequency from e.g. 6bph to 10bph - it's already good, you're just making it more good.

- In rural areas or isolated regional towns, where you won't achieve much car-to-bus mode shift just from speed or frequency improvements, it's still worth improving the bus link, but that bus would still be more of a safety net service for those without a choice. Here, trying to intervene where the rural driver goes from being just one car on a quiet country road to one that adds to congestion on a busy road, is more effective. This is the main Dutch strategy in my experience - even some smaller towns with historic centres have a park&ride service on the edge of town.

The bus cap applying to almost all buses throughout the country, with no nuance to it, is just a consequence of the fact that it's a populist policy that's done to win votes over anything else. But I wouldn't expect the highest tier of government to be the ones deciding how to suitably spend any money allocated for bus travel improvements - this should really be the jobs of devolved councils and authorities which look at what fits best for the area involved.

 

[johncrossley]

Those countries are a lot more willing to actually pay for both. In the UK, with the current levels of political and public will to make buses better (Thatcher-era mindset still very common unfortunately), it's very much one or the other, or a mediocre compromise.

Is it actually possible to have both? Take for example a bus route operated every 15 minutes connecting with trains every 15 minutes operated with the latest articulated electric buses with air conditioning and double glazing with fully integrated fares. For someone who only cares about the cost and only needs to travel very locally, maybe they would prefer 20 year old rattly Alexander Dennis buses running every 5 minutes running just to the town centre and not the railway station without integrated fares.

 

[stevieinselby]

The Scottish interurban and rural coach services are what I'm referring to - what Citylink called "6 cities" at one point but I don't know if they still do. England's more developed rail network and higher traffic congestion means there are fewer examples, but the Oxford-Bedford X5 was one and still sort of is, but is ruined by the use of inappropriate vehicles. There is stuff like the Witch Way into Manchester which plugs gaps with higher quality vehicles but they're still buses rather than coaches and still don't have aircon or toilets and have a poorer ride than coaches (the constant lurching is the main thing that puts me off the X5 in its bus form).

The Bristol "Falcon", the Luton Airport X1 and the Red Arrow might be the only English ones using coach vehicles now? Though there might be the odd other one.

Services that would be far nicer to use if they did use coach style vehicles or at least ones a bit more like coaches with stuff like aircon and air suspension*? The X5, the MK1, the Witch Way and Ripon 36, most of Trawscymru, the Lakes 555 (which is just about tolerable between Keswick and Ambleside/Windermere, but is a real endurance exercise if you go all the way to Lancaster)?

* This style of "posh bus" vehicle, essentially a part-low-floor bus but with aircon, air suspension and proper coach seats (though usually not toilets), is very common in mainland Europe on stuff like Swiss Postauto services. An example was tried on the Trawscymru T10 but seems to have gone now, presumably due to cost. The 1990s TransPeak vehicles were also this sort of thing, though that's going back a bit and they were high floor as per their era.

There are some CityLink services like the 900, M10 and M90 that operate very much like coaches in England do, running along motorways and trunk roads with very limited stops – Oxford Tube, National Express, Bristol Falcon, Flixbus and others use a similar standard of vehicle on similar routes.

There are others like the 913, 926 and 978 that don't really have any English analogue at all – these are often 3–4 hours long, running on rural A roads that are the main roads for the area but still go right through pretty much every town and village along the corridor, meaning that the service is both a long-distance coach and a local bus at the same time. But critically, there are very few passengers travelling to/from the intermediate villages and so there isn't a lot of churn, with most passengers boarding and alighting at a small number of main stops in the town and city centres. I can't think of anything similar south of the border. Even long routes like Coastliner or Excel will be stopping much more often and will have a much greater churn of passengers, meaning that a coach style vehicle would lose too much time at stops – the people who get het up about spending a few seconds to issue a ticket would lose their minds if a coach had to stop long enough for passengers to board and alight at the number of stops that buses on these routes typically call at. It would also be far less convenient for people in wheelchairs or with buggies or luggage. Whether a hybrid option like the Wright Eclipse Commuter could work is another question, but given that those two routes both looked at it and then looked away again suggests that for whatever reason it wasn't ticking their boxes. And as such routes often use double-deckers, I'm not sure how such a vehicle would be able to scale to meet the capacity demands.

 

[KHCT]

In my mind buses are there to cater for those who don't have access to an alternative. People like me who own a car but like buses may choose to leave the car on the drive at times, but the vast majority of car users won't and I can understand that; why leave your comfy, private and air conditioned car behind for a slower, more uncomfortable and less convenient alternative. The reality is that buses can not provide an attractive or convenient alternative to the car for an awful lot of journeys. There's a reason why people voted with their feet (or tyres) back in the day even though bus services were then far more extensive and cheaper than today.

 

[johncrossley]

In my mind buses are there to cater for those who don't have access to an alternative. People like me who own a car but like buses may choose to leave the car on the drive at times, but the vast majority of car users won't and I can understand that; why leave your comfy, private and air conditioned car behind for a slower, more uncomfortable and less convenient alternative. The reality is that buses can not provide an attractive or convenient alternative to the car for an awful lot of journeys. There's a reason why people voted with their feet (or tyres) back in the day even though bus services were then far more extensive and cheaper than today.

Many cities in mainland Europe have got good modal shares for public transport. A lot of them use trams and metros for the main crowd shifting but use buses to fill in the gaps. Now that modern electric articulated buses offer a near tram like experience, you could probably get away without trams.

 

[RT4038]

Is it actually possible to have both? Take for example a bus route operated every 15 minutes connecting with trains every 15 minutes operated with the latest articulated electric buses with air conditioning and double glazing with fully integrated fares. For someone who only cares about the cost and only needs to travel very locally, maybe they would prefer 20 year old rattly Alexander Dennis buses running every 5 minutes running just to the town centre and not the railway station without integrated fares.

My view is that the quality of bus (within reason) is not a major issue against bus use. People may cite this reason, but they are masking the main real reasons (which is undoubtedly the door to door, departure time and journey time convenience and personal space of private transport). Yes, higher quality buses make more difference on longer journeys, but not really on suburb to town type trips.

I really struggle with this 15 minute service connecting with trains every 15 minutes making such a difference. Where are these routes and stations that would enjoy such patronage (outside possibly of a two hour window morning and afternoon on Monday to Friday) as to justify such a service, even if everybody who makes a train journey (which is not that many in 'off-peak' hours') arrived by bus? The inconvenience of the return journey, after a long and exhausting day, the train arriving a few minutes late and waiting 14 minutes (feels like 3 hours!) for the return bus (compared to just getting in your car in the car park), is oft conveniently forgotten.

My County of residence has about 25 stations, none of which has 15 minute interval service in one direction - three may have at least 8 trains per hour, but being junctions they are diffused in destination, frequency and departure times. Add that each of those three would need to be served by about six bus routes to sort of cover the suburbs and peri-urban feeding areas. Such a network would be much more expensive than now to provide, and you want to give away the tickets with 'integrated' fares? Some of the towns and areas (and in neighbouring counties) are quite close to each other, so doing bus-train-train - bus type journeys is time consuming and inconvenient compared to a single bus, or bus-bus trip. All journeys, aside to distant large conurbation centres (centres, not the suburbs) are faster and more convenient/less effort by private transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really struggle with this 15 minute service connecting with trains every 15 minutes making such a difference. Where are these routes and stations that would enjoy such patronage (outside possibly of a two hour window morning and afternoon on Monday to Friday) as to justify such a service, even if everybody who makes a train journey (which is not that many in 'off-peak' hours') arrived by bus? The inconvenience of the return journey, after a long and exhausting day, the train arriving a few minutes late and waiting 14 minutes (feels like 3 hours!) for the return bus (compared to just getting in your car in the car park), is oft conveniently forgotten.

I don't think people are talking about that sort of rail connection. They're talking about it being better for someone who lives in, say, a suburb of Oldham, being better off time and comfort wise with a frequent shuttle bus to the Metrolink stop and a tram into town than with an hourly through bus service taking an hour and a half (and also this is more efficient to provide). The latter will never get anyone out of their car, the former might if it's done well with through ticketing and no financial penalty for the need to use two modes (the latter failure occurs almost everywhere in the UK).

London does do these connections but financially penalises people who don't live by a station by making bus fares separate from Tube/train fares. This is nuts.

It might be that the UK mindset wouldn't use such a thing, but it is totally standard in Germany and they do use it. Why don't we at least try it in one city? And try it sensibly, not discrediting it semi deliberately by way of nonsense like the Gateshead example.

It is probably true that small town buses would only ever be a social service, though, as these places lend themselves to pedestrianism and cycling. Those fit enough who don't own a car won't want to use buses, they'll just walk. It's bigger places where the potential exists because driving is both unpleasant and quite harmful.

 

[johncrossley]

I really struggle with this 15 minute service connecting with trains every 15 minutes making such a difference.

I'm not talking about anything secret. This is just the standard "pulse" timetabling concept pioneered in Switzerland and copied in various other places.

 

[BuhSnarf]

But none of these are perfectly achieved in other countries either, sure in large cities this is often achieved, but there's plenty of parts of rural Germany for example that have 2 hour frequencies and no inter connection with train / tram etc.

if you compare our best large cities to the best large cities in European countries, we're not too bad.

 

[johncrossley]

But none of these are perfectly achieved in other countries either, sure in large cities this is often achieved, but there's plenty of parts of rural Germany for example that have 2 hour frequencies and no inter connection with train / tram etc.

if you compare our best large cities to the best large cities in European countries, we're not too bad.

It depend what you call a "large city". There are arguably no large cities in Switzerland yet they manage to achieve very high levels of public transport mode share. The UK equivalent of Basel is probably laughably poor by comparison.

 

[Bletchleyite]

if you compare our best large cities to the best large cities in European countries, we're not too bad.

I completely disagree. Our large cities are a joke compared to cities like Hamburg. Even London does fares completely wrong, penalising people for needing multiple modes in their journey despite this not being their fault, though it at least does accept that connections are the right way to deliver an urban network.

I do get the idea of making bus fares cheap to make them affordable to those of limited means, though I prefer discount schemes allowing access to all modes, not just treating buses as "peasant wagons" as some term them. However, to me it's obvious that on a bus-Tube-bus journey the two bus journeys should be zero cost. It should not be more expensive to make a journey of a given distance as bus-Tube-bus than a journey of a given distance that is Tube only, and it is. That is just wrong. Similarly someone living in Marple shouldn't pay more if they take the bus down the hill to Marple station and the train into Manchester from there rather than walking to Rose Hill. In urban networks journeys should be priced, not modes.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I completely disagree. Our large cities are a joke compared to cities like Hamburg. Even London does fares completely wrong, penalising people for needing multiple modes in their journey despite this not being their fault, though it at least does accept that connections are the right way to deliver an urban network.

I do get the idea of making bus fares cheap to make them affordable to those of limited means, though I prefer discount schemes allowing access to all modes, not just treating buses as "peasant wagons" as some term them. However, to me it's obvious that on a bus-Tube-bus journey the two bus journeys should be zero cost. It should not be more expensive to make a journey of a given distance as bus-Tube-bus than a journey of a given distance that is Tube only, and it is. That is just wrong. Similarly someone living in Marple shouldn't pay more if they take the bus down the hill to Marple station and the train into Manchester from there rather than walking to Rose Hill. In urban networks journeys should be priced, not modes.

How are people 'penalised' for using multiple modes of transport? They are charged more for using the quicker method.

People from Marple could take the LONG bus all the way to Manchester for a cheaper price than taking the bus to the station and then the much more expensive, but quicker, train. They're not being penalised, they're paying a premium for getting their quicker. By this argument the Intercity trains should cost the same as the local regional trains in other countries - they're both going to the same place but being penalised for taking the quicker option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How are people 'penalised' for using multiple modes of transport? They are charged more for using the quicker method.

People from Marple could take the LONG bus all the way to Manchester for a cheaper price than taking the bus to the station and then the much more expensive, but quicker, train. They're not being penalised, they're paying a premium for getting their quicker. By this argument the Intercity trains should cost the same as the local regional trains in other countries - they're both going to the same place but being penalised for taking the quicker option.

One thing I support about the UK's rail fare system is that a local connection to a nearby major station to take an intercity train onward is very often zero cost or extremely nominal (e.g. plus 50p or £1). People are not penalised for living in Bletchley instead of near Milton Keynes Central, for example, as the fares to most long distance destinations are the same despite the short local journey being needed to connect with the Avanti train.

I can see why the bus all the way might be cheaper (there isn't one, by the way). I can't see why a bus-rail journey should cost more than a rail only journey over a simiiar distance. But it does. And it even does in London, where due to the fully regulated system they could actually fix that by making a bus tap free of charge if it's either end of a Tube or rail trip, analogous to the Hopper fare on buses.

 

[johncrossley]

How are people 'penalised' for using multiple modes of transport? They are charged more for using the quicker method.

People from Marple could take the LONG bus all the way to Manchester for a cheaper price than taking the bus to the station and then the much more expensive, but quicker, train. They're not being penalised, they're paying a premium for getting their quicker. By this argument the Intercity trains should cost the same as the local regional trains in other countries - they're both going to the same place but being penalised for taking the quicker option.

Suppose you have one 10 mile trip which could be done by a direct bus or train. Train cost more than bus because it is faster. I can see the argument here, although I don't agree with it.
But suppose you have another 10 mile trip which doesn't have a direct bus or train so requires a 2 mile bus ride, then a 6 mile train ride then a 2 mile bus ride. This costs far more than the other 10 mile trip taking train all the way despite taking longer. This discourages interchange.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think in general, other than in high frequency locations like central London (normal) passengers tend to avoid interchanging anyway as it adds the risk that the next mode of transport doesn't arrive. Most would rather take 20 minutes longer sitting in one place on a bus rather than risk getting off the bus and getting to the platform and finding the train then is delayed/cancelled at the last minute.

In this utopia where trains and buses cost more, who pays for the extra maintenance to infrastructure, staff costs, vehicle procurement etc. that trains require?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this utopia where trains and buses cost more, who pays for the extra maintenance to infrastructure, staff costs, vehicle procurement etc. that trains require?

Who's talking about building new railways? It would be a start to feed the ones we have rather than competing with them.

 

[JGurney]

In my mind buses are there to cater for those who don't have access to an alternative.

Do you mean you see them as a kind of means-tested benefit (i.e. that anyone who can afford a car has a moral duty to get one and keep off the buses)?