If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case

If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case of Zürich, how did they not fail your metric? If the busses are truly superfluous, then why doesn't the transit agency discontinue those lines? I'd like to think they're there for a reason other than paying bus drivers and lining some pockets. The reality is that cities, because they're changing, will always need busses alongside rail. As new areas become popular and need access, it's far quicker and cheaper to route a new bus line there. Today's bus route might become tomorrow's rail.