Even in clear traffic, buses are slow. I find the breakeven point with walking is about 2 miles, and with cycling about 7 miles. Going more than 7 miles on a bu

Even in clear traffic, buses are slow. I find the breakeven point with walking is about 2 miles, and with cycling about 7 miles. Going more than 7 miles on a bus sucks badly enough that I'll order my life not to do it. As such, the bus is never a first choice, but can be a lifesaver in some edge cases: * Weather is bad enough to pay the (very large) time penalty vs. walking or cycling. * You have moderate cargo hauling needs, no car, and delivery is impractical. * The train is broken, your trip is too long for active transport, and you don't have a car. * You are too elderly, infirm, or handicapped to walk or bike. * You can't afford a bike. * You can't afford to be anywhere else that's heated and enclosed. There are enough of these edge cases, and you're sufficiently likely to meet one of them at some point, that I think we should all be in favor of bus coverage. Backups and resilience are important! But we should take it as a positive sign when ridership is minimal. If we want people out of cars and can't afford trains, the answer is active modes.