Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. In most western countries, subsidies for trains and metros are highly regressive. Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy.
> Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes.
Even if this was all there was to public transit, if you shifted all of the train and metro use onto the roads - even in buses - in a city like London it'd mean traffic would grind to a total halt.
Those who don't use these systems still benefit from how they shift demand away from the roads.
> Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy.
So in other words public transit is a universal benefit. Transit includes buses.
You've delivered a good argument for considering which types of transit we subsidise at what level, not against the notion that public transit is a universal benefit.
At the same time I think you're also missing something: In London at least, a not insignificant reason why the bus is used more by lower paid people is not down to routes but cost. That may not account for all of the difference, but even with the hub and spoke nature of London transport that does favour those with higher paid jobs in the centre, a large portion of routes between places not ideally placed for it will still be faster by train.
As such, the problem often isn't subsidies for trains and the underground, but that the subsidies are too low to make these services financially viable for lower paid people.
E.g. I live in zone 5. I know people who commute by bus from here to zone 1 because a monthly travelcard costs 267.30 for zones 1-5, while a monthly bus and tram pass costs 94.90.
The effect is often a significant "time tax" on poorer people. One woman I know used to spend two hours each way on a commute that'd take her via zone 1 on the train but only take one hour each way because she couldn't afford the travel card. There are many people in that position.
So by all means subsidise buses more, but that is not a reason to not consider that higher subsidies of trains and metro systems would also significantly benefit poorer people.
By living in London at all you're pretty well off by default but there's still a lot of relatively low paying jobs in the city center that need to be done and I'm betting most people use whatever the London equivalent of park and ride is to get there.
Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. In most western countries, subsidies for trains and metros are highly regressive. Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy.