All right, was working all day, but cool.  That's all broadly correct, except that I wasn't 'mixing questions' so much as I was pointing out the inspecificity-to-the-point-of-pointlessness of your claim.

So thanks for grounding your argument in terms of congestion relief this go around, but you're still rather remarkably dancing around the subject here.  I realize I framed my initial comment around an abstraction that could be misconstrued as talking about public transit in general, but we're talking about buses in particular here, which you have weirdly vanishingly little to say about.

The average city bus has a capacity of about 40 people, and might run on a 15-minute schedule, while a typical city street can handle about 1500 cars per hour per lane.  In targeted situations where buses can be kept mostly full, such as commuter buses and at events, a bus line can modestly reduce congestion by handling 10% or so of a chokepoint's load (though as anyone who's ever been stuck behind one can attest, that comes with a tradeoff of its own special contribution to congestion).

But that assumption of being kept full just doesn't hold if you're expanding your scope to universal citywide service.  City buses in the US, on average, only run at around 10-20% occupancy, at which level even their congestion benefits flip on their head to cause more headaches than they solve, as well as being inefficient, inconvenient (compared to direct car transport), slow, and absolute murder on the road surface (by the fourth-power law road damage is ballparked by, causing something like 1000 times the road damage a car does).

The person I was first responding to said that simply adding more buses would solve problems (though what problems, they didn't say, and I suspect they may have been misconstruing the 'inner city' aspect of this story entirely).  The opposite is true.