It does annoy me when all 'transport planning' from cities and councils revolves around how to remove the car from the city/town and lay on more buses to make it 'greener' despite every piece of scientific evidence proving that idea has no merit. Unfortunately too much of the general public have also been brainwashed into this thinking and believe the long term aim must be to remove cars from cities to make it less polluted - but then turn a blind eye to the stoneage diesel bus running 16 hours a day without stopping.

Where exactly is 'every piece' of scientific evidence' mentioned above to be found?

I cant be bothered to get into arguments like these anymore unless somebody wants to pay me as a lobbyist so all i'll say is any basic scientist with even half a brain cell will confirm that bus travel is not clean, green or efficient.

Bus travel could be cleaner, greener etc. Hydrogen fuel cells and hybrids have both been trialled in London but not sure the fuel gain pays off the cost in purchase or the end of life cost of bateries etc.

But your original assertion was that cars were greener than buses. Not so in cities where buses are frequent, chepa and therefore full.

Well isnt this well timed.

CARS OUTPERFORM BUSES IN EMISSIONS RANKINGS

Employers seeking to cut their carbon dioxide emissions could be better off encouraging staff to drive rather than take the bus, according to Government emissions data.

Buses outside London emit 221g of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per passenger kilometre – more than a small petrol car (201g) and a small (172g) or medium (215g) diesel car. The car figures are per vehicle mile, so the per passenger mile figure would be lower if more than one person was in the car.

Per passenger km emissions for London buses are much lower, at 102g. This isn't explained but appears to be because of higher average ridership figures for buses in London.

The motorised modes with the lowest per passenger km emissions are coaches (36g) and national rail services (65g).

The emissions data has been compiled by the departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Energy and Climate Change. It is intended for use by employers who want to calculate their greenhouse gas emissions.

The emissions calculations cover direct emissions and also indirect emissions such as refining, distribution, storage and retail, and electricity generation.

The data comes from a variety of sources including: DfT, consultant AEA, Transport for London, National Express.

Obtained from TransportXtra.com

So outside of London then where most buses run empty for most of the day it is greener to travel by car - again, the car doesnt travel into town without you where as the bus still runs empty.

When we're getting to a point when even Ken Livingstone is criticising high Westminster parking charges you know something big is unravelling.

Ive already said co2 isnt a pollutant and its pointless talking about it but if even Transport for London are contributing to reports like this then its worth looking at as they're usually very keen to bury anything remotely pro-car. The report is emissions per passenger km, most people agree a bus is more polluting than a car but their backup argument is that a bus can take more people so therefore is greener, these figures suggest that may not be the case - outside of London anyway. Most buses run with hardly anybody on them, ive never seen a full bus. A bus will still drive its route without a single passenger but the point we should be discussing is the real pollutants buses put out, the nox gases, particulates etc. The Transport Research Laboratory estimates the average bus puts out up to 96 times more particulates than your average small modern car and any halfwit can work out if there is any road pollution in cities then its caused by buses and those stoneage London taxi's rather than your run of the mill car.