> and as a result even private competition can not emerge.

Demonstrably untrue, if you were to look at taxis, ubers, lyfts, and ... small vans that operate exactly as you describe, in many large cities. (In NYC, I know there exists such a van network in Brooklyn, and near the George Washington Bridge running across the river.)

And besides, buses have advantages that "intelligent routing"-based vans - predictability and reliability. If I need to get somewhere by bus, I know exactly which stop I need to go to, and usually when the bus is scheduled to arrive to pick me up, and also to drop me off.

(Granted, sometimes those times aren't right, but they usually are, most of the time.)

Your post is confusing.

Smaller vans, transporting several people at once, are also busses. Any and all private competition offering to transport several people at once, would also use vehicles colloquially called busses.

Furthermore has public transport historically never been for the convenience of the people. Instead it provides jobs, increases the flow of money, provides income for The State.

You can read more about the beginnings of public transportation here:

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/hey-hey-can-you-tell-me-who...

nothing in this comment is rooted in reality

City buses aren't profitable. There's no fare that would cover costs. Your choices aren't to have a subsidized government bus service or have competitive private bus services, your choices are to have a subsidized government bus service or have no bus service.

Sharing a van with strangers is more unpleasant than buses, given the cramped seating.

wouldn't a network of vans require hiring a lot more drivers per passenger than busses need? sounds like a jobs program.

Tell me you don't live in a real city without telling me you don't live in a real city.

Where I live the busses are quite useful and get used by a lot of people.