If a person stood for election as councillor in the Lostock area and issued election leaflets that highlighted the modal shift you refer to above in them, what percentage of the usual multi-car owners (the type that Liverpool Victoria glorify in their car insurance TV adverts) would have Damascene conversion to the delights of the Bee Network and what percentage would immediately throw such literature in the waste bin.
I would disagree with you, to an extent. As we've seen in many more affluent places, such as Reading, Brighton etc, buses can be shown to be fundamental in achieving modal shift. The ways in which that is achieved are complex. Simply putting on more buses and having through ticketing simply isn't going to get people to leave their cars behind nor to avoid buying a car in future.
The single most important aspect is the ability to have a reliable network. I do wish the operators involved (esp Go Ahead) luck in getting and keeping the required numbers of staff. In fact, I genuinely do wish the best for TfGM and the Bee Network.
However, plans don't really tackle the main issues in terms of reliability. As we've seen in London, such is the focus on penalising operators that journey times are pedestrian as there is so much margin built into running times. That makes bus services unattractively slow. Intrinsically linked to that (and the successes elsewhere) is good bus priority. This is something that GM lacks in the most part, and the plans are limited in what they propose. Traffic congestion will not differentiate in a slow moving bus on the basis of its ownership or planning authority.
Now, do you think that politicians will be queuing up to take away road capacity from "hard working drivers affected by the cost of living crisis"? I think not and the latest moves from Sunak (emboldened or prompted by the ULEZ/Uxbridge outcome) seem to suggest that he sees more votes in attacking anything that adversely impacts car drivers.
There is of course in depth coverage in the local media. Burnham reaffirmed the desire to rebalance the service away from major corridors.
That's just a politician not really understanding how major traffic flows work. Taking capacity from major corridors and using those resources to prop up a raft of nice to haves is a recipe for disaster.
As an analogy, if your head is in the freezer, and your feet are in the fire, then on average you're fit and well. Much more sensible would be to grow patronage on those key corridors where people wish to travel
It is not an "all or nothing" situation. Cars are here to stay, but the idea is to make buses more attractive so that *some* people switch *some* of their journeys to buses where it might be more convenient to do so.
In some of the richest parts of Europe where car ownership is much higher than in Greater Manchester, it is normal for people to use local public transport from time to time because the service is of very high standard.
See above.