Interesting analogy. I'd say that trains and buses are generally better than cars: arguably we do better with higher efficiency (less effort for similar gain). Why would making "more effort" be better for the value of stocks, if the net result is the same? I would like to think that it is CEOs and boards that manage companies actively, not investors that simply want a certain ROI.

In your analogy, I'd say investors are car leasing companies, and it's unclear if they provide a value that can't be just as well provided by the driver(s) buying their cars outright. It would mean that the driver(s) would have to be on more equal footing to the investors, though (they'd have to be able to afford the car).