A private car is about 5m long and may contain 4 people. A bus is about 12m long and may contain 80 people. So even on that reckoning the car is a less efficient use of road space.
If the bus lane was full like the other lanes then it wouldn't be doing its job. A full lane is an inefficient way of moving people, leading to slower journeys and more pollution. So it's necessary to keep bus lanes free-moving to allow buses to be quicker and more reliable, and therefore more attractive for people to use considering they still have to walk some distance to and from bus stops and waste time while the bus is picking up and dropping off other people. Most urban roads don't have the capacity for the traffic they are expected to carry at rush hours, and if they are improved that tends to just generate more traffic including people transferring from buses to cars. If capacity is limited it's best to create an incentive for the people who use it more efficiently.
The problem with this goes back to the original reason for bus lanes which was to allow predictability for buses which were trying to stick to a timetable. Then people want to start adding extra uses for the 'empty' bus lanes however the emptiness is the essential point.
I agree in principle. But to work safely this probably needs the bus to have its own phase at traffic signals, most likely triggered by system that detects an approaching bus. Otherwise there is a risk of drivers turning left across the bus lane, not expecting a bus to approach from behind.
Dial-a-ride in London is only available for residents of London boroughs
They may have decided that the signals should allow a phase for general traffic if a succession of buses has kept their lights at red for more than a certain period.
There are electric taxis in London, although only in quite small numbers. Electrifying taxis ought to be a fairly easy green measure, as the lower running cost is more likely to justify the higher initial cost for a vehicle that is used more. Also they spend a lot of time in urban areas where pollution is a problem, and probably don't do enough mileage to need recharging during the working day. The problem is that they are generally owner-drivers who may struggle with the initial outlay and are also a powerful political lobby against anything they think threatens their interests.
I'm with you on the extra pollution, and the space they waste on congested urban roads, and they aren't always particularly considerately driven, but even Uber drivers aren't doing all that much in the way of maiming and killing.
When I started with Lothian, we were told about such a system that was fitted to the buses here, but whether it still works or is even there, I don't know.
I believe it was an option that was added to the app along with other services such as shopping and food but was dropped in most countries owing to a problem with local laws/customs.
Studies have shown that the likes of Uber result in a net increase in road traffic, even taking account private car journeys avoided. So as a first guess there would be a proportionate increase in road casualties.
