Basil Jet wrote:

What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out
of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport?

Their punctuality with one on board will affect more passengers later. So
no.

I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or
failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily
excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to
cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a
conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from
Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from
Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled
by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares).

Aeroplanes are public transport, so are ro-ro ferries. Private jets,
however, are more like taxis and are not. But as this discussion is about
London, I omitted them. Indeed, trams were omitted in error. Coaches were
also omitted as they aren't really relevant to transport within London.

If you want a definition I would suggest that it is something like
"transport modes operating to a timetable or at high frequency on which any
member of the public may travel on payment of an individual fare".

Because a taxi fare is payable for a hire of the whole car, to the
exclusion of any other passenger, that doesn't fit. Share taxis or jitneys
(the former existing in London on a very limited basis, and the latter not
at all) also fit.

Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its
use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road
space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric
vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point.

Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion
engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place.

Not at all. Bus lanes increase the punctuality and reliability of public
transport. As public transport nowadays in London (the topic under
discussion) is environmentally beneficial as a whole, and reduces overall
journey times versus everyone travelling by car due to better use of road
space, bus lanes can be encouraged on that basis,

Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts.

Nope. The Tube was used as an example because it is usually the fastest
way to travel around central London (motorbikes possibly aside). It
renders the use of taxis for anything other than those of limited mobility,
and those who desire higher comfort or don't feel like doing any walking,
fairly pointless. It is the backbone of central London travel, and can be
used in conjunction with buses where it doesn't directly serve your
journey.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.