I guess you'd be shocked to learn that here, not only can taxis use bus lanes, but so can electric vehicles to help encourage better choices.
Pros - similar to an express lane (HOV free, single-occupant vehicles pay a toll) it's handy when you're the one who's running late and REALLY need to get somewhere quick.
Cons - Buses deal with taxi congestion, cyclists deal with maniacal taxi drivers.
Bus lanes are relatively empty most of the time. There're not that many taxis to slow down buses. Maybe not win-win, but nobody looses either. To be honest, this is first time I hear somebody complain about this rule. Feels kinda natural over there.
Yes, the buses have handles and everything for standing passengers. Wider aisles and stand-only areas instead of more seats too. The inside of the bus look like a tram/metro rather than long distance bus/train.
Yes, emergency stops are not comfortable. Some old lady falls and breaks her hand every few years. But trams have traffic lights and may have to do emergency stop too. Trams probably have less emergency stops per km travelled. But I never considered this a huge issue.
AFAIK, bus service regularly train drivers to drive "nice-to-passengers". Park close to curb, avoid emergency stops, start smoothly etc. I guess there's a risk for this problem, but it seems to be manageable.
Timetable rules may be a big factor too. I heard more bus drivers loose bonuses for driving faster than schedule than for being (unreasonably) late..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CR4000 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variobahn#Variobahn_trams_for_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5000 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_rolling_st... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Routemaster
- Popular buses run ever 5-ish minutes during peak times
- Some buses have extension and cary a crapload of people.
- Problematic spots have bus-only lanes.
What is better than tram:
- Buses that share only a bit of the route can use those lanes too
- Taxis can use bus lanes
- Some of the lanes allow cars with 4+ people to promote carpooling
- If there's an accident or emergency, cars can use the bus lane
- Bus lanes are frequently reused as designated right turn lanes
- Overall maintenance is cheaper when using a single mode of transport. Same backup vehicles can serve all routes - no need for separate backup trams and buses. Same for technicians, spare parts etc.
- No big upfront construction costs. Some bus lanes were snatched from regular traffic, some were built later on. Mostly by making other lanes narrower and widening the road just a little bit. Trams would require much more space and wouldn't even fit in some spaces without banning cars altogether. The'd still have to pave these bits to let emergency services use them.
- In tight spots, buses can easily merge with general traffic. Buses have defacto priority, so no delays during merge.
In my city, introducing trams would have been at least few years of city-wide construction works, lots of possibilities for wasting public money and/or corruption. Bus lanes were super cheap and are added incrementally wherever costs in that specific section can be justified by savings. They can be removed easily if they cause too much trouble or don't speed up buses much. Rails would be there forever.
Comfortwise, good tram and good bus ride equally well. Unmaintained, both trams and buses suck.
TL;DR Buses are much cheaper and more agile stepping stone into good public transit. Trams themselves ain't magic cure. Buses can be