Perhaps you can look at it from a different perspective. Why do
we want to have people move to the rear? Because the bus is full
and people can't board, I suppose?
The problem is passengers needs to get off soon and thus they
want to cluster around the doors. No one can change the fact that
they have to get off soon. If the operators want them to move to
the rear, jolly well install another door at the rear! Why make
everyone uncomfortable by forcing people who are getting off 1 or 2
stops later to move to the rear and then squeeze back out
again?
The first world solution to this problem is to have DD or Artics
replacing the 12m bus, or otherwise increaseing the frequency.
Easily the capacity problem would be solved.
In a not so first world
country like singapore, we manage it by using "crush loading" and
create as much space as possible between the two axles of the bus
so everyone can be packed into the sardine can. This is done
effectively in the OC and KUB, and even the B10BLE.
Now, going back to the A22, obviously they are trying (and
failing) to do something like that, especially that there is more
room between the front and rear axle since the door can be shifted
back by 1 seat length.
Eventually we will end up with a design like the Citaros for Red
Arrow services in London, completely void of seats between the low
floor area for crush loading.
TBH, that area removed don't even look spacious(and yes that's
why you mention about failed). Like I've said, there's no point removing the
side that's fitted with the foldable seat. The space there is
almost the same.
Infact, the full low floor layout is not friendly to carrying
higher capacity..
