If concept bus is going to be 3 door DD 12.8m just for feeder
services, I will not support the idea. If LTA is so against Bendy,
just deploy 12m DD and hope for the best.
First of all feeder services need buses that can maneuvre through
narrower roads. The bendys are definitely more flexible than 12m
DDs and 12.8m DDs are just going to be worse. Second, people's
mindset is something you cant change. If you put DD on feeders,
people will just fill lower decks first and then the rest will
start standing and play the waiting game for someone else to go up.
End up upper deck will be not even half full. 12.8m 3 Door DD is
going to make it worse because lower deck floor areas will be
smaller than 12m DD. SO if no bendy, still 12m DD better.
Third, 3 door bendy is quite defined where rear 2 doors are for
alighting only. but in 3 door DD, people who actually go up may use
either of the 2 staircases and alighting wise is going to be same
too. Hence passenger flow, even with 3 doors is going to be messy
and not going to be good like a bendy. For feeders with high
passenger activity, 3 door DD will hence not solve the problem of
high dwell times at busstops.
Whats the issue with bendy for feeders? They mostly ply non
congested roads that have 1-3 services only at 70-80% of route.
Also if parking area is the problem, depots can be multi-storied to
utilise land area better. For interchanges, can just minimise lay
over time in interchange by adopting jump bus or even operate
routes directly from depots.
Conclusion: If want to use DDs, bus route structures got to
change. If you want adopt london/HK way of DD/SD only, routes have
to be changed too. Bus routes should not be catered to bring
passengers to MRT stations mostly but instead serve as comeptitive
and good alternatives for non-transfer direct travel. Then DDs will
work better.
If you worry about passenger flow, you can refer to the
structure of the trams in HK.
Generally it's quite straightforward. Passengers will only go in
one direction. Thats because there isnt an incentive to go in the
other. The set of stairs and doors (adjacent to each other) for
entry is located at one end. The other set for exit at the
other.
In Singapore, passengers who have to exit have to go against the
tide from the seats at the back to the exit door in the middle.
Essentially the structure in SG is [entrance] - [exit] - [seats],
which can prove catastrophic. Made worse with DDs, as they have an
additional upper deck to be taken care of by a single narrow
stairway.
But in the mentioned concept varient, the structure is
[entrance] - [seats] - [exit], which meant passengers will be
spread even throughout — using the very own minsets of these
passengers.
As for the middle door the solution is ridiculously simple —
just make it an exit door like a bendy! Just program the ez link
card readers to make it such. But I do feel, only the rear door
should be made exit-only, as the middle door, having no stairs
connected to it, serves as a useful entry/exit door for lower deck
without having to share with upper deck.
I think it is absurd you will denounce three-door-dual-stair for
12m DD; 12m DD should just never show up in feeders and intratowns
lah. It just ill performs in all aspects.