As in, by walking in your chain of ideas in ur prev post what I
can interpret is you are hoping people could "cut" in when the
corridor near the stairs are filled, correct?
So when the pax fill up the corridor it means they prefer
standing front. Wouldnt that space be filled up then?
Similarly, by applying your chain of thoughts here you are
saying ppl will go to the back instead of standing in front?
So means people will move back anyway. Thus whats the incentive
to "cut" to the back?
Kindly clarify your contradictory statements?
Assuming the upper deck prohibits standing. What is the loss
from alighting at the rear, when an exit door will also be at the
rear? Unless you are oblivious to how a 3-door bus look like? Same
stairs, same door. But less crowding from fighting over space with
lower deck pax, and from not blocking the way of boarding pax for
buses which has heavy boarding and alighting activities at a single
stop.
Firstly, I never mentioned which layout for which type of
buses.
Mind the words I've used...There's seats
behind. The space would most likely be empty. They move to
the rear because of that. At this point, you might not see the
purpose.
But comes to when the bus is crowded. Look at our A22/Citaro,
there's always plenty of empty space there. These space, including
the layout #1(Citaro one), can allow ppl to slip tru to the rear
easily? Even if it's occupied, there's still a chance to go tru
them. It simply enlarge the walking space(as seen now).
Put to DD application, I've realize it works well too.
Passengers boarding the bus can simply squeeze tru to the rear
instead of queuing up for the stairs.
Why is there a need to assume when it's prohibited? Passengers
at the front would walk pass the first stairs, to the 2nd just
because of the door and incoming pax from lower deck. Do you think
it will be a smooth pace? I'm sure many lazy ones will use the
first stairs more if they are sitted at the front, resulting in
delay in alighting if failed to come down all the way.
