I am also aesthetically fond of double-decker buses, but a staircase isn’t accessible by wheelchairs or strollers, so if planners are relying on that upper deck as part of their capacity...
I am also aesthetically fond of double-decker buses, but a staircase isn’t accessible by wheelchairs or strollers, so if planners are relying on that upper deck as part of their capacity measurements, they’re excluding a significant portion of the public which could use transit.
Perhaps more importantly, having a staircase on a bus significantly increases the time it takes for passengers to board and especially alight. This slows down routes significantly and is a cause of delays. Reliability is one of the biggest contributors to transit ridership, so this is a big deal.
For high-density routes which have frequent stops, it makes sense to remove the second floor and just operate an articulated bus to have the same amount of capacity with greater accessibility and efficiency. (Or more buses, to have more frequent service, if it’s economical.)
I am also aesthetically fond of double-decker buses, but a staircase isn’t accessible by wheelchairs or strollers, so if planners are relying on that upper deck as part of their capacity measurements, they’re excluding a significant portion of the public which could use transit.
Perhaps more importantly, having a staircase on a bus significantly increases the time it takes for passengers to board and especially alight. This slows down routes significantly and is a cause of delays. Reliability is one of the biggest contributors to transit ridership, so this is a big deal.
For high-density routes which have frequent stops, it makes sense to remove the second floor and just operate an articulated bus to have the same amount of capacity with greater accessibility and efficiency. (Or more buses, to have more frequent service, if it’s economical.)