Why would you have to sacrifice any seats? Just mount them to the stanchions, strategically throughout the vehicle, spaced in such a way that people don't block any choke points in the vehicle.
I basically agree, but wonder about conflicts with accessibility regulations where a reader may be seen to impede someone's ability to hold on.
We should be designing our transit system in such a way that optimizes comfort and efficiency.....
Agreed.
P.S. If we cut some seats from our current buses, it would only be a good thing. There is nowhere to stand on a bus where you are not in someone's way. The last bus with a good floor plan was the 1996 Orion V, with the empty space across from the rear doors.
I think for safety, if nothing else, I strongly prefer transit where everyone has a seat; I realize that's more expensive, and few systems run like that in the real world, nonetheless.....
While I do prioritize riders having seats vs standing, I think that's better resolved through greater vehicle frequency/service than a poor circulation layout.
The biggest impediment to proper layout in our buses, to my mind, is the mixed height floors. I think a 100% low-floor model would be preferable.
The mixed height model creates dead-space on the stairs, and tends to result in under utilization of the rear of the bus, because many people don't want to use stairs, some for entirely legitimate reasons (proneness to falling as an example). Additionally, people with strollers, bundle buggies, and mobility aids can't access that space, the poor sightline from the rest of the bus means people can' necessarily see if there's any open seats up top either.
****
To our transit vehicle experts here; what's in the market now by way of 100% low-floor? Is there a significant price difference vs our current rolling stock? I assume part of the issue w/going 100% low-floor would a change in garage-set up for how buses are maintained...... are there any other barriers to switching?