Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon
 We're not going to agree on this, but I admire your dedication in the face of evidence.  What I would say is that even if a far side stop makes it take longer for egressing passengers to cross back over to the other side of the street (which would probably be only about 50% of those passengers, since the other 50% would likely remain on the side they are on), it is better to delay the handful of people who are exiting the bus once, than to delay every single passenger on the bus at every single intersection.
Whether that particular stop is in the best location I don't know, but I will say this: consolidating those stops would benefit all passengers on the bus who are destined beyond Springfield. |
Exactly. If moving the stop from near to far, causes, say every human using that stop to have to walk 30s longer, but reduces the bus travel time by an average of 10s per intersection, then every human riding on the bus through more than 3 intersections (which is basically everyone!) will have saved time.
Although I would argue that a properly placed far side stop would be no more than one bus length past the intersection; which is 18m, or about a 12s-18s walk depending on the person (average walking speed varying from 1.5m/s for a fast-walking healthy person to 1.0m/s for a senior in a walker).
What Uhuniau is forgetting is that time savings for buses equal time savings for humans on the buses.
Threaded Mode