2 ms·

> If you really want to speed how people go through the gates, then _remove the damn gates_. That comes with other problems. Transit gates have the big advant

by lxgr 1y ago

> If you really want to speed how people go through the gates, then _remove the damn gates_. That comes with other problems. Transit gates have the big advantage of providing you with instant feedback on whether your ticket or mode of payment is valid or not. I've seen tourists get in trouble with ticket inspectors at least once in a very unpleasant way for simply having pressed the wrong button at an inscrutable ticket vending machine. > I don't understand -- we are talking about 100ms or so of latency? which is almost completely dwarfed by any mechanical action such as the gates actually opening?? As others have already said, Japanese gates are open by default, and are more of a user interface indicator (to you and potentially station attendants nearby) than an actual physical barrier. You could step over or between the "barrier" that extends when the gate rejects your payment pretty easily in most, but it would be very obvious that you're skipping the fare.

AshamedCaptain 1y ago
> Transit gates have the big advantage of providing you with instant feedback on whether your ticket or mode of payment is valid or not. So do the validators that are put in waiting areas, inside the trains, etc. in cities with no gates. That you can literally use at the time you want to use them (waiting for the train, inside the train, etc. ) , rather than forcing a bottleneck to everyone. > As others have already said, Japanese gates are open by default And this by itself already makes more of a latency difference than the entire IC card system does. Imagine what removing the gates altogether does.
- lxgr 1y ago
  How would removing the gate improve latency in a scenario where every passenger still has to tap their card at some reader? Sure, you could spread the readers out a bit better across the platform etc., but that significantly weakens the "impossible to accidentally evade the fare" UX, as it still allows people to forget to tap when rushing for a train.
  - AshamedCaptain 1y ago
    Many cities already have this. Most street trams have already this. Even London has no gates for the non-central stations. I tap either when I'm waiting for the tram, or when I'm literally already inside it. Even with only one validator and at rush hour, there's no queue. If you already live in an area where there are no gates, would you make the argument that "I need gates so that I don't forget to tap"? Put yourself in my shoes: you would laugh at the idea. And it doesn't need mentioning that people who want to intentionally skip fare can do so, gates or not.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      Different transit systems have different user experience, yes. > would you make the argument that "I need gates so that I don't forget to tap"? Put yourself in my shoes: you would laugh at the idea. Yes, I'm making that argument. I've lived in places that don't have transit gates for the majority of my life, and I absolutely forgot buying a ticket a few times (since I usually have a monthly pass). Being reminded about a monthly pass having run out by the gate, automatically charging for a single ride (if I have enough balance) so I can solve the problem later, is great UX.

by lxgr 1y ago

AshamedCaptain 1y ago

> Transit gates have the big advantage of providing you with instant feedback on whether your ticket or mode of payment is valid or not. So do the validators that are put in waiting areas, inside the trains, etc. in cities with no gates. That you can literally use at the time you want to use them (waiting for the train, inside the train, etc. ) , rather than forcing a bottleneck to everyone. > As others have already said, Japanese gates are open by default And this by itself already makes more of a latency difference than the entire IC card system does. Imagine what removing the gates altogether does.

lxgr 1y ago
How would removing the gate improve latency in a scenario where every passenger still has to tap their card at some reader? Sure, you could spread the readers out a bit better across the platform etc., but that significantly weakens the "impossible to accidentally evade the fare" UX, as it still allows people to forget to tap when rushing for a train.
- AshamedCaptain 1y ago
  Many cities already have this. Most street trams have already this. Even London has no gates for the non-central stations. I tap either when I'm waiting for the tram, or when I'm literally already inside it. Even with only one validator and at rush hour, there's no queue. If you already live in an area where there are no gates, would you make the argument that "I need gates so that I don't forget to tap"? Put yourself in my shoes: you would laugh at the idea. And it doesn't need mentioning that people who want to intentionally skip fare can do so, gates or not.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    Different transit systems have different user experience, yes. > would you make the argument that "I need gates so that I don't forget to tap"? Put yourself in my shoes: you would laugh at the idea. Yes, I'm making that argument. I've lived in places that don't have transit gates for the majority of my life, and I absolutely forgot buying a ticket a few times (since I usually have a monthly pass). Being reminded about a monthly pass having run out by the gate, automatically charging for a single ride (if I have enough balance) so I can solve the problem later, is great UX.