2 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.