From: ahk@chinet.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>On 28-Apr-14 01:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>On 27-Apr-14 17:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>As far as fare readers, it's silly to believe you'd need fewer
>>>>with POP.
>>>You don't need _any_ fare readers with POP unless you've also been
>>>duped by all the smartcard hype; just use little slips of paper, as
>>>transit agencies have been doing for over a century.
>>I'm just reacting to your claim, above, that more fare readers are
>>used with gated versus POP.
>Barrier systems inherently require fare readers of some sort, even if
>they're simple token systems.
It's ridiculous of you to re-define a token-accepting turnstile as a reader.
>POP doesn't require fare readers at all. So, I don't get why you're
>"reacting" here.
What you were talking about wasn't relevant nor comparable to what I was
talking about, just your put down of electronic fare collection systems said
in the same tone as your put downs of lazy workers. Curious that you don't
think workers involved in fare inspection in proof-of-payment regimes are
inherently lazy.
You set up a false choice; how very Stephen-like. If you're not going to
do some form of electronic ticketing, you need ZERO readers. It matters not
if you've built barriers at your train stations. It matters not if you're
doing POP or another method. You need a certain number of readers for
electronic ticketing with or without barriers, based entirely on the number
of passengers boarding at a given station at a given time.
Repeating myself, 'cuz it'll never penetrate your thick skull: The readers
are for electronic ticketing. They aren't there for POP versus non-POP,
barrier versus non-barrier. They are there for electronic ticketing.
The rest snipped, 'cuz you have no concept of arguing validly without making
nonsense apples and oranges comparisons.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
