POLL: Double door boarding

[#Metro]

CityGlider has both door boarding. Should both door boarding be allowed in the CBD area and at busway stations? Or would this just encourage fare evasion?

[Gazza]

It should be everywhere, and buses should be retrofitted with a rear door opening button for this purpose. Paris takes this approach and it looks like a great way of doing things.
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html

[#Metro]

I would agree. 
POLL???

[#Metro]

3 day poll
Just trying to gauge the level of support for double door boarding. Post a response if you can/
Information here: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html

[ozbob]

I am of the view that fare evasion is not an issue to move forwards with this.

Rail folks do the right thing, no reason why the bus folks won't either.  As we move to a high uptake of go card it is no-brainer really.  Bring it on...

[#Metro]

I note one No vote- are there reasons why this might have problems?

[mufreight]

The problem that arises is fare evasion, on rail at the present time on some lines this is rife and beyond what is commercially acceptable, on buses fare evasion is minimal as a fare has to be paid or ticket produced to board, the practice of overriding being more common.
In terms of provision of service the faster loading times is a distinct advantage at stops of high loading that must be weighed against revenue loss.
         

[colinw]

YES of course.  Works fine on trams worldwide, I see no reason not to do it just because the vehicle has rubber tyres.

Go Card solves the fare paying problem for the most part, so why not?

[#Metro]

Mufreight has a point. Most trams/LRT IIRC have fare machines at the station, stop or inside the vehicle. Busway systems also have pre-pay, like at Cultural Centre.
I guess the driver on the bus takes the place of the ticket machine, as does GoCard. Maybe we could market the back door as "the go Card door"  

[Golliwog]

My issue is the width of the back doors on most buses. They only have the half width door so trying to board you end up waiting for everyone to hop off first by which time it would have been faster to just get on at the front.

[Gazza]

They only have the half width door so trying to board you end up waiting for everyone to hop off first

Why is that a disadvantage. Wouldn't you normally have to wait for people to hop off first on any mode of public transport (Trains especially....I hate people who try and barge in before everyones had a chance to get off!)
Plus people tend to spew out the front door too when exiting, and that door will still have to deal with paper ticket buyers.

[Golliwog]

But because people can't get on at the rear door, most people do tend to get off at the rear, especially as on all the low floor buses which have the smaller rear door most seating is next to or behind the rear door. There are some of the low floor ones that are longer than usual and have a full size rear door which would be fine for raer door boarding, but I just don't think it makes much sense if you're going to have to wait so much longer. To me it would be better to make front door boarding only (unless you need to use it for the wheelchair ramp, or you have a pram, etc) and rear door exit only.

[MaxHeadway]

YES of course.  Works fine on trams worldwide

...And buses equally, at least in Europe. Buses are run very similarly to trams there, instead of a false dichotomy between the two modes. (See this Human Transit post.)

[Emmie]

I voted No. Go-only buses load very smoothly and efficiently already, and most people exit through the back door.  I don't think loading through both doors would speed things up significantly except at the terminuses, because along the route, you would have a jam of people getting both on and off.  If there's really a loading time problem, and I don't think there is, then make exiting through the back door compulsory.

The problem with fare evasion is an issue too. I've seen people popping on board when the driver is distracted as it is.  Besides, for a very minor increase in loading speed, all buses would have to have their readers modified.  I just don't think it's worth it, compared to other ways of spending time and money on an improved service.

[ozbob]

The CityGlider has rear door loading.  Not aware of any issues with that.  Also same width doors as other buses.

Loading at peaks would be greatly improved if rear door loading, particularly the artics.

[ButFli]

I would be interested to know which was faster: Free-for-all loading/unloading where passengers may use either door to board and deboard, or an enforced front door for loading, back door for unloading policy. Just thinking about it, I think there would be very few circumstances where the free-for-all would be faster.

Obviously people with wheelchairs and prams that needed the kneeling capability of the low-floor buses would need to deboard from the front door.

[#Metro]

IMHO all door boarding at all busway stations, just like rail, should be introduced. Platforms can get very crowded, particularly at Mater Hill and Cultural Centre. It would be great to board from the side door at Cultural Centre.

[somebody]

The CityGlider has rear door loading.  Not aware of any issues with that.  Also same width doors as other buses.

Loading at peaks would be greatly improved if rear door loading, particularly the artics.

This is true, and especially artics with 3 doors.  Fare evasion on the CityGlider is an unknown though.

[ozbob]

IMHO all door boarding at all busway stations, just like rail, should be introduced. Platforms can get very crowded, particularly at Mater Hill and Cultural Centre. It would be great to board from the side door at Cultural Centre.

Yes, have been thinking about this and side door loading at busways would be worth a trial I reckon.  They can ramp up ticket checking for a while, but I don't think it would be an issue.  All buses would need to be configured for rear reader entry, but that is surely just a simple code change.

[#Metro]

All buses would need to be configured for rear reader entry, but that is surely just a simple code change.

Hmm. CityGlider allows this...

[Golliwog]

I don't think it would be that expensive to have TO's patrol say Adelaide street and check tickets as passengers get off at either door. Busway stops would obviously be easier as theres only so many exits.

[WTN]

All buses would need to be configured for rear reader entry, but that is surely just a simple code change.

Hmm. CityGlider allows this...

Shouldn't be hard to program the rear readers to be the same as the small front reader (they look identical).

All door loading should be permitted at terminuses. Busy busway stations would see some benefit. Some people already exit via the front so wouldn't make too much difference. The 3-door superbuses however, would see most gain.

[ozbob]

The other day I was on a 130 bus outbound.  What was interesting was that a number of pax did rear door load and apparently touchon on successfully with go card.

In one case the driver berated the pax for boarding via the rear door.

Has anyone else noticed this going on?  (Apart from the City Glider and 88).

[#Metro]

What happened when they touched off though?
I think I got hit with a penalty fare when I did this, but can't remember.


Time to blow off the cobwebs and get 100 % electronic ticketing (we didn't introduce electronic ticketing just so that we could have TWO systems doing the ONE job),
get lines painted at busway stations and move to all door boarding at busway stations.

[SurfRail]

I have observed plenty of rear-door loading on the 199, although from what I can see people are just being fined.  The readers are not correctly set to accommodate it unless you are on a Cityglider or one of the modified buses which lives at Garden City.

[somebody]

It's stupid to have rear door boarding on some routes but not others.  It should be all or nothing.

[SurfRail]

It's stupid to have rear door boarding on some routes but not others.  It should be all or nothing.

Now, yes.  I think the trial on the Cityglider has probably validated the concept to everybody's satisfaction.  I have heard of nobody being injured or maimed... and all of the BCC fleet (unlike trains) have sensors which are supposed to prevent doors closing on people.  Private operators are usually either in the same boat or operate buses without centre doors.

Rear-door boarding is used on the CAT services in Perth and works fine - better in fact because the PTA spec their buses with twin glideaway doors at the front and centre, instead of only a single leaf centre door.

[#Metro]

Now, yes.  I think the trial on the Cityglider has probably validated the concept to everybody's satisfaction.  I have heard of nobody being injured or maimed... and all of the BCC fleet (unlike trains) have sensors which are supposed to prevent doors closing on people.  Private operators are usually either in the same boat or operate buses without centre doors.

Rear-door boarding is used on the CAT services in Perth and works fine - better in fact because the PTA spec their buses with twin glideaway doors at the front and centre, instead of only a single leaf centre door.
   

Fare evasion is an issue- I have personally seen this on the CityGlider late on Friday / Sat nights where people get on and don't swipe. So something might need to be done on that, such as making the stations closed. The readers on the buses would have to disable themselves at busway stations for this to work.

[somebody]

Now, yes.  I think the trial on the Cityglider has probably validated the concept to everybody's satisfaction.  I have heard of nobody being injured or maimed... and all of the BCC fleet (unlike trains) have sensors which are supposed to prevent doors closing on people.  Private operators are usually either in the same boat or operate buses without centre doors.

Rear-door boarding is used on the CAT services in Perth and works fine - better in fact because the PTA spec their buses with twin glideaway doors at the front and centre, instead of only a single leaf centre door.
   

Fare evasion is an issue- I have personally seen this on the CityGlider late on Friday / Sat nights where people get on and don't swipe. So something might need to be done on that, such as making the stations closed. The readers on the buses would have to disable themselves at busway stations for this to work.

I agree.  I think front door boarding is enough of a deterrent to fare evasion to justify its use, but it seems I'm in the minority.

[O_128]

It really should be introduced, If we are going to pretend that buses are trains then we may as well do all door boarding. The city glider works quite well. people stand to the side while people get off then they get on and it takes half the time.

[SurfRail]

Employ more SNOs.  The savings which can be introduced by running buses faster and reducing congestion at major stops should eventually offset the outlay, and you will have better revenue protection.

[somebody]

Employ more SNOs.  The savings which can be introduced by running buses faster and reducing congestion at major stops should eventually offset the outlay, and you will have better revenue protection.

I think you'd have to employ a LOT of SNOs to compensate for the increase in fare evasion.

On the other hand, getting Brisbanites to get off at the rear door might be a bit like herding cats.  I know I don't really care any more.

[ozbob]

Human Transit --> san franciso: all-door boarding on buses!