Could this even be done I was thinking about this lately.
Why would they want to do this?
I would doubt someone who spent millions of dollars on vehicles would give all of them back.
Give them back to whom? The Feds? I don't get the question. Why would they get rid of them, barring any major problems?
Buses must be brought back within 30 days with a receipt for a full refund.
Quote from: aznboy4305 on September 23, 2010, 04:40:09 PM
Buses must be brought back within 30 days with a receipt for a full refund.
*rummages through the trash can to find the receipt*
There'd be a severe bus shortage, and other systems may make out with some dirt cheap brand new hybrids!
At least New Flyer would be able to sell them on their site: http://www.newflyer.com/index/fleet-sale
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 24, 2010, 01:46:09 PM
There'd be a severe bus shortage, and other systems may make out with some dirt cheap brand new hybrids!
At least New Flyer would be able to sell them on their site: http://www.newflyer.com/index/fleet-sale
I'd swap the last of the LFA's to get some of the OC Transpo D60LF's they're hawking on there! WMATA can use more artics and here they can get them on the cheap and test how a 3-door artic would work in DC. Replace the last (to-be-delivered) part of the LFA with those and it'd be a win-win for all involved.
Again I ask, why spend the millions of dollars on NEW buses only to get USED buses. It's not so much as they need tics, its a matter of resource allocation and budgeting. Alot of lines are going to be busy granted the service demand, it's a matter of that you can't put an artic on every single line. Even on the S line when they had tics, they were packed.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 24, 2010, 08:17:28 PM
Again I ask, why spend the millions of dollars on NEW buses only to get USED buses. It's not so much as they need tics, its a matter of resource allocation and budgeting. Alot of lines are going to be busy granted the service demand, it's a matter of that you can't put an artic on every single line. Even on the S line when they had tics, they were packed.
I think that if there were more artics, they could be deployed to more routes that need them and buying some of the ex-OC Transpo models would be a good experiment at limited cost. Adding about 50 or so additional artics would allow for more artics to run on the S's/50's from Northern and J's/Z's from Montgomery and allow for artic service to be preserved on the R2/U8 as well as introducing them to Landover and maybe FMR.
This is doable if they reject the last bit of the LFA order (a la the rest of the 4400's) and only get enough LFA's so that the Flxibles* can be replaced. From the looks of the numbers, it looks like they want to get enough to push the Orion VI's into reserve. Rejecting the LFA's and buying secondhand artics would merely save money and increase capacity and, if this came sooner, could've sped the retirement of the remaining 5200's on the X2.
* Way to spend Post #870 on the retirement of the successor to the Grumman 870!
I don't think it would be in their mindset to get second hand buses. It puts into perspective a different MDBF rate as well as underlying maintenance and repair costs that might not be feasable. Also, again, its a matter of scheduling and resource management that allows to use the best resources at a lower cost. Imagine if you had an run that gets busy at rush hour but has to go all night. Would it be feasable to run a mainly empty 60 foot bus on a run for that whole trip or just run a regular 40 footer with added service during rush hour? This is why we have increased services during rush hour. Granted alot of lines are busy, there are other options for getting to places.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 28, 2010, 12:03:29 PM
I don't think it would be in their mindset to get second hand buses. It puts into perspective a different MDBF rate as well as underlying maintenance and repair costs that might not be feasable. Also, again, its a matter of scheduling and resource management that allows to use the best resources at a lower cost. Imagine if you had an run that gets busy at rush hour but has to go all night. Would it be feasable to run a mainly empty 60 foot bus on a run for that whole trip or just run a regular 40 footer with added service during rush hour? This is why we have increased services during rush hour. Granted alot of lines are busy, there are other options for getting to places.
This happens all the time at Montgomery when an oddball artic runs at night on the J2 and usually gets just as full. People don't seem to mind it one bit in all honesty.
Putting more artics in the system only will make things easier on routes that are already packed and they might be the magic pill that'd help out in PG County if new leadership there doesn't make transit a priority. I've never ridden the R2, but haven't their borrowing of the 60BRT's helped crowding on that route and are people dreading the return of mostly C40LF service?
Secondhand artics would allow for a low-cost way to experiment with new arrangements at limited cost, somewhat similar to Southwest taking on Airtran's Boeing 717's.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 29, 2010, 09:47:46 AM
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 28, 2010, 12:03:29 PM
I don't think it would be in their mindset to get second hand buses. It puts into perspective a different MDBF rate as well as underlying maintenance and repair costs that might not be feasable. Also, again, its a matter of scheduling and resource management that allows to use the best resources at a lower cost. Imagine if you had an run that gets busy at rush hour but has to go all night. Would it be feasable to run a mainly empty 60 foot bus on a run for that whole trip or just run a regular 40 footer with added service during rush hour? This is why we have increased services during rush hour. Granted alot of lines are busy, there are other options for getting to places.
This happens all the time at Montgomery when an oddball artic runs at night on the J2 and usually gets just as full. People don't seem to mind it one bit in all honesty.
Putting more artics in the system only will make things easier on routes that are already packed and they might be the magic pill that'd help out in PG County if new leadership there doesn't make transit a priority. I've never ridden the R2, but haven't their borrowing of the 60BRT's helped crowding on that route and are people dreading the return of mostly C40LF service?
Secondhand artics would allow for a low-cost way to experiment with new arrangements at limited cost, somewhat similar to Southwest taking on Airtran's Boeing 717's.
The general idea of artics on a route is where there is a reduction in service or extended headways and not so much capacity. There are a couple J2s that interline into the J7/9 and even the Z11. The tics that you see on the J line might be the ones that were used on an earlier Z11 run.
Also, putting tics on already packed routes might not have a really good effect on service if the headways are still the same. Reducing the headways and adding a run or so might help with the crowding plus as I said before, there are other options to getting from point A to B. The other explanation is that there might be a general increase in ridership but due to budget constraints, it's probably not feasible to have an increase in services that could generate more expenses than savings. The R line still has a couple artics but most of them were put on the X line, same goes for the U8.
Going back to your statement about getting 50 artics, there's a problem with that. You still have alot of older buses and even if you could replace them, I seriously doubt you could fit an additional 50 artics in spaces that a 40 foot bus generally has. Not all garages have full length 60 foot parking spaces. Most of the older buses are still around mainly as contingency but I seriously don't see the whole point of adding more artics to routes. You still have to tell me which routes are busy and at what times. If it's rush hour, thats self explanatory, but at other times, it might due to the headways.
Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense. Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.
The Boeing 717s that SWA is about to have on their hands don't fit this analogy. SWA bought Airtran and will get their fleet, whatever that fleet may be. WMATA isn't about to buy out any other local TA and acquire its fleet.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 29, 2010, 10:32:25 AM
Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense. Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.
Getting extra artics for routes where funding increases is rare is a good idea. Though I wouldn't do this with secondhand artics, getting artics purpose-built for 5A/B30 service also is good as those routes often leave terminals crowded. In regards to the J2, that route is usually full between Bethesda and Silver Spring at all hours and if service isn't going to be boosted outside rush hour I think the current headways could easily support an artic. What I wonder is once the new garages start to be built if it'll increase the number of artics in the system.
I think a lot of the "replacing normal buses" debate comes from how you utilize such a switch. With some agencies replacing 40' high floor buses with 60' low-floor artics, the old fashioned "3 40' buses = 2 60' buses, let's cut service to fit" mantra seems to be going out of the window. I know Boston didn't slice service for artics and I don't think Baltimore is going to cut service on the 8 with the CTA rejects coming.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 29, 2010, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 29, 2010, 10:32:25 AM
Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense. Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.
Getting extra artics for routes where funding increases is rare is a good idea. Though I wouldn't do this with secondhand artics, getting artics purpose-built for 5A/B30 service also is good as those routes often leave terminals crowded. In regards to the J2, that route is usually full between Bethesda and Silver Spring at all hours and if service isn't going to be boosted outside rush hour I think the current headways could easily support an artic. What I wonder is once the new garages start to be built if it'll increase the number of artics in the system.
I think a lot of the "replacing normal buses" debate comes from how you utilize such a switch. With some agencies replacing 40' high floor buses with 60' low-floor artics, the old fashioned "3 40' buses = 2 60' buses, let's cut service to fit" mantra seems to be going out of the window. I know Boston didn't slice service for artics and I don't think Baltimore is going to cut service on the 8 with the CTA rejects coming.
Actually, MTA did reduce the headways on the 8 and probably cut out a couple trips to pave way for the 48. Headways were every 10 but were scaled back to every 15 minutes. Also, the 12 artics coming in to Baltimore might not just go on the 8. Secondly, Boston moved their newest artics to be used on the 28 and the SL1. You still don't present any relevant proof that adding more artics makes a line any better.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 29, 2010, 12:54:07 PM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 29, 2010, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 29, 2010, 10:32:25 AM
Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense. Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.
Getting extra artics for routes where funding increases is rare is a good idea. Though I wouldn't do this with secondhand artics, getting artics purpose-built for 5A/B30 service also is good as those routes often leave terminals crowded. In regards to the J2, that route is usually full between Bethesda and Silver Spring at all hours and if service isn't going to be boosted outside rush hour I think the current headways could easily support an artic. What I wonder is once the new garages start to be built if it'll increase the number of artics in the system.
I think a lot of the "replacing normal buses" debate comes from how you utilize such a switch. With some agencies replacing 40' high floor buses with 60' low-floor artics, the old fashioned "3 40' buses = 2 60' buses, let's cut service to fit" mantra seems to be going out of the window. I know Boston didn't slice service for artics and I don't think Baltimore is going to cut service on the 8 with the CTA rejects coming.
Actually, MTA did reduce the headways on the 8 and probably cut out a couple trips to pave way for the 48. Headways were every 10 but were scaled back to every 15 minutes. Also, the 12 artics coming in to Baltimore might not just go on the 8. Secondly, Boston moved their newest artics to be used on the 28 and the SL1.
Unlike most other cities, Boston never reduced headways on the 49/SL4 and the 39 when artics came in and to date has not reduced them on the 28. In the first two cases, the net capacity gain wasn't that high (40' high floor replaced by a 60' low floor) so it made little slice to slice that much really.
QuoteYou still don't present any relevant proof that adding more artics makes a line any better.
They add capacity in cases where it is needed and constraints may exist. Between funding and all, a lot of cases of the latter exist (PG and Airport routes) and the former has some routes that can use more capacity in their current setup (J's, 3's, 38B).
Another question, do you actually know the full reason why OC Transpo sold their 2004 artics? I found out why they did.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 29, 2010, 02:40:58 PM
Another question, do you actually know the full reason why OC Transpo sold their 2004 artics? I found out why they did.
If New Flyer did the fixes to prevent any more fires and are confident to resell them to some agency, I have faith in those buses, even if they're around for only a few years.
The Board just approved an increase in service on the J2 starting in December...
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
Quote from: Southern Avenue Annex on October 02, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
Three door artics add capacity and improve passenger flow. Besides, they could work in even the roughest areas of DC as they work in the rough areas of LA, Boston, and San Francisco to name three (though the last one, of course, had had fare evasion issues with the middle door).
Bladensburg's in a bit of an artic crisis with the whole H St NE being torn up deal and not wanting to run up mileage on the 60BRT's.
Quote from: Southern Avenue Annex on October 02, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
Artics are rarely used to actually increase service, but rather to operate the same amount of capacity with fewer buses, often resulting in longer waits for passengers and more delays. Generally, this is how WMATA employs its artics, take a look at the Y routes in Montgomery County and the 70 in DC. The 70 is a busier route than the Ss and 50s, but operates fewer trips because it is an articulated route.
The two door models exacerbate these issues on account of having a longer vehicle but the same amount of space for ingress and egress. If you want to see how artics can deteriorate service on a bus route, just take a look at the M79 in New York City. Under the right conditions, it can be faster to WALK across Central Park than it is to take the bus. I have yet to ride Jerusalem's new 4 door articulated bus but I am pretty sure the loss of seats for the 4th door is minimal.
Quote from: Southern Avenue Annex on October 02, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
In theory, having more doors reduces dwell times. IMO, If a decision-maker considers a third door to be a waste of seats... they need to be replaced. While it's nice to have a seat... your fare does not guarantee a seat. IMO, it's more important to have the added capacity of an artic (where needed) and ability that a thrid door offers over being able to seat more passengers. That said, in regards to WMATA needing more artics... I totally agree. Many of us has long thought that WMATA should've had about 80-100 active artics years ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those of us who have said WMATA should have had more artics active years ago also said that those artics should (generally) not be brought online in order to reduce service by running fewer, larger buses.
I have only heard this when artics are involved that having longer times between buses when switching from a 40 footer to a 60 footer. I have rarely heard routes that have switched from a 30 foot bus or 35 foot bus see their wait times increase, I don't see the difference in switching from a 40 footer to a 60 footer all it's gonna be is just increasing capacity while creating more space for potential passengers. I understand that going from a 40 footer to an artic is a 10 seat + increase but still that shouldn't be any different than from switching from a 30-35 footer to a 40 footer.
Artics are a two way tool; they can be used to maintain a route's current capacity while reducing operating cost. Or they can be used to increase capacity while maintaining current operating cost. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 04, 2010, 06:59:20 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those of us who have said WMATA should have had more artics active years ago also said that those artics should (generally) not be brought online in order to reduce service by running fewer, larger buses.
Oren,
Yes, you're correct in that we were all on the page.
Quote from: aznboy4305 on October 04, 2010, 11:09:17 AM
Artics are a two way tool; they can be used to maintain a route's current capacity while reducing operating cost. Or they can be used to increase capacity while maintaining current operating cost. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
THANK YOU! This argument that an artic immediately, automatically, and by default means LESS SERVICE has got to go -- like WES said, agencies wouldn't reduce service by replacing 30-footers with 40-footers, such a move usually comes with a commensurate INCREASE in service because the demand is there.
The decision has been made at times in history to reduce service and deploy artics instead, but that is not their root purpose.
The two for three argument of bus replacement (Artics for standards) is not necessarily valid as what an artic really gives you is the capacity that was lost with the advent of low floor buses. Some TA's have deployed them to control labor costs by widening headways but most have done so to add capacity with the same labor input. Regarding the third door, IMO the trade off is losing two seats to improve passenger flow vs. the expense of the third door. Rarely are operators able to pull the entire bus flush to the curb thus leaving the door in the trailer far from the curb or right next to a parked vehicle and blocking egress forcing riders to walk to the front to exit. The middle door reduces that problem.
For you operations and scheduling pros, regarding what routes "need" artics all day. That may be more perception than reality. It's highly possible that certain blocks on some routes experience "Mumbai"-like overcrowding at certain times on certain days outside the peaks. While it may appear that routinely assigning artics to those blocks is the solution that may not be the best use of that expensive resource (an artic). In some of those instances, would it be more appropriate to plug in a tripper to lead or follow that block through that segment of the route at those times, especially if that block interlines with a more lightly travelled route?
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 03, 2010, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: Southern Avenue Annex on October 02, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
Artics are rarely used to actually increase service, but rather to operate the same amount of capacity with fewer buses, often resulting in longer waits for passengers and more delays. Generally, this is how WMATA employs its artics, take a look at the Y routes in Montgomery County and the 70 in DC. The 70 is a busier route than the Ss and 50s, but operates fewer trips because it is an articulated route.
The two door models exacerbate these issues on account of having a longer vehicle but the same amount of space for ingress and egress. If you want to see how artics can deteriorate service on a bus route, just take a look at the M79 in New York City. Under the right conditions, it can be faster to WALK across Central Park than it is to take the bus. I have yet to ride Jerusalem's new 4 door articulated bus but I am pretty sure the loss of seats for the 4th door is minimal.
I agree. A three-door tic is logical in that it reduces dwell time and increases passenger flow. To a degree, it's like having an Alstom car that runs on the streets.
Quote from: Flxible on November 19, 2010, 08:12:03 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 03, 2010, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: Southern Avenue Annex on October 02, 2010, 11:03:56 PM
Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.
Artics are rarely used to actually increase service, but rather to operate the same amount of capacity with fewer buses, often resulting in longer waits for passengers and more delays. Generally, this is how WMATA employs its artics, take a look at the Y routes in Montgomery County and the 70 in DC. The 70 is a busier route than the Ss and 50s, but operates fewer trips because it is an articulated route.
The two door models exacerbate these issues on account of having a longer vehicle but the same amount of space for ingress and egress. If you want to see how artics can deteriorate service on a bus route, just take a look at the M79 in New York City. Under the right conditions, it can be faster to WALK across Central Park than it is to take the bus. I have yet to ride Jerusalem's new 4 door articulated bus but I am pretty sure the loss of seats for the 4th door is minimal.
I agree. A three-door tic is logical in that it reduces dwell time and increases passenger flow. To a degree, it's like having an Alstom car that runs on the streets.
If three-door artics are so logical, I wonder why they make up a minority of US agency orders. I know MBTA, Muni, LACMTA, MTS, AC Transit (pre-Van Hool), Chapel Hill, Cleveland RTA, and the SBS LFS's at MTA in NYC have three-doors, but outside of colleges I can't think of much else. I'd guess fare evasion fears but Muni is probably the biggest hub for that and they've had 3-door tics since the puller-engine era.
If the Canadian agencies that are retiring early D60LF's didn't have such issues, I'd stand by my want for WMATA to buy a small amount as a pilot to see how they'd work.
I think US agencies shy away from 3 door artics out of fare evasion concerns.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on November 20, 2010, 11:03:37 AM
I think US agencies shy away from 3 door artics out of fare evasion concerns.
Muni probably has one of the highest fare evasion rates in the US and they've always have had 3-door artics. Many of the key artic routes at LACMTA and MBTA run through also are areas where fare evasion can be a bit high (and I'm talking local routes, not Metro Rapid or Silver Line). I think something else may be at play.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on November 20, 2010, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on November 20, 2010, 11:03:37 AM
I think US agencies shy away from 3 door artics out of fare evasion concerns.
Muni probably has one of the highest fare evasion rates in the US and they've always have had 3-door artics.
I'm convinced that nobody cares about fare evasion in San Francisco and it's just part of the local culture by now.
QuoteMany of the key artic routes at LACMTA and MBTA run through also are areas where fare evasion can be a bit high (and I'm talking local routes, not Metro Rapid or Silver Line). I think something else may be at play.
The buses on Boston's MBTA have driver-controlled rear doors, so there is less concern about fare evasion from some passenger opening the door on their own for others (although it does happen sometimes if the driver opens all doors at a busy stop).
Quote from: RailBus63 on November 23, 2010, 09:16:08 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on November 20, 2010, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on November 20, 2010, 11:03:37 AM
I think US agencies shy away from 3 door artics out of fare evasion concerns.
Muni probably has one of the highest fare evasion rates in the US and they've always have had 3-door artics.
I'm convinced that nobody cares about fare evasion in San Francisco and it's just part of the local culture by now.
QuoteMany of the key artic routes at LACMTA and MBTA run through also are areas where fare evasion can be a bit high (and I'm talking local routes, not Metro Rapid or Silver Line). I think something else may be at play.
The buses on Boston's MBTA have driver-controlled rear doors, so there is less concern about fare evasion from some passenger opening the door on their own for others (although it does happen sometimes if the driver opens all doors at a busy stop).
Fare Evasion on Muni = Eating and Drinking on WMATA. Something illegal that isn't enforced because enforcing it would take too much effort.
I thought most artics made in the last decade (with exceptions such as MTA's D60HF's and Muni's Neoplan 460's) have had driver-controlled rear doors. Even with them, there are still odd cases like the man in a suit who boarded through the rear door of a PACKED 42LFA on the S9 at 16th & U I saw last week.
We have three door artics and don't have a fare evasion problem because of that. Fare evasaion happens whether you have one door, two door or three doors. The only way to prevent it is to have more enforcement and keep the operators out of it. Their job is to drive, not to get into an argument over a $2 fare. We have security that rides on random routes and either gets the passengers to pay or they get a citation.
That being said, is it worth spending a dollar to chase a dime? Sometimes you have to accept a certain amount of fare evasion because there will never be 100% compliance and to spend millions on fare enforcement to get a small number of that back sometimes isn't worth it.
Although Perry you could make the argument that the dollar spent on the dime prevents many other dollars from being lost. How much money would WMATA lose if they had Muni-esque fare collection?
Being a devil's advocate for no reason :-)