Ashmont-Mattapan Trolley Line Discussion

I'm glad that the story (which also appears in the print version of today's Globe Magazine) treats the PCCs as living history rather than as beat-up relics. Unfortunately some of them are beginning to show external rust and the interiors definitely look lived-in. They've only got a few years left unless the MBTA goes for another rebuilding. MUNI's rebuilt PCCs in San Francisco are gems, but I don't think the T would ever go in that direction since there isn't much chance of making the Mattapan-Ashmont line a tourist attraction like the Market Street/Embarcadero line..

Agreed. Mattapan-Ashmont is a scenic ride, but lacks a touristy Fisherman's Wharf like destination at either end, and requires a somewhat unscenic trip to get to. If we ever had an F-line equivalent in Boston it would be something like a line along the Greenway downtown linking North Station, the Aquarium, the wharves, and South Station that would be great for tourists plus also provide a useful transit connection between several points that today require one or more changes of line to get to.

Jon

Do they allow free transfers between the Red line (heavy rail) and the Mattapan line at Ashmont?

Yep. The transfer's inside fare control at the revamped station.

Am I correct in assuming that the T has a New York-style fare control where once you pay at the turnstile you're in?

The Mattapan Line transfer is actually outside of fare control since the station was rebuilt. The Red Line uses normal faregates; the Mattapan Line is pay-on-board like the Green Line. You get a free transfer when using a Charliecard; if you paid with cash originally you can get a paper transfer.

Which I still don't understand why they did it that way. The fare controlled area is feet away from the High Speed Line platform, and there is no need for access to the platform unless you're boarding a trolley. The fares are exactly the same. They could have made for a speedier and more efficient transfer/boarding process, plus include the platform inside the station building. They essentially nuked the old station and started from scratch, anyway.

That station is (hopefully) the low point of MBTA station design. Two separate fare control areas, no more cross-platform transfers for the Mattapan Line, no improvements to bus/rail connections, and a speed-restricted loop so tight that the neighbors have rightfully filed noise complaints. Bad for operations, bad for passengers, bad for the neighborhood. How it got through the public process I don't possibly understand.

The MBTA has long made stupid design choices with stations. Riverside and Reservoir with unexpandable platforms that permanently limit train length on the D Branch, twice refusing to build platforms at JFK/UMass when a new service was added, no northern headhouse at Forest Hills, the awkward configuration at Wonderland, the wrong-way escalator at Kenmore, closing entrance to Hynes and Arlington, making transfers worse at Fields Corner, awkward bus-rail connections at Alewife and Harvard and Airport... It all goes against the BERy ethos of seamless intermodal connections, separation of passenger flows, as many convenient entrances as possible, and future-proofing.

Some of these are slowly getting improved. They did eventually add Braintree and Old Colony platforms at JFK/UMass, Wonderland improved slightly with the new busway, and Forest Hills is getting a northern OL headhouse soon. Hynes will have both closed entrances reopened around 2020 with the renovation.

The decent designs of Government Center, Assembly, and Orient Heights do give me some hope; we can argue about the glass palaces but from a passenger standpoint they're okay. The GLX stations were actually looking pretty good before the political hatchet job.

BostonUrbEx wrote:Which I still don't understand why they did it that way. The fare controlled area is feet away from the High Speed Line platform, and there is no need for access to the platform unless you're boarding a trolley. The fares are exactly the same. They could have made for a speedier and more efficient transfer/boarding process, plus include the platform inside the station building. They essentially nuked the old station and started from scratch, anyway.

I have to agree. The old station had fair controlled platform to platform transfers, vs the out of fare control of the new trolley platform. Its also now up in the air (and the greeaat screeching), so one needs to leave the trolley on its platform, go through any inclement weather (since they couldn't even put shelter all the way to the lobby), cross the lobby, go through fair control and down the stairs. I am a bit bitter, I guess, as I have had to do this dash out of the trolley and into the lobby, through the gate and down the stairs only to have a Red Line train's doors close in my face one too many times - and then of course depending on time of day having to wait another 8-20 minutes for the next Red Line train . It just really seems like when they did the new design they wrapped everything up, and the day or two before it was due someone looked at it and casually mentioned that they remembered the old station having a trolley somewhere or something like that, kicking off a last minute add on because they had forgotten about it . In all seriousness though - maybe they put it before the fair gate because collecting fairs on the trolley is so haphazard they decided they would try to ensure getting them at the transfer point. I would really hope in the next redesign they correct this, but, I doubt that is happening anytime soon. It does seem like it wouldn't be too hard to modify the existing station to keep things flowing better though, with the current platform put behind fair gates and a more direct stair way to the inbound platform. They could also really, really work on syncing up the timings of the trolley to the Red Line - especially during outbound rush hour (and beyond it).

The trolley was NOT inside the fare control area at the old Ashmont station either. However due to the fare structure at the time it wasn't necessary as outbound rides on the high speed line were free as were inbound rides when you exited at Ashmont. You only had to pay if you exited when heading inbound at a station other than Ashmont.

Good article about the line in CommonWealth magazine:
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transpo ... -at-the-t/

What has stirred up opinion—and emotion—is the prospect that the T could decide soon that it’s time to sunset the popular, but aging, fleet of trolleys. It has turned into a battle of heart strings versus purse strings, a fierce debate about the T’s priorities. Should the agency be all about making the trains run on time at the lowest possible cost, or is there room for emotion to come into play? Nearly everyone agrees the trolleys are costly to operate, but is that all that matters?

Looks like the State will be investing about $8 million in the line in the short term:

http://www.dotnews.com/2017/t-officials ... ings-set-a

I think this makes sense; They get 8 PCCs fixed for about 5 years for about the cost of one Type 9. Plus they don't have to redesign the line infrastructure, which we know from other recent T projects likely is more than the rolling stock.

Should they be acquiring additional PCCs? PCC trucks?

So this costs $8M. What is the total annual revenue for the High-Speed Line?

The line gets about 2,000 daily riders. Assume all buy a $85 monthly pass, that's just about $2 million annually.

That's about 300 passengers for each of the seven cars for the whole day.

And about 50% of farebox will be needed for rolling stock maintenance alone.