MBTA Fare System (Charlie, AFC 2.0, Zone, Discounts)
- Thread starter Mongo
- Start date
TheRatmeister
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 1,632
- Reaction score
- 3,342
cubbe8
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 429
- Reaction score
- 763
Yes. Will they be installed on Track 2 as well?
HBH
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,566
- Reaction score
- 4,761
I wouldn't personally say indoors. Covered yes, but nothing in Ruggles is indoors. This area gets damp when it rains and is fully exposed to outdoor temperatures. The layers of tarps on the roof and the tent covering them suggests the installation team has already noticed the generally dampness of Ruggles.
MjolnirMan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 711
Ruggles Station is roughly as "indoors" as the South Station train platform, if not a little less so.
MjolnirMan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 711
Took an inbound to South Station last night. Despite a pretty full train, no on-board ticket checks were performed, which isn't unusual even before the fare gates as conductors usually assume you'll have activated a weekend pass on an outbound trip. I will say that I've noticed more on-board outbound checks (even on the way from South Station to Back Bay) than before, dating back even to shortly after the gates were installed. I assume this is a policy change to put the finger on the scale so they can point to "fare recovery metrics" being improved by the gates.
At South, 3/4 of the fare gates were left open. I'm a bit surprised the remaining 1/4 were left in a closed position. There seemed to be no logic to which were open or closed. It was also surprising to see that the new/archway connector to the bus terminal still isn't open, but the Track 1 "interior" connection has been shut, forcing all bus passengers to walk outside. This is one of the infuriating things about the T - they designed a new covered connection, but then for some reason closed the old one well before opening the new one. Obviously, that's the wrong order. I understand the reason was because of the fare gates, but in that case the activation should have been paused until the new connection was open - and now that the gates are basically offline, the old connection should have been reopened. It's been a rainy winter, and it's a simple customer experience improvement.
At South, 3/4 of the fare gates were left open. I'm a bit surprised the remaining 1/4 were left in a closed position. There seemed to be no logic to which were open or closed. It was also surprising to see that the new/archway connector to the bus terminal still isn't open, but the Track 1 "interior" connection has been shut, forcing all bus passengers to walk outside. This is one of the infuriating things about the T - they designed a new covered connection, but then for some reason closed the old one well before opening the new one. Obviously, that's the wrong order. I understand the reason was because of the fare gates, but in that case the activation should have been paused until the new connection was open - and now that the gates are basically offline, the old connection should have been reopened. It's been a rainy winter, and it's a simple customer experience improvement.
RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 7,625
This month’s board meeting has a Fare Changes & Programs Update, but still no update on the retirement of the AFC 1.0 system. It’s just a recap of the pre-announced fare pilots and a car-free senior credential.
It’s beyond frustrating that they have been radio silent about finishing up the migration to AFC 2.0.
It’s beyond frustrating that they have been radio silent about finishing up the migration to AFC 2.0.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,108
- Reaction score
- 4,399
Just curious, are their ongoing contract payments for operation and maintenance on both systems to third-party vendors? (I know there is to Cubic for AFC 2.0.) Is somebody (cough cough) benefiting from the parallel operation?
I thought it was more of a concession structure - new system operator taking upto a certain limit for operations and then splitting the rest? At least that was my interpretation for how much they ballyhoo tap-to-ride payments and encourage it.
My take on it is that's this is from the fare & tariff policy team - their piece of the pie is the "what we charge" for service, not so much the "how do we accept payment" for it.
That said... Yea it's problematic. The same update also said the contract has a "Long Stop" ie, a drop dead date, of June 2027 when all contract terms must be complete. That's a little more than 8 months from now, and there's been basically zero public progress on anything in that Spring 2025 box yet. Here, remember the State Auditors report - the T didn't require a performance bond for this project.
Back in march of this year, the MBTA issued an RFP for consultants to help it "evaluate functionality, identify vulnerabilities, and support issue resolution within their focus area and leverage their experience to reduce risk to the project overall.” And, its priority work streams, sound a lot like this that were part of the yellow box "back office" stuff, and some of the Spring 25 New-Charlie sales things. That... Isn't particularly optimistic sounding. @StreetsblogMASS, wanna FOIA the contract and it's deliverables?