Hold up you think the locals would support going from 8 stops to 2 stops? They would be out in the streets protesting the racism of it or something. That's about as likely to be accepted (if not less) as BRT. And going from 9 minutes to 6 isn't really worth the money either. I'm yet to see any real *benefits* to converting to heavy rail, can you point them out? The only thing people say is "one seat ride" but that's a minimal impact and could be solved by simplifying the transfer at Ashmont, for example moving the trolley to be behind a common fare gate area.
Since they have not studied this, you can't conclude with certainty what riders will and will not support. Heaping ever-more hysterical hyperbole on top does not make your personal opinion on the matter represent the whole of the corridor out of sheer loudness. The fact of the matter is that Mattapan and Ashmont comprise 76% of the HSL's boardings, the Central Ave. + Milton stops that would be combined into a block-spanning intermediate another 16%, and all 4 of the eliminated stops only 8%. That's a deck stacked extremely heavily to the Ashmont-Milton-Mattapan trio, and the theory that those dominant alpha stops could benefit from the one-seat ride to downtown, run more frequently, run at higher capacity, and run with the mode that encourages more rapid boarding. That's the theory of conversion's benefits to this line. Now
test the theory by crunching some numbers in a feasibility study that benchmarks LRT vs. HRT.
No one is making any blanket statements saying HRT is *automatically* best, because you have to have verifiable projections to make that call. I think the
odds are good that HRT will fare well, but odds don't excuse the need for a study to PROVE that and to do a deep-dive into demographics that could tell us something we didn't know well enough about this corridor and its needs. Your intensity-of-a-thousand-suns hottakez, however, do not disprove anything by their lonesome or obviate the need for a study. Nor does feigning obtuseness on the supposed benefits debunk a testable theory on "TL;DR" grounds.
Is there a debate to be had there about the value of those intermediates vs. consolidation + enhanced path access (like lighting the trail on both sides of Milton and using one of the vacated track berths over Gallivan Blvd. to give the neighborhood around Cedar Grove direct access to Ashmont)? Sure, absolutely. But are there going to be riots in the streets from those 8% at Capen, Valley, Butler, and Cedar Grove??? No, that's a silly and/or immature pronouncement. Any call they make will be corridor-wide, not tail of the smallest stops wagging the dog for Dorchester, Mattapan, and Lower Mills.
No service metrics have been presented to hang a pros/cons argument on. The state originally presented HRT conversion as a
study option...as in, put some metrics to it. Now they aren't. That's a shame, because we could actually be debating this on real numbers if they did so.
Also the bridges can't even support a modern type 7 GL vehicle why do you think they can manage a much heavier RL car. Heavy rail transit grade crossings should always be avoided.
You keep repeating this like it's gospel. It's
not. A Breda Type 8 trolley weighs 87,000 lbs. A Bombardier 01800, heaviest on the Red Line, weighs 80,000 lbs. The whole rapid transit roster's weights are listed right on Page 18 of the Blue Book; see for yourself.
All bridges on the Mattapan Line are rated for modern weights with possible exception of the second Neponset crossing outside of Mattapan Station. The others were upgraded during the Ashmont reconstruction shutdown several years ago. The bridges cited for advanced deterioration by the most recent Mattapan report were Gallivan Blvd. which carries BOTH trolleys and heavy rail side-by-side, and a street bridge in Milton that's crumbling onto the tracks below (i.e. not even a lineside structure). But regardless of there being so much as 1 bridge left to go...if they rate it for any 7/8/9 trolley, they've rated it for the HRT fleet.
Second, no one said the grade crossings would remain. Capen and Central Ave. would have new rail overpasses installed. Central Ave.'s would be grafted onto the incline that hits peak on the Eliot St. mid-block by bringing in more fill. Capen's would be a very small span, probably moving the ROW a few more feet away from adjacent houses for spacing and straightening out the slight S-curve in the ROW. Neither would be anything to write home about cost/construction-wise, particularly Capen.
Most importantly, why go to heavy rail, there are no real benefits for the area from that change, just lots of negatives.
What are these negatives? You feel they're pervasive enough to riot over, but won't name what they are much less allow possibility of a study that merely compares one mode to another.
If there's a line that could benefit from heavy rail on the MBTA I would say do GL first. But the old argument that HRT is always better is less true when you include modern LRVs that would do great on this segment and cost much less than a heavy rail conversion.
Another argument presented without evidence. You won't consider the testable theory outlined above that HRT would boost the ridership at the Big 3 catchments, but you are resolutely sure that modern LRV's are "great"...because you personally believe it to be true more strongly than running
that testable theory through a numbers comparison. Mmm'kay...good to know you're not interested in an actual discussion here.
