Talk:Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line

Closed?

Is this line in fact now closed as it was scheduled to be? The MBTA site still talks about the June 24 closing in the future tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMcGath (talk • contribs) 13:45, July 20, 2006.

yes, it's closed

Yes, it closed as scheduled and I have been riding the shuttle bus to Ashmont since. The current bus schedule can be found at [1], and the bus route map is at [2]. Note that the bus follows two routes: one over River St. and one over Brook and Central. There's also a van that only stops at Ashmont, Valley Road, and Capen via Eliot St. because both bus routes miss those two stops. (The Eliot route used to be handled by a bus that also stopped at all the other stops too, but it was replaced with the van either Summer or Fall of 2007.)

Also, there is no chance whatsoever that the trolley line will be back in service until at least early-to-mid 2008. I've been watching the construction at Ashmont and they're just starting to put up the roof beams. Currently, the back 1/3 of the inbound platform and a slice along the outbound platform are gone (to build roof columns). Walls are nowhere near finished, and they're still moving moving dirt around in some parts of the site. The station has to be at least most of the way done before the trolley line can reopen, as the temporary blacktop ramp leading from the temporary fare-collection hut to the inbound platform covers part of the trolley track.

Some good news about the trolleys: There was an item in the Metro a couple months ago stating that the Mattapan trolleys will have air conditioners installed when they come back. (Previously they just had a fan in the roof.) Many of the trolley stations are being worked on too.

Oddly, the shuttle buses' auto-announcer still says "Ashmont Station - Change here for Subway, Bus and High Speed Line"... 24.60.196.199 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The trolley line had reopened by January 2008. PJtP (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Description

"To reference the route as a 'high speed line' is a misnomer as the route is neither characterized by a fully dedicated, grade separated right-of-way, nor by high-speed rolling stock." This is rather odd... The High-Speed designation refers to it's dedicated right of way (I'm not sure what "fully dedicated" means- nothing else runs on the tracks, and there are only two relatively minor grade crossings) as opposed to the other streetcar lines ran by the Boston Elevated Railway in the 1920s, which ran directly in streets (see the "E" Green Line) or at best in medians (see the "B", "C", and "E" Green Line) with many at-grade crossings- this allowed a significant speed advantage over the other lines between Mattapan and Ashmont. --71.124.173.134 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The high speed designation came from a time when trolley lines criss-crossed major metropolitan areas in the United States, including Boston. The tracks for those trolleys or streetcars were on major avenues and streets competing with automobile and foot traffic, and were often unable to travel at high speeds for any length of time. Hence the designation of right-of-way lines like the Mattapan one, a leftover from the earlier more comprehensive trolley/streetcar systems, as "high speed." PJtP (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Grade separation

I have corrected the infobox to be consistent with the text, which it had previously contradicted. Could somebody insert the two grade crossings into the route map diagram? Reify-tech (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Heritage streetcar?

Is this entity a heritage streetcar line?

An editor replaced "...is a heritage streetcar line..." with "...is a partially grade-separated light rail line...", but added "...and exclusively uses historic PCC streetcars for rolling stock..." in the second paragraph, with an edit summary of "This line is not a "heritage streetcar" by any definition, including that found on Wikipedia. That this misnomer is found in multiple places on Wikipedia illuminates the perils of allowing edits by those without no direct knowledge of the place described", but another editor disputed this with an edit summary of "What you feel about it is not relevant - it is by definition a heritage streetcar, one that also provides regular transit service".

So who's right? I'm not seeing this line as a "streetcar". It runs on a railroad right of way and stops at a limited number of stations that have actual structures and names, I think. Sounds like light rail to me. There are a couple of grade crossing (places where it crosses a street directly rather than via a bridge) which is also true of many light and heavy rail lines.

However, it's also not clear that a "heritage streetcar" needs to be a "streetcar". Our article Heritage streetcar says "heritage streetcar operations can include upkeep of historic rail infrastructure". The Ashmont–Mattapan line does use old PCC streetcars which did formerly operate as on-street trolleys add which use overhead lines commonly used by trolleys.

On the other had I get the vibe that heritage streetcars are usually 1) tourist attractions which 2) are fairly recent creations, or re-creations of long-vanished lines, and which 3) are not really an integral part of the region's main commuter transport system. (The reader may insert the term "twee" here at her discretion.) None of these applies to the Ashmont–Mattapan line. However, note that I say "usually" so maybe there's some play here, given the PCC thing and all.

My personal take is that Ashmont–Mattapan line is the way people in Mattapan get to work and always has been so I'm sort of disinclined to call it a "heritage streetcar" line. They use old rolling stock, but not in an antiquarian way but because that's what they have. Herostratus (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus, for so legibly explaining (in your 2nd-to-last paragraph) why it is so troubling that the description of this line as a "heritage" line has infiltrated multiple Wikipedia pages. As essentially any person versed in Boston's transit network should be able to tell you, the Mattapan line comports with the neither the common-usage definition of "heritage line", nor with any of the "heritage" purposes outlined in Wikipedia's article on the subject. Ascribing a "heritage" narrative or purpose to the Mattapan line fails to comport with common sense.

As a very, VERY occasional Wikipedia editor (I originally made the edit above from my other device), I have been increasingly disturbed to witness extreme and rigidly defended contortions of common sense by those who perceive a handful of related pages on a particular subject as "their project". Such seems to be the case with User:IJBall, who reverted my edit, and who also maintains this "heritage streetcar" designation/fiction on the crucial and widely viewed "List of North American light rail systems by ridership" (and similar) pages. Most disturbing is that he view his chosen taxonomy as "objective" and therefore treats infusions of common sense as "opinions that don't matter". I fear that he will take it upon himself to revise the entire history of the Mattapan line, or the very definition of "heritage trolley", in order to double down on his classification.

Wikipedia's primary goal remains the dissemination of basic, straightforward, fundamentally accurate information. Egos and fierce defenses of fiefdoms -- often by those with no direct experience with the subject whatsoever -- increasingly seem to obstruct that goal. It's incredibly discouraging when one's occasional good-faith efforts at accuracy are met with hostile dismissals and obstinate reversions to text that is fundamentally false.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Infrequent IP editor would be very wise to also not assume good faith, and would be advised to revisit Wikipedia's policies re: consensus and edit warring. --IJBall (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize -- I inappropriately and inaccurately projected my frustration with other "hair-trigger revert gods" onto you -- and shall soften my rhetoric as I join you over at the talk page for List of North American light rail systems by ridership.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question: It's been 25 years since I've been in Boston, on the T - does the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line contain any street running? Or is its route 100% fully grade separated? If the latter, then it is truly "light rail", and not "streetcar". But I've been wondering about this question... TIA. --IJBall (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I also wish to thank you, Herostratus, for your reasoned comment. My take on this is that any streetcar or light rail line that uses heritage streetcar vehicles (and PCC streetcars are certainly that) qualifies as a heritage streetcar line. In other words, just because a line is used as a regular public transit line, and/or is not explicitly a "streetcar" line but a light rail line, does not "rule it out" as a heritage streetcar line – i.e. it's the vehicle that determines this, not the type of route. Aside from the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, other lines that qualify are San Francisco's F Market & Wharves line, and Philadelphia's SEPTA Route 15 (though both of these are "streetcar"-type routles). The only "wrinkle" I can see in the case of Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is that is has been continuously operating, which I think is the only system in that category aside from Streetcars in New Orleans – but I'm not sure why that should rule it out as a "heritage streetcar" line. I also wish to note here that the heritage streetcar article explicitly mentions the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line in its United States section, so it's not like I am "making this definition up". And I will also point out that I think the lede to the heritage streetcar article is less than helpful and instructive, and should be rewritten (on my end, it's been on my 'To Do' list to get to...). As for the "transit type" in the Infobox for this particular article, I think something like "Light rail/Heritage streetcar" would be an excellent compromise here. --IJBall (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully but vehemently disagree that the use of old vehicles is all that is required to be declared "heritage". By that definition, every small Eastern European town without the money to upgrade their old Soviet-era rolling stock would suddenly (and unbeknownst to them) be running a charming "heritage" system!

A "heritage purpose", as described in my comment on the other talk page, is requisite. I am quite certain that any reputable source inside or outside of Wikipedia will draw such a distinction between lines with such intentions and lines that merely happen to be old. This truly is the "common usage" of this informal term.

Regarding your other U.S. examples: F Market & Wharves#Historic_Trolley_Festivals describes the explicit "heritage intent" that gave birth to San Francisco's F trolleys, long before they (somewhat by accident) grew into a broadly-used feature of that city's transit network.

The SEPTA Route 15 example is a little more complicated, as the revival of that dormant streetcar line was bundled with vaguely aspirational branding/redevelopment aims, but the more explicit purpose with to enhance the legibility of a piece SEPTA's urban transportation network. I would probably need to know more about the internal politics (including the reasons for using PCCs) in order to take sides, but my hunch is that your case for calling it a "heritage line" is valid, but only by a hair.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)