More people rode the Fairmount Line when it was free, but they stopped when the fares came back

Remember when they launched the Charlie Cards and claimed MBTA (MBCR) conductors would "soon" have some device to let you use the cards on the train? I sure do.

Just one of several unfulfilled promises and claims the T made when they proposed automated fare collection. Among the others:

Buy fares at any number of retail outlets - you can also use your CharlieCard to purchase goods from those stores. That never happened once stores decided they didn't want to participate in such a program.

Significant reduction in fare evasion. The exact opposite has happened, thanks to the idiotic design of the system (both piggybacking and the 'drop your scarf, coat, etc. on the other side of the faregate to trigger the sensor for exiting passengers' motion).

Significant reduction in staffing. That never happened. Not only were collectors transferred to other positions such as CSAs, but the MBTA has actually hired additional staff to serve as CSAs.

Ability to 'deactivate' your card should it be lost or stolen, and to transfer the balance to a new card. T's response in such situations - sorry, you're SOL.

Remember the good old days of the trusty MBTA token? I was telling my (slightly younger) boyfriend that I've been in Boston long enough to have used them.

Which made me wonder just how long we've been using Charlie cards for. Which brought me to this:

The CharlieCards can be used currently on all buses and at most subway stations. The system will be fully converted on buses and subways by Jan. 1. CharlieCards will be available for use on commuter rail lines by fall of 2007.

source: http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=10128

Once they figure out a way to streamline the ticketing process ridership will go back up.

They had a way around that back in 2007, but unfortunately decided not to implement it.

The odds of someone who has a Link Pass deciding to ride the Fairmount is lessened by the additional costs. The ability to use the pass most of us use would lead to a bump in usage. Greater frequency (as mentioned below) would lead to even greater usage.

as the conductors have no way to validate the subway pass.

The conductors have no real way of validating the CR passes either. They just check that they visually look OK from a distance.

I didn't know they wouldn't allow link passes to also use Zone 1A stops but I suppose that's just the sort of stupidity one would expect.

As you turn red, then blue, I appreciate your comment and the hope behind it.

Yes, I have long held that mass transit should be fare-less. Mike Dukakis as Governor and later as transit activist debated this a few times with me at public fora, transit conferences and my podcast. He liked the sentiment but thought that riders need to pay a nominal fare; he suggested a dollar.

We agreed that the ideas behind mass transit were to free the streets as much as possible from air and noise pollution, from maimed pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, and from congestion. Those together would justify fare-less rides. It would be much like the monumental but often hidden subsidies drivers get and their small gas and vehicle taxes don't begin to repay the state and feds.

If the T spent its millions and billions on safety, maintenance, and cleaning, folks would get what they want from mass transit — fast, safe, clean, reliable service. That in turn would inspire greater ridership and all those obvious benefits.

I live within walking distance of a stop and take it once in a while ( a few times a month). I have actually started taking the providence line more often since the schedule is better for getting to work at 9 and it stops at back bay station and is a shorter ride, even though it costs three times as much. I do usually take an uber or lyft home though since I don't want to be on their schedule or have to get to south station or back bay. And I won't be voting for Baker for reellection since he cancelled the DMUs for the line due to only having on possible bidder.

I agree with you 100% about everything except the last paragraph.

How do DMUs have a quicker turnaround time? How are they more efficient?

The T can already turn a set in as little as 10 minutes, most of which is spent performing the required brake test and either changing crews or letting the crew have a restroom break. DMUs still require the same brake test, and still employ the same crew, who are still human. The only way I can see DMUs shortening turnaround time at all is cutting 30 seconds off of walking the length of the train to change ends.

They are slightly more fuel-efficient than a full locomotive-hauled trainset for low passenger volumes, due to their smaller, less-powerful engines (which also means they'll likely average the same running time - they're smaller and lighter but proportionally less powerful). Locomotive-hauled trainsets generally only become more efficient when you lash up more than 2 DMUs together. But you can't look at fuel efficiency in isolation - you have to look at the full picture, and those fuel efficiency savings are more than offset by the increased maintenance costs of not having a uniform fleet - additional parts to stock, additional training for mechanics, and the increased maintenance and inspection costs that come from each DMU having its own engine and legally being considered a locomotive. Several small engines means more failure points than one large engine, and legally being locomotives means more time spent in the shop for inspections.

Which brings us to public perception - that's the only benefit DMUs would really have. They look more suited to the line. And public perception alone is not a sound basis for spending a large sum of money.

The biggest benefits for the Fairmount Line come from getting it out of the commuter rail system, and into the rapid transit system, not from changing what rolling stock uses it.