Route "#s" - long routes

[John Swindler]

Jim Holland commented (concerning PRC route numbers and short turns)

>
>So it does seem like there was a system - use the next higher number for a 
>short turn; if that number is already taken, tack on an "A."
>

As with so much, perhaps the Pittsburgh Route numbers for short turns is 
historical.  How about this theory.  Donald Galt has listed elsewhere 
internal route numbers from 1910, and I counted 121.  That's real close to 
99. And doesn't it seem strange that there should be exactly 99 route 
numbers - not 100 (3 digits) and not 98.  Perhaps 42-43; 10-11; 13-14; 
64-66; etc are part of the initial two-digit numbering scheme.  Maybe these 
were full-time routes and not rush hour only?  I don't know.

Then maybe the 55A; 56A; 38A were rush hour only, or later additions.
And where was the original terminal of 88 Frankstown?  Was it Homewood 
Shops?  So if 88 were extended to Tioga St. Loop at a later date, then would 
that account for "88 Frankstown Short" term?

Again, just a guess.  I need to take another look at Don Galt's list.
(and unfortunately, can't take Ed L. up on his offer)

>
>Jim also commented about confusing the public:
>
>That is certainly different than today where they seem to do the maximum to 
>confuse the public.  Green Line  --  for Martians only??? Blue-Line  --  
>for Sad People only???  Is everything in the towns painted the same color?  
>Is that the name of the towns or the destination?

I am reminded of McDonalds, where the cash registers have symbols, instead 
of numbers.  Maybe its but another "dumbing down" of our society.  A real 
cynic would probably have some comment about consultants recommending the 
color identification and public officials actually paying for it, but I 
never said that!

>Jim also mentioned:
>
>And why not try to maximize Federal subsidies by counting outbound
passengers in the AM rush and inbound passengers in the PM rush to justify 
high levels of service (fewer fares mean higher subsidies to maintain 
service levels)?  SF did this in the early 80s.  Maybe the Feds got wise 
because I don't see it happening any more!
>
>
More likely, SF finally got wise that it didn't do them any good.  Federal 
(operating) subsidies have always been a formula grant program based on 
population (need to check if there were any other factors).  Subsidy can be 
up to 50% of deficit,  but appropriations have always been less then amounts 
larger systems can spend.  So a Pittsburgh or San Francisco may only have 
10-20 percent of deficit covered by federal funds, while a Harrisburg or 
Erie can/could justify up to the maximum 50% figure, and use the rest of 
their formula amount for capital costs.  If SF was playing games with rider 
numbers, that was probably to reduce service levels or increase a 
local/state fare replacement program.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com