Speed

[Vigrass, Bill]

Very interesting.  This brings back a memory.  I attended the
Carnegie-Mellon Professional Programin Urban Transportation, class of 1975,
a four week intensive program followed by a two week tour of Europe, all
paid for by Section 10 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended.  A paid fantrip so to speak.  Anyhow....one day or two we had a
presentation on Sky Bus and a review of the then ongoing controversey on
modal choice.  We visited the SkyBus test installation at South Park, not
operating.  A PAT spokesperson explained their views -- I think it was
Harold Geissenheimer, whom I had known since 1948 -- and he provided PAT's
official policy.  He was Exec. Dir. at the time, I believe.   In the
question period, I observed that the existing streetcar operation was nearly
light rail, so why does not PAT install SkyBus on a different route that did
not then have a fast service, such as the Spine Line, then being studied.
He responded that only the South Hills had the ridership to support the
investment in such a fixed facility.
That was the official PAT position.  I disagreed with it then and do now.
They ought to have built (or at least proposed) SkyBus for a heavy corridor
that had only street buses.  But I dunno what that might have been other
than the Spine Line on which an elevated structure may have been
objectionable.

Bill V.

> ----------
> From: 	Kenneth and Tracie Josephson[SMTP:kjosephson at sprintmail.com]
> Reply To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:57 PM
> To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Cc: 	edisonctstation at hotmail.com; R2dupuis at aol.com
> Subject: 	Re: Speed
> 
> John Swindler wrote:
> 
> > q.  Why does the light rail line follow the alignment through
> > Beechview-Castle Shannon-South Hills Village?
> > a.  That's the Skybus alignment.
> 
> Wow, John. Very interesting observations. I would suppose the
> Beechview-Castle Shannon stretch of the alignment would have stayed no
> matter what. It was an established transit corridor and most of it was
> very well patronized. I suppose in any form, i.e. "conventional
> streetcar", "modern" light rail, Skybus or PAT busway, it made sense to
> retain this corridor. 
> 
> The PCC proved to be an excellent vehicle for this type of service. It
> also served well on "The Shaker" as well as the Newark Subway and the
> various Boston and Philadelphia subway-surface lines. One should look at
> Milwaukee's "Rapid Transit" line serving the western and southwestern
> suburbs to see the tragedy of having to serve such a line with
> conventional interurban cars. The excessive power consumption, excessive
> speed and excessive braking between stops was truly a waste. Another
> line which desperately needed PCCs was the Rochester Subway. Ken J.
>