Fwd: Fantasy or not, why we lost the street car

[Derrick J Brashear]

Some useful content, some wise cracks. Hopefully the "useful content"
justifies this message or I'll have to go beat myself with a "clue stick".

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 Fredbruhn at aol.com wrote:

> The excitement over the volatile fantasy question will bring some
> interesting  responses, although  87 Ardmore as most of us remember it
> won't ever pass as a "high speed light rail line" in spite of those old
> memories of chasing a PCC in a 39 or 40 Chevy at race track speeds.

The only time the right of way along (relatively uncongested) Ardmore
would be useful would be at the parkway ramps, during morning rush hour.

Note, though, that things would be different, since the turn lanes on
Ardmore are where the tracks were, so you'd be forcing turners back out
into the regular lanes.


> By 1944    the paper reported "State Plans Postwar Road Program Here"
> The steel bridge over the Ohio to be replaced with modern bridge.
> (This bridge carried all cars to Ohio)

Which bridge? (Just curious)

> 3 - any driver who has followed a street car through Benwood with the
> line of traffic led by a truck that cannot pass the trolley can tell
> you that the street cars are one of the greatest stumbling blocks to an
> efficient traffic flow.

Removing any blockage is only a win if the traffic doesn't just get
blocked a bit further up the road. Of course, no one really thinks of
this, they look at the "obvious problem"

> remaining communities began to fight the change.   The riding public
> wasn't buying that street cars slowed down traffic, and of course the local 
> politicians took up their cause. Council President Nick Taflan of
> Bridgeport "I don't want to see the street  cars go off.  Yet I believe
> any action on our part now would prove futile because we have started too
> late.  In my opinion we should attempt to regulatge the matter by
> demandidng better service and reasonable rates.    

This sort of thing I always find interesting. It's reported in "Trafford
Trolleys" that North Huntingdon Township opposed the abandonment of the
Larimer-Irwin line. That, though, was probably because children used it to
get to school. Still, it's interesting to see signs of progressiveness
from government at the time, especially in places like that, where
replacement bus service didn't even always happen.

> 4 - in case of fire buses can turn onto another street 

One thing which can never be argued with.

> 5 - traaffic jams on Route 7 would be solved by the bus.

Ha.

> Route 40 is 
> still a 2 lane road and improvement only came when Interstate 70 was
> created across Ohio.

Ha. Well, I guess 70 is an improvement, but it's far nicer to just go
around on 470.

> Route 7 in Ohio wasn't changed for at least 25 years,  and only one of
> the bridges carrying car lines was torn down, although in the last two
> years; the remaining two bridges have been taken out of service.  

I noticed the closed bridges last time I was out that way.

> government subsidy.  I have managed to drive Pittsburgh and Toronto
> without hitting a safety island, unlike those drivers in Wheeling.

Apparently Pittsbrugh drivers had some, uh, problems with the safety
islands in Beechview a few years back. Personally, if the big thing with
flashing lights in front of you doesn't clue you in, cut up your license
and drop it in the mail to Harrisburg.

> I hope you get some pleausre out of this little diversion from
> Pittsburgh, but I'm not so sure researching PRCo. might yield some of
> the same results.  

Probably. (And incidentally, more Wheeling stuff is fine; Even if it
wasn't for the shared corporate parentage, Wheeling is no further from
Pittsburgh than Johnstown)

> Ed is going to push as all to do our homework. 

And he's right; You can't get a complete picture without it.

-D