MORE Thoughts -- PRCo--2000 -- What Trolleycars Remained??

[mrb190]

You're right about the Penn & Liberty routes.  The Frankstown alone could have
continued on to East Liberty without much change.  Even after the route reaches the
point at which Penn goes into the mall area, this was open to buses only, as I
recall.  Today, of course, it is open to all vehicular traffic.  Also, even though
a highrise was built above Penn Avenue at the point where the mall starts, Penn
still exists with the building acting as a tunnel.   Not sure, but I think where
Frankstown Ave begins just off of Penn, that the routing has changed somewhat.
That is probably the only point where the line would have had to have been
re-routed, but again, I am not sure.  The landmark buildings are gone, so it's hard
to tell.    I think the 87 could have survived as well, although from what I
understand, the long Ardmore Blvd. p.r.w. was not used much by commuters.  Wonder
if it would be today?

The Negley & Highland routes could have continued as well, only facing the
challenge of the one-way sections through Oakland of Fifth & Forbes.  I have often
envisioned a track coming up the bus lane on Fifth which would provide two-way
service again for Fifth Ave. carlines.

Wonder what made Philadelphia so different from Pittsburgh that Philly retained so
many of its lines while Pittsburgh ditched 95% of them?  Yes, I know about the
anti-trolleys sentiments of local Pittsburgh government, didn't Philly have an
equal share of subber-tire proponents?

Jim Holland wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jim Holland wrote:
>
> > >       I believe that had PRCo survived until today that they would have
> > > systematically replaced the trolleycars rather than rebuild the lines in
> > > many but not all cases.
>
> > Derrick J Brashear wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I believe that. Or rather, I'm not sure how much of that
> > would have happened. When my father was in high school track was relaid in
> > Fifth Avenue, 1962 or so. Obviously someone thought rail had *some* future
> > in Pittsburgh. If PAT hadn't happened, I'd bet more of the system (though
> > certainly not all of it) would be left.
>
>         There may have been an obligation with the City for replacement and
> street repairs in that area - m-a-n-y  factors could have affected the
> decision to renew rail.
>         Plus, even if PRCo remained, there was still much hostility to
> trolleycars  --  this was strong in the Burgh in the 1950s!  So many
> would want the old fashioned cars gone - McKeesport did, according to
> Beal's book!  And the inner portion of the 56 was killed when the
> Glenwood bridge was replaced - can't put tracks on the new bridge, no
> sireeee!  While there was a hint of rerouting the 55 to keep it running,
> that never happened.  So projects like this would have killed the
> trolleycars as well!
>         And with E. Liberty turned into a mall, that would have killed many car
> lines there.
>         It is easy to make a case for retaining the car lines regardless of the
> construction but the cars were not wanted by the powers that be.
>         Forbes and inner Fifth seem to be likely candidates to be kept for a
> time - and maybe Liberty and Penn because of the speed available here -
> at least when I remember it.  Communities just outbound of 32nd would
> benefit from this.
>         What else would you keep?  Pretty late for me - difficult to
> rationalize at this point!
>
> James B. Holland
>
>         Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1940  --  1950
>     To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
> N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/