*Historic* vs *Transit* Line

[mrb190]

Don't know the aspects of HISTORIC vs. TRANSIT line, but I sure do like
the idea of recreating the 40 Mt. Washington line!  

Haven't been over to South Hills Junction in some time ---> does anyone
know if the old right-of-way up the backside of Mt. Washington has been
obliterated or paved over?  And I would recommend that the single track
be double with NO parking allowed on those streets.  Probably might call
some re-routing of the original line.   But then, I am getting carried
away with this idea.  Jim, you just used it to illustrate your
historic-vs.-transit point...

I'd personally like to see a line run out to Squirrel Hill via Oakland
again.

Matt

Jim Holland wrote:
> 
> Greetings!
> 
>         A question mostly for John Swindler but with application to the Burgh.
> 
>         Since you work with State financing and grants to transit agencies, I
> will assume that you are aware of many of the Federal monies and
> regulations, stipulations, limitations for the same.  Is there specific
> Fed funding which stipulates that a new transit rail line must be called
> an *Historic* Line and cannot be considered a bonafide *Transit* line,
> even though the line functions as a transit line?
> 
>         To make an example.  Let's say that the 40-Mt.Washington line is
> rebuilt in its entirety (including a loop in downtown) and that second
> hand PCC streetcars are purchased from San Francisco (the Baby Tens,
> 1016--1040) and are contracted out for a total rebuild - electrical,
> mechanical, and body work.  The *intent* of the line is to cater to
> tourists so they might have handy access from downtown to the views and
> restaurants and recreation on Mt.Washington.  Schedules for the new line
> are nearly identical to the ones before abandonment - service starts in
> the early morning, about 5-AM, runs on a regular schedule all day with
> more service during the AM and PM rush hours, and runs late into the
> evening, about 1-AM.
>         Must this line be called an *Historic* line because of Fed funding for
> such a line?
> 
> James B. Holland
> ------- -- ---------
>         Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
>     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/