Article from the old Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

	If I remember correctly, the West End lines had a difficult time
breaking even financially - don't know if the taxes there were higher
than other areas or not.  Apparently, the closing of the bridge gave
PRCo the opportunity to bus and saved petitioning the PUC to abandone
trolleycars in favor of buses.
	But with all the prw and direct entry into downtown, one would think
that rush hour service would be quite feasible with rail - in addition
to fast and efficient!

	Definitely appreciate your efforts with the Microfilm  --  THANKS 
AGAIN!

mrb190 wrote:

> You're welcome.

> I was too young to remember at the time this occured, but when I discovered all the
> miles of private right-of-way over there (that still looked usable in the first
> half of the 60's) it boggled my mind as to why the West End wasn't still soldiering
> on as the South Hills lines were.   But then, someone on the list explained to me
> that the Railways was heavily taxed for the West End routes, and I guess were
> anxcious as well to convert to motorization.  ( I hope I got that right.)

> I will see if I can find follow-up articles on this issue.   It's not easy --
> especially on the eyes at one of those microfilm machines.   I'm going to check
> again to see if there are INDEXES of Pittsburgh articles from those years that I
> can search.  I know that the New York Times has these indexes in the library, but I
> was tentatively told it was unlikely that anything like that existed for the
> Pittsburgh Newspapers.  (Nowadays, I think searches can be done back to 1990 for
> Post Gazette articles, but that doesn't help us.)

> Glad you enjoyed reading,
> Matt

> Jim Holland wrote:

> >          Politicians doing what they do best - pointing the finger and passing
> > the buck!  Progress always means that some old things are going to
> > *pass--away* and while it may not be palatable to some, at least tell
> > the truth - it is glaringly obvious when coverups and lies are told,
> > especially in retrospect like this.

> >         And the reason for the barricades - utter lies!  I would absolutely
> > never trust and individual such as this!

> >         Thanks, Matt, for sharing this - helps to understand the times a little
> > better!

> > mrb190 wrote:

> > > I especially find the last seven paragraphs interesting...

> > > From Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph, June 28, 1959:

> > > Gittens would not admit that the bridge was closed.  He claimed all the city
> > > had done was ban turning movements onto the bridge.

> > > IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to get on the Point Bridge without turning.  Gittens
> > > explained away the steel barricades on the bridge this way:

> > > "It is only a more positive indication to the public that turning movements
> > > are prohibited."

> > > He said that before Army Engineers would consent to erection of the Fort Pitt
> > > Bridge, they required a commitment that the Point Bridge would be torn down.

James B. Holland

        Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  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/