Article from the old Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph

[Edward H. Lybarger]

These lines had long stretches of revenue-negative territory (read PRW and
no passengers).  Pa. Dept. of Highways gave PRCo money to a) buy the
replacement buses and b) pay off the involved municipalities for street
resurfacing.  There's a drawer full of data in the PTM Library.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
[mailto:owner-pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org]On Behalf Of Jim Holland
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:25 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: Re: Article from the old Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph


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/