Article from the old Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph

[mrb190]

Thanks, for the info Ed.
Gievn the revenue-negative territory as you day, It is strange that the Railways
basically kept the bus line routes unchanged - wherever possible- from the car
lines.  I read that the 27 & 28 simply cut through side streets to parallel the
old prw, with one major exception, that the route no longer went up Bell Avenue
off of Idelwood, but off Idlewood onto Noblestown Rd.
I don't know what the routes are today or even upon PAT's taking over, but I'd
imagine that there's been considerable re-routings.

Matt

"Edward H. Lybarger" wrote:

> 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/