Article from the old Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph

[mrb190]

Whew!  My fingers have a mind of their own!  My spelling on the e-mail below was
atrocious!

I meant to write:  "Given the revenue-negative territory as you say, it is strange
that the Railways basically kept the bus lines unchanged ---"   It looks OK form
there.  I guess I was rushing in order to get to bowling on time.   (though for the
way I bowled last night, the rush sure wasn't worth it!!!)


mrb190 wrote:

> 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/