[PRCo] Re: Patronage of the Rail Lines (Was: Pittsburgh 7-Charles Street abandonment)

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Dream on, my friend, dream on.  If we have not maintained equipment for
30-plus years, how does one expect the mechanics already on the payroll
to understand how?  I wonder how many of our transit authority mechanics
could reassemble an Allison transmission or a Detroit Diesel engine or
trace a wiring glitch in a bus.  This sounds like expecting teachers,
who have themselves been nurtured in an educational system that promotes
to the next grade based on curved scores, to be able to teach excellence
to others. (I both cases, I'm not faulting the individuals but the
political system that created this abyss.)
John Swindler wrote:
> 
> Not only do we no longer charge capital costs to the operation, much of the
> maintenance cost is no longer charged to the operation.  But that may be an
> advantage for the taxpayers.  By setting aside a pot of money for 'asset
> maintenance', it forces transit authorities to at least make a show of
> maintaining their equipment.
> 
> >From: "Fred W. Schneider III" <fschnei at supernet.com>
> >Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> >Subject: [PRCo] Re: Patronage of the Rail Lines (Was: Pittsburgh 7-Charles
> >Street abandonment)
> >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:16:51 -0400
> >
> >
> >I guess,  now that we don't charge capital costs to the operation, it
> >doesn't matter that peak hour patronage goes up and off peak drops...
> >As I recall, that was the problem that killed the North Shore.  Had the
> >CNS&M survived a few more years (or the canals another 100 years), it
> >(they) would be here today.
> >
> >John Swindler wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not part of his agenda.
> > >
> > > >From: Kenneth Josephson <kjosephson at sprintmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org,   "Paul M. Weyrich"
> > > ><paulwey at freecongress.org>
> > > >Subject: [PRCo] Re: Patronage of the Rail Lines (Was: Pittsburgh
> >7-Charles
> > > >Street abandonment)
> > > >Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:06:53 -0700
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I wonder way Mr. Wendell Cox ( a consultant some of our list members
> >are
> > > >familar with) never discusses this when he's out there giving his
> > > >"objective" reasons to oppose light rail? I will be the first to say
> >don't
> > > >build a line where it won't draw passengers. Mr. Cox, however, seems to
> > > >ignore the success stories.
> > > >
> > > >Ken J.
> > > >
> > > >Ed Tennyson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >      To my knowledge, Routes  35, 36 and 37, now 42-S and 42-L
> >never
> > > > > lost passen- gers after Worfld War II when they carried 24,000
> >weekday
> > > > > passengers in 1953 after the interurbans were gone. Mid-day may have
> > > > > lost riders, offset by more com- muters in the peaks.
> > > > > (Riders were lost when buses replaced route 42/38 during
> >reconstruction,
> > > > > but they came back when rail service was restored     Just before
> >the
> > > > > Sixth Avenue Subway opened, ridership was still 24,000 but bus
> >rdership
> > > > > had gne way down over the years.
> > > > > After the "T" got running right about 1988, ridership grew to 36,000
> >in
> > > > > 1991, but was sharply curtailed by a strike, then the shut down of
> >the
> > > > > Overbrook Line in 1993. It is back to 24,000 again without Overbrook
> >but
> > > > > it had been 24,000  with Overbrook before the subway
> > > > > If I remember anywthing wrong, I am sure you will remind me. I think
> >I
> > > > > have it right.
> > > > > E d   T e n n y s o n
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com