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

[John Swindler]

Notice I said that separate 'asset maintenance' funds forces transit 
authorities to at least make a SHOW of maintaining equipment.

As for maintaining equipment, Harrisburg is still operating some new look 
buses acquired around 1975 in base service.  Yes, they went through a 
rebuild, but this shows that it still can be done - if management wants to.

But Harrisburg is an exception.





>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 12:35:58 -0400
>
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com