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

[Fred W. Schneider III]

And we've long known that Harrisburg is an exception.  By the way
Derrick, this city is in Pennsylvania.  Is ATA Transit Management still
running the show for Capital Area Transit Authority?

For those who wonder, CAT is still running "New Look" GMs, which are now
very much old look ... thirty to forty year old buses in quite
respectable condition.  And Lancaster is also an exception ... though
they're off the streets now, RRTA re-engined all of their 1971 Twin's. 
But, we both know these are exceptions.  The real world is the big
cities (those places with 1 to 10 million population).  

John Swindler wrote:
> 
> 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