[PRCo] Re: http://davesrailpix.railfan.net/pitts/htm/kjpgh300.htm

[Donald Galt]

On 16 May 01, at 9:54, John Swindler wrote:

> 
> 
> Where was the housing???  What was the housing density along upper
> Charles St. vs. lower Charles St.?  Where did the customers live for
> both 7 and 9??
> 
> Did route 7 always travel along 6, 13/14/15 route into Pittsburgh, or
> did it at one time serve the area north of North Ave.?   Did route 7
> once have an exclusive service area in the Mexican War street section
> of Allegheny City that would warrent frequent service?

In later years, at least, it shared the 6-13-14-15 route.

> 
> My Gulf Oil map shows that Charles St. served by route 9 was only a
> bit over a half mile in length.  That's a quarter mile to more
> frequent service on either Perrysville or lower Charles St.  There is
> also a Pleasant Valley playground in the area to reduce
> housing/trolley customers.
> 
> Maybe the answer is that route 9 wasn't much more then a franchise
> car, and the business was on the lower area served by frequent route 7
> single end cars?
> 

Well, gosharootie, if it's service area you are looking for, it's hard to 
justify the 7 as it existed. Except for the outer end loop it was just 
a block from Brighton Road. The loop itself lies in a narrow valley 
occupied essentially by Charles and Strauss Streets and nothing 
else. Mixed use. The nearest residential neighbourhood sits 140 
feet up a stairway from the end of the line, and is about as easily 
reached from Melrose Avenue to the south.

As you proceed up Charles street the valley broadens, is better 
populated and opens onto some side streets. To be sure, at this 
point you begin to approach Perrysville Avenue, but that street runs 
a daunting 100 feet or so above you. And consider, the end of the 7 
at Irwin Avenue is itself scarsely more than a quarter-mile from 
Brighton Road. I'd guess that a substantial part of route 7 traffic 
came from people trudging down from the neighbourhoods higher 
up Charles Street, i.e. the area served by the Transfer.

> So who has a copy of the PUC abandonment petition for route 9???
> 

Date of abandonment 14 Sept 1951 - but of course you knew that! 
We're waiting to see what you come up with.    :-)

Don