[PRCo] Re: 84 Larimer/96 East Liberty

[John Swindler]

So I wasn't imagining that.  Thanks, Herb

John


>From: <hrbran99 at adelphia.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>Subject: [PRCo] Re: 84 Larimer/96 East Liberty
>Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:02:58 -0500
>
>I operated buses out of East Liberty division beginning in 1972 and worked 
>also at Collier and South Hills Car House until 1980. The Forbes Avenue 
>buses had the new numbers, however, the Fifth Avenue buses (71/73/75/76) 
>still carried the old trolley numbers. 71A/B/C/D came about sometime after 
>1979 or 1980.
>
>HrB
> >
> > From: Fred Schneider <fschnei at supernet.com>
> > Date: 2004/12/04 Sat AM 10:29:31 EST
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: 84 Larimer/96 East Liberty
> >
> > Well, the East End trolley route numbers lingered into the bus era 
>because the
> > operators refused to have different route numbers on different days.  
>So, for as
> > long as the trolleys were running on weekdays, there were weekend buses 
>with the
> > same route numbers.  Once the cars quit in 1967, then the bus lines went 
>to the
> > new numbering scheme.  Source of information was probably Norm Vutz who 
>was at
> > CIT (CMU) at the time but it may have come from Trolley Fare.   I think 
>they may
> > have put the new numbers on the buses and the union may have threatened 
>a work
> > stoppage.  You know, its Pittsburgh.  fws
> > John Swindler wrote:
> >
> > > The "U" routes were instituted in early 1970s to provide direct 
>service to
> > > University district, or more properly, Oakland.  At the time, 
>ridership was
> > > around 120 million per year.  This was also time of first gas 
>restrictions.
> > >
> > > I think there was also some direct service instituted to Community 
>College,
> > > but must leave it to Harold for these route numbers.
> > >
> > > 71 A,B,C, and D were former 71, 73, 75 and 76 streetcar routes, as
> > > mentioned.  Didn't some of the trolley numbers linger into the bus 
>era????
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > >From: Joshua Dunfield <Joshua_Dunfield at mlist-0.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
> > > >Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > >To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > > >Subject: [PRCo] Re: 84 Larimer/96 East Liberty Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004
> > > >16:19:33 -0500
> > > >
> > > >Derrick Brashear wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Joshua Dunfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > * Speaking of which, does anyone know of inconsistently numbered
> > > > > > PAT routes other than 56U (should go downtown but doesn't) and,
> > > > > > formerly, 71B (which didn't go downtown, but was fixed by being
> > > > > > renumbered 74B)?
> > > > >
> > > > > well, 71B used to go downtown... it certainly did when i was in 
>high
> > > > > school; all of 71A,B,C,D were functionally 71, 73, 75, 76 
>streetcar
> > > >lines,
> > > > > modulo one-way-street changes
> > > >
> > > >I believe the story is that, as you say, 71B went downtown; when the
> > > >500 was created, it subsumed the 71B, and the 71B became a shuttle.
> > > >
> > > >I'm pretty sure 71B/74B has been a shuttle since I got here in 2000.
> > > >
> > > > > 56U was "it's the same route as 56C but then splits to Oakland",
> > > >probably.
> > > >
> > > >It is?  Looks to me like 56C and 56U are completely different.  56U 
>doesn't
> > > >travel on Irvine or Second at all (except to turn around), and 56U 
>never
> > > >crosses the Mon so there's no similarity there.
> > > >
> > > > > See also 67U (now gone).
> > > >
> > > >I think I've seen "64U Oakland-Sq Hill" on a bus stop sign somewhere
> > > >on Beeler.  (Good to know we can count on those signs being 
>accurate.)
> > > >Is that what you're thinking of, or was 67U something else?
> > > >
> > > >Hmm, googling "64U Oakland Squirrel Hill" is interesting:
> > > >
> > > >"* Service along PAT's 64U and 74U routes has been discontinued for
> > > >the summer. Alternate service for 64U is available on 61A, 61B and 
>61C
> > > >routes and for 74U on 71A and 71C."
> > > >     http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/28/71896/05.html
> > > >
> > > >-j.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>