[PRCo] Re: Trolleyville

[Dietrich, Robert J.]

We are forgetting one difference between now and 1904.  The governments
have taken over and everything is subsidized.  So I'll open up another
question - should the government operations hold the line on fares or
ARE they already holding the line.  What would the private Pittsburgh
Railway Company be charging now?

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:54 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Trolleyville

I know.  And they didn't necessarily agree with the nickle either in
1900.  When you made $1.75 a day in 1900, spending 80 cents to take your
wife and kids into downtown to shop on Friday evening was expensive.
But if the "gov'mt paid" 3 or 4 cents of the fare in 1900, it would
still have been pocket change.

Harold Geissenheimer wrote:

> Greetings
> Poor or old people would not agree with Fred.
>
> Harold
>
> Fred Schneider wrote:
>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong but $1.50 today is pretty close to normal.
Now what would be the fare we simply multiplied the nickle in 1900 by an
inflationary index for 104 years?  About $5.40.  What is the true cost
of the $1.50 ride today ... well assuming that the average rider pays
about 30% of the operating costs (and taxes cover the other 70%), then
the operating costs come to $5.00 per passenger (with the other $3.50
coming out of income tax).  But we are still
> >missing 1) the capital costs, 2) the federal, state and local taxes
levied against the private companies, and 3) the profits they wanted to
make.  Those omissions will probably adjust the cost of service today up
to about $7.00 per rider.  So what is the difference between the $5.40
and $7.00 or more?  The affect of having so many fewer passengers on a
vehicle today, particularly in the smaller cities.
> >
> >Therefore I don't see that $1.50 is great enough to have any affect
on who rides.  Its pocket change.  Coke machine change.
> >
> >hrbran99 at adelphia.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Oddly enough, for a large city system, Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) does not have much of a problem with graffiti.
Any which does appear in the buses, cars and trains is cleaned up asap.
Then too, RTA does demand the fare (1.50 one-way/no transfers) from
everyone. This keeps the @$$es off the public tansit. They would rather
walk than pay a $155.00 court summons for failure to pay transit fare.
Our transit police are very efficient also.
> >>
> >>Too bad Pittsburgh wasn't doing that back in 1975 when I got sucker
punched in the right eye over a fare.
> >>
> >>HrB
> >>============================================================
> >>From: <ktjosephson at earthlink.net>
> >>Date: 2004/06/20 Sun PM 10:53:43 EDT
> >>To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> >>Subject: [PRCo] Re: Trolleyville
> >>
> >>Fred Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Running antiques on the street is a scary proposition.  I'm worried
about
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>>Pittsburgh high floor  ... not about those CA&E hulks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I believe you have worn out your welcome in Chicago, Fred. ;-)
> >>
> >>Seriously, my concern is that a number of young people are so deeply
> >>entrenched in the "graffiti culture" that they will carve, paint and
mark up
> >>the cars' interiors beyond recognition.
> >>
> >>I noticed modern style gang tagging scratched into some of the
seatbacks in
> >>one of OERM's PCCs (I believe it was LARy 3100) a few years ago. I
figured
> >>it was the moronic loser children or young gang banging parents of
those
> >>moronic loser children visiting the museum from L.A. or San
Bernadino.
> >>Charlie Brown (of Long Beach Transit fame) informed me that the
mothers of
> >>the twerps living in the apartments that have encroached upon the
land
> >>surrounding the museum have been known to give the little darlings
money and
> >>send them off for a "train ride" so they can have some private time
with
> >>"Uncle Whoever" is living with them that week.
> >>
> >>K.
> >>
> >>============================================================
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >