[PRCo] Fw: status of PRC maintenance

[Harold G.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold G. <transitmgr2 at earthlink.net>
To: transitmgr2 at earthlink.net <transitmgr2 at earthlink.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:46 PM
Subject: status of PRC maintenance


Greetings to Jim and all
 
First may I say that our discussion group should not further continue this topic.
 
It is clear that there are differences of opinion and that there are words
or opinions being emailed that I never said.
 
I had no personal differences with Mr Palmer  In fact I never met him
until the Skybus court case.  I never commented on any thing about
safety.  My comments were about paint, cleanliness and over all
appearance,
 
I was not involved in the condemnation of the PRC.  This was handled by
Col Swift and the lawyers.  A consultant, Coverdale & Colpits, made
an inspection of each car and bus and this was submitted to the court
after negotiations failed.  These reports were all public records and 
were the basis of PAT not taking all cars resulting in the cars placed in Rankin.
Col Swift showed me many of the photos used in the court case.
 
Jim makes use of many impressions he has about what I wrote.  My remarks
were simple without double meaning.   My use of "emotional" and  "liking me"
were figures of speach.  I never had any personal views  of Mr Palmer other
than his own statements about establishing maintenance priorities.
 
The acquisition of the PRC and bus lines was in accordance with the
law establising PAT.  As I said, I was never involved in these acquisitions.
 Col Swift had very high standards of appearance, paint and cleanliness.
As a respected transit manager, he often said that PRC was not up to
his standards.  He was pro-streetcar and once suggested in a newspaper
interview that PAT could place two PCC cars back to back and cut
some doors in on the blind sides.
 
I take exception to your remarks about the Pittsburgh area's views
about appearance.  After Mayor Lawrence and General Richard Mellon
cleaned up the air in the late 40's, the community built on these changes
and created Gateway Center, etc. The population set out to change the
image of what you call a "scrubby place".  During all this, most of
the independent bus lines had high standards of appearance which
continued until PAT.   Penn Transit operating in a mill town, McKeesport,
always had high standards.  Shafer and Ohio River served Aliquippa and 
Ambridge with clean painted buses.  This was true every where except in the Homestead-Mon Valley area.   Even there, there were exceptions.  McKeesport
Transit was clean and nicely painted.  In the Allegheny Valley, Harmony
(then Community) and Ciulmerville were spotless.  Residential areas in
Pittsburgh were clean and well cared for.  I lived for 7 years in Dormont
and was never ashamed of the community.  I later lived in Penn Hills, worked
in Tarentum, and lived in downtown Pittsburgh and Shadyside.
 
Jim's email contained many ".." giving his added interpertation to my remarks.
I never said"
    "that PRC was "utterly gross"
    "that I was "disappointed and even fustrated with what PRC could have done"
    "that I was "apparently hinting at the decrepit condition of PRC"
These were not my "caustic" remarks.   Instead, they are Jim's. 
 
Several members of our group have agreed about the good maintenance
in Cleveland and on many of the independents.. Others have commented
on some poor examples of PRC appearance.
 
This current discussion started when Ken added a remark to his
transmittral of photos of Cleveland trolley buses.  He said "I sometimes
wonder what it cost to maintain these fancy paint schemes".
To which I replied:
      "part of the PRC imge problem was poor maintenance of bodies,
       paint and washing"
      In Cleveland,"the entire fleet looked good, including PCC cars,
      big Peter Witts, artics and buses"  If you look at Ken's photos, 
      all vehicles had a uniform good appearance.  and most were
      stored outside.
      "Cleveland looked good because their General Manager, Donald Hyde, 
      understood this."
      Hyde was one of the industry's best general managers.  He
      was responsible for the only new rapid transit system added to
      the original four (NY, Chicago,Boston and Phila).  The Cleveland
      rapid opened in l954.  It took to the late l960's to add PATCO and 
      BART.  Hyde was also a developer of new management.  Hyde's
      people went on to run PATCO, Washington, Atlanta and twice in Cleveland.
      For example, Bob Korach at PATCO was developed by Donald Hyde.
      
In my opinion. "CD Palmer did not" understand  the needs for good 
appearance.  "PRC did not help build public opinion"  "This has been
my opinion from the l960's"  I called this an "emotional" response
but it was one based on my observations and the evidence submtted
in the court case,  One has to use Mr Palmer's name because the
entire PRC corporate management consiststed only of Mr Palmer and one Vice 
President, Clyde Ligo.
 
I mentioned Milwaukee because their standards were similar to
Cleveland.  If fact, while I am not sure of this, I believe that Don Hyde
had worked for Milwaukee before Cleveland.

"When National City went into Los Angeles, Phila, St Louis, etc they
painted and cleaned every thing"  This was an investment they made for better  maintenance and lower costs and more profit.  The foremen were aven
dressed in white shop coats. National City felt that their maintetance
staff was more productive working on a clean, painted vehicle in a
clean modern shop.
 
I have stated that the Demeron years at PAT were also not good
maintenance and appearance years.  But by that time, the authority
was scheduled for buses.  The grey paint jobs were poorly done
and did not help build image.  When I replaced Dameron as Transit
Operations Director, Ken Hussong and Phil Castelano worked hard
to improve overall car maintenance and appearance and we were fully
suppotrted by the new Executive Director, John Mauro.  Improving
the PCC appearnce was a key point in our marketing and resulted
in the highest PAT ridership ever.  Ken and Phil's work was more
than cosmetic....it was good maintenance. 
 
I was never critical of PRC safety, or of the building of track, etc.
I never implied that PRC shirked its responsibilities.
 
I do not agree that "what appears nice on other propertoies...is only "cosmetics" and little to nothing of substance.   Its all part of a total package of
good maintenance.  
 
So in conclusion,  my remarks were never persoinal, and were not
"emotional"   An they certainly do not discredit my other observations.
They represent the viewpoint of PAT management and the Board
at that time  They were supported by the evidence submitted in the
court case.  In stead, I believe that Jim's remarks are overly
sensitive based on his strong support of PRC.  His comments and 
his interpertations of my remarks do not change my position.
 
I am sorry that you believe that much of my writing lacks substance.
To the contrary, you have based many of your opinions on your
interpertations of what I have said.  I have no concerns about my writing. 
 
So, may I suggest that we "agree to disagree" and move on.
 
Best wishes to all.
 

HAROLD GEISSENHEIMER