[PRCo] Re: Second Ave

[John Swindler]

Perhaps the cost of street renewal and replacement buses were the reasons 
for longitivity of PRC trolleys.  For Fifth Ave., how many buses would be 
required to replace 73 and 76, and would that also spell end of 71 and 75??  
How many buses to replace 58 and 55??  And would PRC end up with liability 
for large track removal costs in suburban municipalities???

For rest, West End was result of deal with Pa Dept of Highways and city on 
track removal, Butler St. had the 62nd St. Bridge, and wasn't there 
complaints from Squirrel Hill merchants against retention of rail for 60 and 
68??

Someday will have to revisit PUC to see what it says about some of these 
other abandonments.  For rt. 7, there was a comparison between scheduled 
service and ridership in around 1953 vs. just a few rush hour trippers in 
1959 (?)  Would be curious what is mentioned for 60/68 and 94/95/96.

Perhaps the attitude of PRC by late 1950s was:  "make it worth our while, 
and we will remove the rail".

There is also the issue of PRC rate base for establishing fares.

John


>From: Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Subject: [PRCo] Second Ave
>Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:16:56 -0500
>
>John's comment about Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue is significant.
>Yes PRC did relay some rail but they also tore out Butler Street, the
>entire West End, Trafford, Route 68, Shady Ave., Murray Avenue in
>Squirrel Hill, route 96, Aspinwall, Charles Street (both 7 and 9),
>all the shuttles, everything in Washington County.   What they
>replaced was only a drop in the bucket.
>
>