[PRCo] Re: W_a[i]t a Minute...

Mon Jun 12 17:19:28 EDT 2006

It seems the  Did--Better  reference from Boris is in equipment and 
infrastructure maintenance, not related to expansion // survivability.
..
LATL  certainly qualifies in this category  --  excellent Track, 
Overhead, Equipment maintenance right up to the end.
..
San Francisco Muni   NEVER   had preventive maintenance until the advent 
of the Boeing lrv in the 1980s  (The People's Railway, pg.204, 2nd 
column.)       But Muni never contended with Winter Snows.       Caught 
up to them in the 1970s  --  PCCs in horrible condition eletro / 
mechanically  --  best I would describe it is  Criminal__Neglect.
.
.
.
Jim
.
.
.
Fred Schneider wrote:
..

>And there were some that did a lot worse.   New York City had an even worse political climate than Pittsburgh, in which they were forced to adhere to a 5 cent fare until the private companies simply went brokeand the city took them over.    Third Avenue Railway in New York got into a tussle with the city over its franchise in which TARS reminded the city that its trolley franchise was perpetual and the mayor of New York could not force them to shut down or convert to bus.   And the mayor responded that there was a bus subsidiary (Surface Transportation Company) which had short term franchises, and that if TARS didn't give up its trolley franchises, the mayor would cancel its bus franchises.    Eventually the city owned all the bus and subway lines and all the drivers, mechanics, and office help worked for the mayor, which I'm sure was the political plum hizhonor was after all along.
>
>City government also forced private companies out of business very early in San Francisco, Cleveland, Chicago, Boston, Detroit and Seattle in the 1930s and 1940s.   Toronto Civic forced Toronto Railway out of business in the 1920s.   Miami and Coral Gables were municipal operations pretty much from the beginning.    In my mind, forcing them out of business is something that happened back when you still might have been able to make some money as a private company (1950 and earlier).   Public ownership in the 1960s was done because private companies simply didn't have enough revenue to survive.
>
>The City of Dallas told the operator of all the lines on the south side of town that they were not allowed to run them because they were not a local company ... the city was demanding that only a local company run the trolleys.   It was Northern Texas Traction over in Fort Worth that owned the lines in the south side of Dallas.   That never really changed except that Dallas Railway and Terminal rented the routes for as long as there were trolley lines, first from NTT and later from its successor, Fort Worth Transit Company (NTT went out of business about 1933).
>
>As I think about this, I'm not really sure who it is that did a whole lot better.      Washington DC may have been the only area that really expanded and then only because government types need to hold meetings to reinforce their decisions, and because they need to be in one place so the  lobbyists can wine and dine them.  That area has expanded by something like a half million people in the last 30 years.     It still has a huge number of inner city jobs.   I think the potential was there for Los Angeles but only on certain routes ... most of the system collapsed like every other city.
>
>On Jun 12, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>But there were transit companies in the US that did better.
>>
>>B
>>

>>From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>>    
>>
>>>We simply need to understand that this was a private company, separated by 1950 from the Philadelphia Company, totally dependent on fares for revenue.   Furthermore they were operating in a political climate that could, in its best sense, be described as adversarial. If PRC did anything to make money, such as investing money in other areas (gasoline stations on its property, for example), the city came down on them like a ton of bricks because that might increase the condemnation costs to the city.    There was nada that PRC could do that was correct in the city's eyes.   And the Pittsburgh Post Gazette didn't make life easy either; they habitually showed Charles Palmer frowning.
>>>
>>>I'm afraid, Boris, that you you are attempting to compare what you saw in your youth in Europe with Pittsburgh.   What was run as a communist or socialist venture for the good of the party and the needs of the public.   The other was operated to squeeze the last ounces of money out of a system on behalf of the investors and subject to state regulators.  The goals and operations are totally different and cannot be compared.
>>>
>>>Under those conditions, it was a miracle that the cars ran at all.
>>>

>>>On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>They also did not waste money on wiring cosmetic. They simply laid
>>>>a fluff
>>>>of wires.
>>>>
>>>>B
>>>>