[PRCo] Re: Shoulda, Coulda, would

Wed Jun 11 21:56:55 EDT 2008

> From: fwschneider at comcast.net> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Shoulda, Coulda, would> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:01:16 -0400> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org> > Interesting question. Remember that the county politics at the time > consisted of two commissioners who were in bed with Westinghouse > Electric Company over Skybus and one (Dr. Hunt) who was opposed to > it. Westinghouse was the hometown industry. Industries buy > politicians. Politicians put the people they want on the transit > authorities. Therefore, I do see any question that the Port > Authority structure would have been any different than you saw it > when it was created in 1964.> 

Dr. Hunt was a minority commissioner.  He could not stop Skybus.  It was Ed Tennyson at PennDOT that stopped Skybus by not agreeing to provide state aid.  The county commissioners wanted Skybus - as long as they didn't have to pay one-third the cost.  The PAT board would 'go with the flow'.  The other player was Mayor Flaherty.  

> Now let's assume that Pittsburgh Railways had lasted another ten > years ... hardly likely because the state had passed legislation > allowing transit authorities and Johnstown Traction Company was the > last private operator and it went public about 1978. But let's > dream. In our dream anything is possible. In the next ten years > the owner of the railways would have been continually hounded by the > city to do what the city wanted.> 

Fred has his legislation mixed up.  The Municipalities Authority Act has been around since about 1950 or earlier.  This was the legislation used to form CAMTRAN, BCTA, WCTA, Red Rose, etc.  But not PAT (nor SEPTA).  PAT was formed under the Port Authority Act which was passed mid-1950s.

Your ignoring economics and politics, Fred, when you assume that politicians want to get into the transit business.  Public transit is the unwanted step-child.  Politicians don't want to become involved with public transportation.  It doesn't help them get re-elected.   They (almost) only get involved when forced. That also applies to Johnstown.

The assumption has always been that the Port Authority was created to take over Pittsburgh Railways, if I might make a sweeping generalization.  Maybe it's because we have a rail fixation, and PRC was the biggest game in town.  But maybe the Port Authority got into the transit business to bail out a lot of politically well connected private bus operators?  Perhaps instead of looking at how little PAT offered PRC, look at how much PAT offered some of the private operators.

> The West End was already gone because PRC didn't want to spend any > money fighting the state highway department to keep the money loosing > West End lines in operation. Read the 1948 Louge Report, Jerry. At > that time the West End lines lost $365,000 a year (that's about $4 > million in today's money).> 

Check the PUC docket, Fred.  The state highway department made PRC an offer they could nto refuse.

> The Millvale Route was the only one that carried that Division and > the State was crowding them out because of proposed construction of > the Allegheny Valley Expressway. Of course it took 30 years after > abandonment for the expressway to be finally built and my uncle was > wearing a T-shirt that said "I lived long enough to drive the > Alegheny Valley Expressway." Troy Hill, Etna and Spring Garden only > had a very marginal profit in 1948 and probably didn't earn anything > by 1950.> 

Bet I'd find the same situation with the Millvale route as with the west end routes.

> The Manchester routes were quite profitable ... with Western Avenue > alone bringing home almost half the bacon for the entire division. > However, that area was rather depressed and remember the city wanted > to redevelop Manchester. While the bus garage was still there when > PAT took over and it later became PAT's headquarter's site, all of > the Manchester car lines except for 6 and 13 were already gone under > Pittsburgh Railways before PAT was formed. So we know what would > have happened there.> > What about the Keating routes? Perrysville Avenue was a strong > route. In 1958 it banked about $40,000 profit. That was about $5 > million in today's money. But the other Keating routes lost $198,000 > in 1948. Kind of hard to keep one route, isn't it Jerry, when the > city is redeveloping the lower north side and eliminating Federal > Street from North Avenue down to Ohio Street. PRC would have had to > lay new tracks around the west side of the Allegheny Commons. Would > the revenue have held up enough to justify it? Let me start off by > saying that I am not a racist but I've been told that you do not > Perry Hilltop is not the worst neighborhood in Pittsburgh today but > you do not drive through it with your doors unlocked. My > grandmother's old home off Perrysville Avenue is owned by a black > family and it look better now than it has in many years. But the > question remains, has ridership (or ridership as a rail line) have > held up enough to justify rebuilding the tracks around Allegheny > Commons.> > The Glenwood routes were not totally gone under Pittsburgh Railways. > However, routes 56, 57, 58 were scheduled to go under Pittsburgh > Railways and the project was concluded by PAT. Why? Because of the > new Glenwood Bridge. So it would not of mattered who was sitting > behind the desk, they would have been gone.> 

Then why rebuild Second Ave. for one route???  

Why rebuild Fifth for two routes???

> Tunnel Car House: The money loosing routes were Castle Shannon, > Pittsburgh-Mount Lebanon-Castle Shannon, Brookline and Beltzhoover. > Interesting, is it not, that most of these form the nucleus of what > runs today. In 1948, they lost over a quarter of a million > dollars! Why? Long distances and limited revenue. The allocation > formulae might also be suspect because it might have been allocated > car mile and not by car hour. But it does show that under politics > we have chosen to keep a high speed alternate to highways even though > the allocation method used in 1948 showed money was being lost > providing a service.> > Carrick Car House: This is an anomaly. Route 47 Carrick via Tunnel > showed a profit of $70,000 while 53 Carrick via S. 18th showed a loss > of $19,000. Why, because the rush hour business and the full cars > were on route 47. Taken collectively, Carrick made money ... about > $50,000. It was on par with Perrysville. If we want to dream, it > might have been a keeper. But then if there had been no Port > Authority, then Brentwood Motor Coach might have more aggressively > fought to take away the business.> > Craft Avenue, Bunker Hill, Homewood, Plummer Street and Herron Hill > Car Houses: Now this is where the company made it's money. These > routes offset the losses everywhere else. Only routes 60, 62, 66 and > 68 lost money. Everything else raked in the coins. These five > divisions raked in more than $1.5 million dollars profit (that's > about $18 million today). The heaviest or most profitable routes > were 85 Bedford ($361,000 profit ... shortest route with incredible > population density), 88 Frankstown ($339,000 profit), 82 Lincoln > ($263,000 profit), 75 Wilkinsburg ($150,000), 50 Carson St. > ($136,000), 87 Admore ($130,000). Note the common thread here, > Jerry, all of these routes have closely spaced row houses ... > tenements ... block deep on either side of the tracks. We're > talking the most densely populated part of the city. While we do > know where the passengers went, the combined total for the 60s and > 70s except for 60 and 62 was slightly over 50 million fares a year > which would be about 70,000 individual riders or 150,000 fares a day > on the routes that went through Oakland. That suggests that if you > wanted to keep anything, the place to do it might have been (and > still might be) the spine line into Oakland.> > However, well meaning politicians in the 1970s converted East Liberty > from a vibrant commercial center to a place where no one goes by > forcing motorists to drive around the core of that part of > Pittsburgh. Homewood, Brushtown, Point Breeze and Wilkinsburg, > which were once served by routes 64, 65, 66, 75, 76, 87, 88 are what > I would consider non-destinations today. Wilkinsburg Borough was > forced into bankruptcy, I believe, when they could not pay their > power bill for street lighting. So would those routes or 71 and 73 > have lasted beyond the late 1960s as rail lines? I doubt it. They > would have lasted until the very first paving project or bridge renewal.> > I'm not sure that politics would have changed it too much Jerry.> > One of the key points was that steel turned down in 1982 and dragged > everything with it. On one Friday alone, U. S. Steel handed out > 20,000 pink slips in Allegheny County. The wages within U. S. > Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Jones and Laughlin, and Wheeling - Pittsburgh > Steel were sufficiently high that if you fire one steel worker, some > one, somewhere else in the nation is also going to loose a job > because of what that steel worker does not buy. Of course, if they > were able to go on pension, that rule doesn't hold true. U. S. Steel > was the largest employer in Allegheny County at one time and it is > still in the top ten ... but there are a who lot of hospitals that > are larger today. When steel went down, it also dragged a lot of > ancillary suppliers with it like Mesta Mlachine Co. In addition, > all bars or tap rooms outside the mill gates went out of business > Eighth Street in Homestead began to look like a ghost town. So did > 5th St. in McKeesport. So did downtown McKees Rocks. Pittsburgh > lost about half it's population, down to under 350,000 people today. > The old towns around it also lost volumes: McKeesport, Duquesne, > Homestead, Braddock, Rankin, North Braddock, Wilmerding, Wilkinsburg, > etc., etc., etc.> > With that as a backdrop, Jerry, I doubt that any politician was going > to do any more with PAT in the 1980s and 1990s than a custodial > role. If the Federal government is going to give you free money, > that's one thing. But they have been having enough trouble just > finding money to run what they have (and as some of you have noticed, > they are still trying to run what they had in 1960 even though half > the people are no longer there to ride it).>
> I would like to be able to come back in 100 years and see how America > has changed.> > Have we awakened?> > Are we still a democracy?> > How many people are riding horses?> > Is W's great great granddaughter President and lying to us that there > is still oil?> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Jerry MATT Matsick wrote:> > > If in fact there were people with a mind for Rail Transit on the > > initial PAT board of directors like some> > of you good men, what would the PAT PRCo be like today as far as > > street car lines, what would or> > should have been kept, a streetcar line to Oakland, Wilkensburg, > > North Hills or to the West End? With the gas costs so high > > today, would in fact modern street cars have been less expensive to > > operate, just was> > wondering what should, coulda or would have happened if the right > > people were in charge.> > Your comments are appreciated.> > --> > From the RIVER CITY by the Sea!> > Jerry "Matt" Matsick> > J A C K S O N V I L L E, Florida !> >> > 
_________________________________________________________________
Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_InviteFriends