(no subject)

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

> Schneider Fred <fwschneider at comcast.net> wrote:


> What has given me utter amazement is how dense
> the human and industrial (job) population had
> to be in Manchester in the teens and twenties
> in order to support routes 16, 17, 18, 19 and
> 20 in a one-square mile area.  That was not
> the era of government operation.   It was
> private enterprise.   You did not run empty
> streetcars.   You ran routes because you
> could fill the cars.
>
> The same applied to the Strip District.  
> Can we imagine today that the area along Penn
> and Liberty Avenues from 11th to 33rd had so many
> jobs that it warranted an incline down from
> Herron Hill, a separate route from Manchester
> over the 16th Street Bridge,  the Spring Hill
> and Spring Hill and Spring Garden lines over
> the 16th Street Bridge, and rush hour trippers
> on East Liberty routes that didn't go downtown
> but only went to the strip district to service
> the factories?


Maybe the following provides a clue or piece of evidence in this "puzzle:"

"The "historic examples" of high passenger traffic densities carried
by street tramway lines come from cities such as San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Chicago and New York. Such high traffic densities are
conspicuous by their absence from Seattle "historic data." This, we
admit, came as something as a surprise, because we did not anticipate
such "low" annual traffic density statistics. For Seattle data, see 
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/trafficdensity/data/SSeattle.htm 
For
example: at 1923, Seattle Municipal Street Railway street tramway lines
(electric and cable) carried 88.9 million passengers (the sum of
"revenue" and "transfer" passengers, equivalent to "boardings" as used
today).
Nearly 90 million annual boardings is is an impressive
figure by today's standards - but there's a "catch." The average travel
distance "back then" was significantly shorter than it is today. That,
in other words, means that transit systems carried many more
"short-distance" trips than they do today."

The above from:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=173

The real key here is this sentence isn't it?
"That,
in other words, means that transit systems carried many more
"short-distance" trips than they do today."

>From our perspective of minimal if any transit usage in 2008, so many lines in one area seems like overkill doesn't it.  Standing in their shoes to look at the number of lines available may seem quite normal or maybe not even enough since they possibly rode shorter distances (reference above) and possibly much more often daily.  This would dictate more service than known today whether increased frequency or number of lines.

This is only one factor to consider; there are probably many more but it seems like a very reasonable observation.


Phil

PS:  I went to the 'home' page of the url provided by Mr.Barry:
http://www.publictransit.us/

I find it interesting - odd - that an 'About' tab is not listed; i.e., it lacks identification as to who operates the site and purpose although the basic approach is pro-transit.  The site seems to have a northwest bias - observation, not criticism.