[PRCo] PUC Oversight

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Lybarger;


Tremendous help, thank you.  It would seem that PRC renewed the rails,
laid new brick, the channel is the extra space required to do this work which
is now ready for filling.


I changed the subject line.  How did the PUC function relative to transit in
the 1940s and 1950s?  I have vague recollections that when PRC wanted to
abandon service that proof of 'red ink' had to be submitted and that this
virtually guaranteed approval.  I never investigated this at the time as I
believed the old saw that one couldn't fight city hall and I had other responsibilities;
this was generally accepted without complaint by the public - or so it seemed.

What about changes in operations to routes - shortening hours, greater headways,
etc;  did these require PUC approval?  I am sure that public opinion would be
solicited on any transit changes submitted to the PUC;  did the public respond?
Did public opposition or input carry much weight?


Phil





> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Edward H. Lybarger <trams2 at comcast.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 12:39:49 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
> 
> My guess is that it is just the line of demarcation between PRCo-maintained
> street and city-maintained street, and that one or the other has just done
> some work.  The one I would choose is the streetcar company, because its
> surface looks pristine while the remainder of the street does not.  It will
> probably be the city's job to fill the gap?  Or not.
> 
> If I got really ambitious, which probably won't happen right now (!), I'd
> look in the track sketch book for 1931 to see what work was done on Forbes
> Street.  But I'm tired...I'm just back from another jaunt and have a lot
> staring at me, and don't have any energy!
> 
> I'm no help, am I?!
> 
> Ed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
> [mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org] On Behalf Of Phillip
> Clark Campbell
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: derail
> 
> 
> Mr.Lybarger;
> 
> 
> I wish you were able to share the other photographs;  some of us can't view
> them in person.  Very nice photo isn't it.  (I say this 'mostly' because I
> like your tongue-in-cheek replies don't I.)
> 
> I see a 'canal' between the brick track paving and road paving;  I have
> noted this in other photographs and 'assumed' it was street upgrading.  It
> seems rather common.  However it appears that a rut is not evident on the
> other track.  I now wonder if it serves a purpose - segregating the trolley
> from traffic?
> Certainly not drainage.  There have been enough photos that this has piqued
> my interest;  none of the photos exhibit any evidence of ongoing road work.
> 
> I doubt any clerk kept details of this work for our edification;  just a
> curiosity item isn't it.
> 
> 
> Phil

http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/derail_number68_ca_1950. jpg

http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/5450%20Rt%2071%201931%20AIS.jpg