[PRCo] Re: PUC Oversight

[Edward H. Lybarger]

In general, the PUC was responsive to an operator's financial loss on
specific routes, but that began to change post-war.  The politicians had
more and more say in what went on, and in Pittsburgh the politicians were
trying their best to harass PRCo.  The mayor and the city solicitor would
have been happy any time a rail route was proposed for abandonment, so there
wasn't much opposition.  The PUC went through the motions of hearing
opponents, but they approved virtually everything.

I don't believe they had much to say about scheduled and the like, unless
there were complaints.  But in that event, they accepted the economics of
the argument.

It has been reported, though, that because of local pressure the PUC refused
to allow abandonment of the Castle Shannon Incline.  The hopes were that
this would cause sufficient operating losses to reduce the ultimate value of
the company when PAT took over.

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: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:54 AM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] PUC Oversight


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%20
AIS.jpg