[PRCo] Re: PUC Oversight

Mon Apr 27 12:14:00 EDT 2009

I once heard a comment that route 49 operated on a 55 minute Sunday headway to get sufficient round trips into the schedule and reduce/eliminate overtime.  The alleged reason was a reduction in trips by going to an hourly headway would require PUC approval.  But being a teenager at the time, never thought to ask for a detailed explanation.   Also, being a teenager at the time, might not have fully understood the context of the comment.  

Cheers

John

> From: trams2 at comcast.net
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: PUC Oversight
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:13:21 -0400
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage2_042009