[PRCo] Re: Rt 56 ROW

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

Mr.Gula,
This just underscores the old addage of the only constant is
change doesn't it.  It is a given since the beginning of time that
people move and change habits and direction if not purpose.
The light rail movement across the country for the last several
decades seems to underscore another old addage:  back to the
future or everything that goes around then comes around.  Rail
was removed in most of those places and now it is back again.

56A in the 1950s forward was little more than 11-East St, 14-Avalon,
37-Shannon, 43-Neeld, 47-Carrick via tunnel, 57-Glenwood,
88-Frankstown Short and others -- simple rush hour trippers over
the heaviest portion of the line.  A look at schedules (where available)
for the whole PRCo system revealed longer headways with time.
Ridership went down on all lines, some more than others.

I am skeptical that finding a letter about tracks on the new Glenwood 

bridge means PRCo wanted to eliminate rail on lighter routes.  We do
not know all the reasoning that went behind that decision; every thought
and idea and comment is not recorded for our benefit.  Many factors
would weigh on such a decision; the imminent Pat takeover for one.
The wheels on a public authority started turning much faster in the mid-
1950s.  Why would PRCo entertain such expenses when they would be
forced out of business in just a few years?  Yes, the rwy did renew some
track in the latter 1950s but on a heavier portion of the line.

Mr.Lybarger has written here onlist that the rwy essentially received its
requests when it petitioned the PUC about service changes.  If the full
56-line was a drain then why wasn't the line outbound of Lincoln Place
abandoned?  The fact that until 1959 the rwy remained essentially intact
speaks volumes loudly that the rwy wanted to maintain rail doesn't it.
We can ask the same questions about other lines as well.

"Part" of the purpose of the railway is to offer "service" for mobility.  Owl
lines might run at a deficit offset / absorbed by rush hour service.  Mid-
day service is similar -- not all trips at all hours of the days shall run
packed cars.  This is quite standard.

To reduce transit considerations simply to an economic study would 

see the vast majority of lines eliminated wouldn't it.  Indeed, a 

tremendous number of business would cease to exist as well, not because
of a loss of transit, but if Christmas was eliminated!  How many times
has it been reported that:  "if it weren't for Christmas, many businesses
would operate in the red."  If such is true, why not open those businesses
only at Christmas?  Why not save the loss of operating all year?

It hasn't been lost on me:  when a transit line is lost due to low ridership,
another line just takes its place.  It won't take long that all transit would
be eliminated on that basis alone.

We don't have the whole picture and never shall; most employees of any
company will tell us:  'the public knows what happens before we the
employees do.  Please -- let's not generalize about the rwy intent some
half century ago without substantial evidence.


Phil





>________________________________
>From: George W. Gula <scranton-pa at comcast.net>
>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 8:43 PM
>Subject: [PRCo] Rt 56 ROW
>
>Lets examine the entire route. Heavy traffic made for a very slow-going ride
>in and outbound on Second Avenue along the J&L Mill and though the Hazelwood
>and Glenwood areas. By the time Route 56 was abandoned in 1963, ridership
>was going down and these neighborhoods were changing.
>
>Beyond the Glenwood neighborhood and the Glenwood Bridge, the PRW stretched
>fairly straight through Hays and Lincoln Place to Dravosburg. Between Hays
>and Lincoln Place, the line ran alongside a very narrow Mifflin Road, which
>everyone wanted to see widened. The classic ROW was actually between Lincoln
>Place and Dravosburg, but served a moderate to lightly settled area and
>provided only light traffic outside the rush hour beyond Lincoln Place. In
>fact there were 56A cars that ran out only as far as Lincoln Place.
>
>The PRCo was interested in getting out of the streetcar business on these
>marginal lines. There is an letter I found in the PTM archives some years
>ago in which PRCo had told PennDot around 1957 not to plan for tracks in the
>Glenwood Bridge when it was replaced. This occurred in 1963 and the line was
>abandoned.
>
>PRCo was interested in maintaining rail service on the heavy lines in the
>East End and South Hills where it made economic sense but operating
>streetcars on the rest of the system would only occur if it made economic
>sense. Today, McKeesport, Glenwood, Hazelwood and Hays have lost significant
>population. One can shoot a cannon and it wouldn't hit anything for blocks.
>PRCo saw this coming and correctly got out of the rail business there.
>
>
>George Gula 
>