[PRCo] Re: Fw: [Mileage] PAT Penn Sta. Spur

[Derrick Brashear]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Joshua Dunfield <joshuad at cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On 16 April 2012 05:39, Dwight Long <dwightlong at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Where did the Arlington-Warrington line go?  The name of it would suggest
>> same routing as the 48, i.e. through the tunnel, not up New Arlington
>> Avenue.
>
> Panhandle Bridge to Arlington to Warrington to SHJ.
>
>>> http://lists.dementix.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/52-Allentown%20LRV%20schedule0002.jpg
>
>> 52-Allentown is confusing because of the actual Rt. 52, which as I stated
>> earlier, was an extension of Rt. 50.  That was a very poor choice of number.
>
> The numbering scheme that PAT used until just a couple of years ago
> was highly systematic.  It tried to impose not just a radial-direction
> ordering (inherited from PRCo and already an enormous improvement over
> the random mishmashes at most transit systems) but also to give
> meaning to the second digit: 1, 6 = ordinary bus; 3, 8 = express bus;
> 4, 9 = crosstown; 0, 5 = suburban shuttle.  2 and 7 somehow got used
> for both the T and a seemingly random set of otherwise-ordinary bus
> routes (e.g. 67A, 67F).  (I vaguely recall reading, perhaps on this
> list, that 2 and 7 were used for bus routes acquired from a different
> set of companies.)

the Bus World article from the 70s claimed 2 and 7 were "limited" buses.
I presumed that to mean that while not express there were areas where the bus
ran where it wasn't stopping every block unlike an ordinary bus (for
67s, presumably
Blvd of the Allies)

> I have to admit that virtually no one I knew when I lived in
> Pittsburgh had noticed that the second digit meant anything.  Many
> people thought it was cool once it was explained to them, but most of
> them were also computer science graduate students, who tend to
> appreciate such things.
>
> You can still object to 52 on the basis that it shouldn't have been in
> the 51-55 "bucket" at all, and there you may have a point.  The other
> 51-55 numbered routes that I recall were on East Carson Street, which
> is noticeably "more counterclockwise".  (Moving those routes to 56-60
> wouldn't make sense because 56-60 was used for the Second Avenue
> buses, on the other side of the Mon.)  And most compellingly, the bus
> route that more or less approximated the 52 was in the 46-50 bucket
> (the 46K).
>
> OTOH, if you drop the Arlington-Warrington route into the 46-50
> bucket, that's the same bucket as the Overbrook Line, and therefore
> the same number (assuming you're committed to using 2 and 7 for any T
> route that reaches downtown).  PAT already had to make a special
> announcement in the subway for the 52: "This train does NOT go to
> Station Square!"  Giving it the same number and a different letter as
> an Overbrook train that did go to Station Square would have been quite
> confusing.
>
> (Now that I think of it, the 52 *was* awfully irregular in not having
> a letter as well as a number.)
>
>> As to Brown Line, unless it was named for Bob Brown, which I strongly doubt,
>> I don't want to know.  That is PAT Newspeak.
>>
>> Dwight
>
> Brown is a perfectly respectable color, at least for a line you want
> to get rid of...

My friends who live on the hillside below Arlington had a lot of discussion
about the choice of color and the quality of service received. On the
other hand,
at least until whatever cuts happen, they are happy with the new TDP 43 bus


-- 
Derrick