[PRCo] visual pollution or work of art

[Dwight Long]

Fred

Two points.

1)  Add Paris

2)  Not just cost of fuel, but operational performance on those SF hills.  Somewhat similar situation in Seattle.  But who can explain Dayton?

Dwight

From: Fred Schneider 
Sent: Friday, 13 December, 2013 12:34
To: Western PA Trolley discussion 
Subject: Re: [PRCo] visual pollution or work of art
I think there is a basic premise that if you put two people in a room, Dennis, you have a potential argument.    Politicians have learned to use them to their advantage.

As Phillip pointed out, the long lens can be deliberately used to make the trolley wires look ugly.   The telephoto lens can also be used in hilly cities like San Francisco and Pittsburgh to enhance the view, make the streets look steeper, and make the distant objects seem closer.    If we used a 28 mm lens to take the slide (or 15 mm on digital) many of us would never find the wires objectionable.   But there will always be those who will see the ugly … otherwise New York, Washington and London would have never been forced to invest fortunes in underground conduit to power their trolley lines.

But I see nothing more than a San Francisco Chronicle photographer who was asked to make it look ugly to support the visual pollution theme in the article.   He was sent out to prove a point.   Very little journalism today is unbiased.   You get readers, then advertisers, and make money if you jump into the middle of a debate.   

In the 1940s, General Electric published a booklet in which they aimed, of course, to sell their hardware.   They explained that if you could fill your vehicle, on average, every five minutes, then buy PCC cars.   If the traffic required service every 5 to 7 minutes, use trolley buses.   Over 7 minutes, use diesel buses.   If the service was erratic, then use gasoline buses.   Of course those were average economics in the 1940s.  That window for trolley buses vanished as we bought cars after the war and most cities which bought them found they had made a huge mistake by the early 1950s.   San Francisco was the exception because the city owned its own hydro-electric plant in the Sierra Nevada mountains … except for paying Pacific Gas and Electric a transmission charge, the power was almost free.   So while most cities got rid of their trackless trolleys, Muni kept theirs.   I guess if Muni has any sense, they will keep the electric network because the price of fossil fuels can only go up as the global supply diminishes.   

Wouldn't you like to see a survey showing how many of the complainers about the visual pollution from the wires ride transit and how many drive their own cars?   And perhaps also how many realize how much their taxes might go up if they had to pay for fossil fuels to run the network and how many of the protesters are clueless?   




On Dec 13, 2013, at 6:44 AM, DF Cramer wrote:

> Not Pennsylvania-----but some of us consider wire work an integral part of the electric transit experience and some do not. You decide----I think the photographer was leaning towards art.
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Muni-trolley-wire-visual-pollution-electrifies-5056671.php
> 
> Dennis F. Cramer 
> http://home.windstream.net/dfc1/      
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.dementix.org/pipermail/pittsburgh-railways/attachments/20131213/9b4ac8ba/attachment.html 
> _______________________________________________
> Pittsburgh-railways mailing list
> Pittsburgh-railways at mailman.dementix.org
> https://mailman.dementix.org/mailman/listinfo/pittsburgh-railways





_______________________________________________
Pittsburgh-railways mailing list
Pittsburgh-railways at mailman.dementix.org
https://mailman.dementix.org/mailman/listinfo/pittsburgh-railways



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dementix.org/pipermail/pittsburgh-railways/attachments/20131213/f1c24917/attachment.html