Over the last few weeks there has been a fair amount of discussion at
Rescue Muni regarding the proposed G-Golden Gate Park historic streetcar
line.
I have compiled all the e-mail printed so far on this subject. If anyone
is interested in reviewing it (it's up to 19K now) please e-mail me
privately.
I am strongly in favor of this project, and not just because I am a PCC and
historic streetcar operator. I feel that this line makes good sense from a
financial, aesthetic, environmental and public service standpoint.
As proposed, the route combines portions of the F-Market, J-Church and
N-Judah lines--95% of its route. The only construction needed would be
installation of double curves at Market & Church (west to north) and the
0.5-mile extension into the Park.
The exact route would be from the Ferries Terminal (or the Transbay
Terminal, if that loop is retained) via the F-Market to Church Street,
whence the line would curve northward onto Church Street and the J-Church
to Church & Duboce, where it would use existing turnouts to join the
N-Judah. It would then run through the Sunset Tunnel, past the UCSF
complex (and its 2600-space parking garage) to Irving & 9th Avenue. The
line would curve northward on 9th Avenue, cross Lincoln Way and on into the
park, terminating in a loop behind the Music Concourse Bandshell, where
tour buses presently park. An alternative would be to circumnavigate the
Music Concourse. The De Young Museum, the California Academy of Sciences,
Steinhart Aquarium, Morrison Planetarium, Japanese Tea Garden and Hall of
Flowers would all be served by the G-Line. The line would be operated with
Muni's PCCs, historic streetcars, and ex-Milan "Peter Witts".
The cost estimates to construct the line range from $12 to $30 million,
with $17 million the most frequently quoted figure. This includes four
turnouts and two crossing diamonds at Market & Church, two turnouts and one
crossing diamond at Irving & 9th Avenue. about one mile of one-way trackage
on 9th Avenue and into the park, feeder cable and overhead wire
installation, utility relocation and paving, installation of three
handicapped platforms (at Lincoln Way and at the Park terminal), plus all
the necessary engineering and design work for the project.
The push for construction of the G-Golden Gate Park streetcar line is
spearheaded by the Alliance for Golden Gate Park, and supported by the San
Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the Inner Sunset Park Neighbors, the Inner
Sunset Merchants Association, the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, San
Francisco Tomorrow, and the League of Conservation Voters. The developer
of the proposed Park Garage is also on record as supporting the concept of
the G-Line. Right now, the only opponents appear to be the Rec-Park
Commissioners.
Now that all that is out of the way, I will state my reasons for supporting
the G-Golden Gate Park historic streetcar route.
First, the line would use Muni's historic streetcars. The runaway success
of the F-Line, with its wonderful rehabilitated and colorful PCC trolleys,
would be a selling point for the ride directly into Golden Gate Park from
downtown. If the line were to use the rehabbed and repainted Milan "Peter
Witts" as its basic fleet, that would make it even more interesting! Using
the Witts to standardize the G-Line fleet would make a lot of sense, as
people tend to recognize vehicle types well.
Second, construction of a rail line indicates an investment in the
future--an investment in permanence. Take a look at the F-Line extension
to Fisherman's Wharf. For the first time, there will be a recognizable,
permanent service directly to Fisherman's Wharf from downtown. (Note that
the cable cars stop 3-4 blocks away from the Wharf center.) The present
32-Embarcadero and 42-Downtown Loop services through the Wharf area, and
the 15-Third and 30-Stockton services from Downtown, are ill-defined and/or
still have their closest stops a number of blocks away. Likewise, a
permanent rail service into Golden Gate Park will boost this as a visitor
attraction. In addition, the need to drive to the Park will be lessened.
For those people who have to drive to the Park, the UCSF garage can be
used. If the Muni is smart, it will offer special G-Line ride tickets
issued by the parking garage to use between the UCSF garage and the Park.
Third (closely aligned with my second point), bus services near and through
the park are ill-defined. The 44-O'Shaughnessy does provide good crosstown
access, but neither its 15-minute headways nor its stops at the Music
Concourse are attractive. The 5-Fulton, 21-Hayes, 71-Haight-Noriega and
N-Judah stop at the park's periphery, necessitating a transfer or a fair
walk to Park attractions. In general, people will ride transit which is
well-defined. The G-Line fits this bill. Those people who are in favor of
beefing up 44-Line service and redefining downtown-to-Park bus services as
G-line alternatives are missing the point here--people prefer to ride
rail-borne transit.
Fourth, the $17 million estimate to construct the line is a bargain. It is
actually based on the cost to build the F-Line Fisherman's Wharf Extension.
In the Chronicle article, the figure of $50 million for the MMX was quoted
as an example of a high price. This is a mistake, since the G-Line will
require much less in the way of construction--no expensive and elaborate
stations, no special right-of-way treatment, just three handicapped
platforms.
Fifth, the G-Line makes environmental sense. Despite those who are opposed
to "ugly overhead wires", San Francisco has been in the forefront in
designing simple-to-construct and unobtrusive overhead streetcar wires.
The Fishermnan's Wharf Loop uses attractive, turn-of-the-century (that's
the 20th Century, gang!) -style bracket arms. The same thing could be used
in Golden Gate Park. With poles and brackets painted green or brown, one
would hardly notice the overhead. (A picture of a PCC super-imposed on the
drive in the Park is available through Market Street Railway at
http://www.streetcar.org. Or call MSR at 552-3055.). The environmental
benefits of a streetcar line into the Park are enormous-- lessening the use
of automobiles, traffic and pollution, improving the quality of life.
Sixth, the G-Line could serve as a short turn of the N-Line. Like those
people who ride the F to avoid Muni Metro, N-Line riders could opt for the
G-Line for a more pleasant ride to or from downtown. (In an *absolute*
emergency, a Breda could operate into the park, if the overhead is designed
to handle both pantograph and pole cars, as it is on the Fisherman's Wharf
and South Embarcadero Extensions.)
Judging from what I've read through Rescue Muni posts, nearly all persons
who posted support the concept of the G-Line enthusiastically. Only one
person seems to oppose the G-Line, and his reasoning is based on the narrow
view of extensions of rail lines in general being a bad idea and wasteful
of money; he cites the $1 billion-plus BART Extension to SFO and Millbrae
as an example. This is like comparing apples to oranges. This person
supports improved signage of the 5-Fulton, beefing up service on the
44-O'Shaughnessy and rerouting the 29-Sunset, which already runs a
roundabout route, instead of a G-Line as a less costly way of improving
service to the Park. I disagree--although I think 44-Line crosstown
service should also be increased. I've stated my reasons for why the
G-Line is needed. I suspect there are others in Rescue Muni who also
oppose the G-Line. Please feel free to e-mail me privately, or continue
the discussion in the Digest.
Sincerely,
Peter Ehrlich
F-Line Operator
Green Light Rail Division
<norcalrr@sprynet.com>