FYI – Know your transit history: http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Streetcar_lines_1934

Given the opportunity to create a whole new cable car line, there are relatively few circumstances where an electric drive couldn’t do the job better and less expensively.

That said, the cable car does a very good job of mixing both linear travel and hill climbing.

For hypothetical new/restored cable car lines where money and politics are no object, I nominate:

1. All of 24th Street from Potrero (or possibly beyond it to Bayview) to Twin Peaks.
2. Castro St from at least Waller, south to Diamond, perhaps all the way to Glen Park BART.

I wouldn’t bother with wood and attempts to look ‘historical’ … I’d make maximum use of modern materials technology for a light-weight homage to the original.

Of course, a BRT and rail tunnel along all of Geary would make a lot more sense, $ for $. We should never have lost the electric streetcars that ran out to Land’s End and Sutro Baths.

Instituting a 90-minute transfer policy like the rest of the Muni system would go at least some way towards distributing the load more evenly along the line. The operational improvement might not equal the lost revenue, but that’s not the point: it would reduce the time tourist spend waiting in line increasing their enjoyment and the time they can be spending their money elsewhere in the city.

Cable Cars are a loss leader for the City, no different than a store puts one item on sale in order to bring in customers that will buy other more profitable items, or a company sells one product at or below cost in order to make money off the accessories.

Who are you arguing with? We’re mostly big cable-car proponents here. This is just a post about creating proper revenue streams for the operation of this particular MTA line. Why should an MTA line with (by your estimations) an 85% “destinationless” ridership be funded by an agency tasked with moving people around the city in an efficient and cost-effective manner? Shouldn’t it be funded by an agency tasked with promoting San Francisco tourism or maintaining San Francisco’s historical and cultural resources?

http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/Route60data.htm

For the Powell–Mason line about 68% out of the 5,105 daily rider board from the terminal at Hyde and Beach. For those who board at the start or the first half of the route, I’ll call them tourists. For those who board after half way, I call them local. Tourist who pay $5 for a fun ride won’t be satisfied with just half of the ride, will they? Give or take a little from each half should should give an estimation. It says there are 15% or 775 local rider. Times two will be 1650 daily riders. Not a shabby number at all. In comparison 56 Rutland has 218 daily riders.

Think about it, if you have Fast Pass, there is no reason why cable car can’t be used for local transportation. It is frequent. It goes through dense neighborhood. And it goes over steep hills. Just because it is popular with tourist doesn’t mean it is not useful for locals.

ZA – Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo Metro, and Osaka all have farebox recovery ratios higher than 100%.

I also like the idea of closing the loopholes. It might not cover all the deficit, but individual sources never do, it’s more like a pie approach, piece by piece to get what you need.

I am doubtful of Radulovich’s assertion that a tax on hotel parking spaces would be anything more than a drop in the bucket to close the deficit. If there were 1000 hotel parking spaces in the city, and 300 days per year they were occupied, the city would have to charge $80/day in tax to completely fund the cable cars.

The cable car should be charged $10 fare for the following reasons: It’s a ride, not accessible, EJ-compliant transit. There are so many constraints put on it that you can hardly qualify it as a transit service. The price point is too low. Lines are long, tourists want the experience, why aren’t we charging more? $10 is very affordable for a tourist. That will barely buy you a sundae at Ghirardeli’s. Finally, the best way to pay for a service is to charge the users directly. It sends the correct market signal to the end user.

Anyway, It seems the 1 way fares could easily be increased, if you see the lines at powell there is plenty of demand. Keep it free for fast passes. Locals can ride it at the same amount and tourists are used to getting gouged, it’s probably one of the cheaper attractions in this city, even if the cost is raised.

I’m all for parking tax for hotel parking. I’d like to see them get some of that money back by being able to offer guests free or highly discounted daily/weekly MUNI passes. That way there will be more demand for MUNI & more revenue.

Cable cars are fantastic and their service should be expanded if at all possible. That being said, this post is spot on. Cable cars really should be funded through a different stream than the regular MTA budget. With the possible exception of the California Street line, these aren’t really used for moving people, residents or tourists, around the city – they’re destinations in and of themselves.

I know what we need to do to shut up this non-sense. Find a few whiner to complain. Interview a 80 years old in front of a steep slope and have them say “how am I going to get home if you cut the cable car?” This should be enough to stop this non-sense.