Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Sunday, April 15, 2018

River Lines, Inc. v. Public Util. Com

Posted on April 15, 2018by with No comments

River Lines, Inc. v. Public Util. Com.

Annotate this Case
[S. F. No. 21743. In Bank. Jan. 21, 1965.]
THE RIVER LINES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPE LINES, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest.
COUNSEL
William W. Schwarzer, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown, Trautman & Enersen, Philip C. Wilkins, Wilkins, Little & Mix, Frank Loughran, Berol, Loughran & Geernaert, Noel J. Dyer, [62 Cal. 2d 246] Robert M. Westberg and Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro for Petitioners.
Richard E. Tuttle, Mary Moran Pajalich and Lawrence Q. Garcia for Respondent.
Charles W. Burkett, Herbert A. Waterman and John MacDonald Smith for Real Parties in Interest.
OPINION
MOSK, J.
Three Northern California barge lines engaged in hauling petroleum and other commodities commenced these proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission against the Southern Pacific Company (hereinafter referred to as Southern Pacific) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Pipe Lines). The barge lines claimed that Pipe Lines was charging unreasonably low rates for transporting petroleum products from San Francisco Bay Area refining points to Stockton, Sacramento, and Chico.
The commission found that the rates charged by Pipe Lines were not unreasonable and denied the barge lines any relief. By petition for writ of review, the barge lines claim that the commission erred in determining that section 727 of the Public Utilities Code fn. 1 had no application to the instant proceedings fn. 2 and that the commission abused its discretion in failing to establish minimum rates under section 726.
Section 726 provides: "... In any rate proceeding where more than one type or class of carrier, as defined in this part [§§ 201-2113, known as the Public Utilities Act], or in the Highway Carriers' Act [§§ 3501-3812], is involved, the commission shall consider all such types or classes of carriers, and, pursuant to the provisions of this part or the Highway Carriers' Act, fix as minimum rates applicable to all such types or classes of carriers the lowest of the lawful rates so determined for any such type or class of carrier. This provision does not prevent the commission from granting to carriers [62 Cal. 2d 247] by water such differentials in rates as are permitted under other provisions of law." (Italics added.)
Section 727 states: "It is the policy of the State that the use of all waterways, ports, and harbors of this State shall be encouraged, and to that end the commission is directed in the establishment of rates for water carriers applying to business moving between points within this State to fix those rates at such a differential under the rates of competing land carriers that the water carriers shall be able fairly to compete for such business. In fixing the rates there shall be taken into consideration quality and regularity of service and class and speed of vessels. 'Competing land carriers' includes all land carriers as defined in this part, and includes a highway contract carrier and a radial highway common carrier as defined in the Highway Carriers' Act." (Italics added.)
[1] Notwithstanding the assumption in sections 726 and 727 that the Public Utilities Act or the Highway Carriers' Act contains definitions for the terms "carriers" and "land carriers," definitions are not found in either of the acts. That omission, however, does not require us to ignore the terms. Unless effect is given to them, section 726, which relates solely to "carriers," would be rendered totally inoperative, an intent we cannot reasonably attribute to the Legislature. Accordingly, the term "carriers" as used in section 726 should be interpreted in accordance with applicable principles of statutory construction. [2] It is obvious that the provisions of section 727 are directly related to those of section 726, and the term "carriers" should be given the same meaning in both sections.
[3] A pipeline carrying petroleum products comes within the ordinary concept of a carrier. (See Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3rd ed. 1961) p. 343; Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1951) p. 269; Schmitt v. War Emergency Pipelines (1949) 175 F.2d 335, 336; State Tax Com. v. Petroleum Exploration (1934) 253 Ky. 119 [68 S.W.2d 777, 779]; Hall v. Cumberland Pipe Line Co. (1922) 193 Ky. 728 [237 S.W. 405, 408]; Giffin v. South West Pennsylvania Pipe Lines (1896) 172 Pa. 580 [33 A. 578, 580].) [4] Moreover, statutes are to be interpreted to give a reasonable result consistent with the legislative purpose (Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 603, 620 [7 Cal. Rptr. 129, 354 P.2d 657]), and in furtherance of the purpose of the sections to regulate competition, a pipeline should be subject to the statutory regulation when it competes with other carriers. [62 Cal. 2d 248]
The fact that pipelines are not included in the businesses specified as common carriers in section 211 is not determinative, for the term is not limited to enumerated businesses. (People v. Western Air Lines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal. 2d 621, 639 [268 P.2d 723].) [5] Although pipelines were at one time specifically defined by statute as common carriers and the definition was repealed in 1953 subsequent to the adoption of sections 726 and 727 (Stats. 1913, ch. 327, p. 657; Stats. 1953, ch. 596, p. 1844), the repeal cannot be said to show a legislative intent to exclude pipelines from the operation of sections 726 and 727 since those sections use the term "carrier" and not "common carrier."
Even though it appears that the provisions of sections 726 and 727 are applicable to the activities of Pipe Lines, it does not necessarily follow that the petitioning barge lines are entitled to relief in this proceeding.
The barge lines have not sought to obtain permission to reduce their rates to compete with Pipe Lines but have requested the commission to require Pipe Lines to raise its rates for the avowed purpose of encouraging competition. [6] Under section 727 the direction to the commission to fix rates so that water carriers will be able to compete fairly against land carriers, as we have seen, is applicable only to "the establishment of rates for water carriers."
[7a] The language of the code section does not compel the commission to adjust the rates of land carriers in order to permit water carriers to compete. If we were to conclude that to encourage competition the commission was required to raise rates of competing land carriers where the costs of water carriers exceeded those of the land carriers, water carriers by engaging to transport any commodity could require land carriers to raise rates no matter how ill-equipped or inefficient the water carriers might be in transporting the commodity. Such a construction of the section would not only create an administrative aberration, but would be economically unsound at the expense of the consuming public, for land carriers would be deprived of the incentive to improve efficiency and to economize if competing water carriers were not similarly motivated.
Furthermore, a construction of section 727 to require the adjustment of the rates of land carriers for purposes of competition would be contrary to the policy set forth in section 726 where the minimum rate to be fixed by the commission is to be the "lowest of the lawful rates" for any [62 Cal. 2d 249] carrier. [8] Although an exception to the provisions of section 726 is made for water carriers, the exception extends only to "granting to carriers by water such differentials in rates" as are permitted by other provisions, and the exception does not extend to requiring land carriers to increase rates.
[7b] For the foregoing reasons, the commission, under section 727, need not and indeed cannot require land carriers to adjust their rates upward for the purpose of permitting water carriers to compete. The commission found that Pipe Lines' rates were not unreasonable, and we recognize no compulsion to reach a contrary conclusion. [9] As noted above, a majority of the commission, although concluding that section 727 was inapplicable, was unable to agree as to the reason for the inapplicability. Since the question is one of law and one of the reasons offered by the commissioners is valid, the inability to obtain a majority does not require annulment of the commission's order.
[10] The commission's refusal to fix a minimum rate under section 726 did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The record shows that the barge lines sought relief under section 727 and did not request the commission to fix its minimum rate under section 726 until after the commission's decision herein.
The order of the commission is affirmed.
Traynor, C. J., McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Peek, J., and Burke, J., concurred.
FN 1. All section references herein are to the Public Utilities Code.
FN 2. The commissioners were unable to agree as to the reason for the inapplicability of section 727. Two commissioners concluded that section 727 was inapplicable because Pipe Lines was not a "competing land carrier" within the meaning of the section, and two other commissioners reasoned that the section is applicable only to proceedings to establish "rates for water carriers" and that no such proceeding was involved. Each opinion reserved the question considered crucial by the other. The fifth member of the commission concluded in a dissenting opinion that section 727 was applicable and that the commission should determine whether the barge lines were entitled to relief under that section.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

SSI Holdings Corp

Posted on April 08, 2018by with No comments

Dart Group Outbid by $5 a Share Safeway to Merge With New York Partnership

Oklahoman   
Safeway Stores Inc., the nation's largest supermarket chain, said it has agreed to a $4 billion merger with a holding company formed by a New York partnership.
The merger agreement provides for SSI Holdings Corp. to pay $69 a share for up to 45 million shares, about 73 percent of Safeway's stock, according to a statement released Sunday by Safeway.
Safeway has been trying to fend off a takeover bid from Dart Group Corp. The Dart Group had offered $64 a share.
SSI Holdings was formed by the partnership Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., which specializes in takeovers.
Safeway, which operates more than 2,300 supermarkets, said the deal was unanimously approved by its board and is subject to the approval of two-thirds of the holders of Safeway's outstanding stock. Safeway said it has about 61 million shares outstanding.
One of the chain's division headquarters is in Oklahoma City. It covers Safeway stores in all of Oklahoma and parts of Texas, Kansas and Arkansas.
Safeway has 22 stores in the Oklahoma City area. This does not include locations in Norman.
Total workforce in the area is 1,502 employees, including the division's distribution center and headquarters in Oklahoma City.
Safeway also has ice cream, bread and milk plants in Oklahoma City.
These employ from 200 to 250 people in all.
A local official said everything currently is "business as usual."
the Oakland-based chain has been trying to fend off a $64-a-share, or $3.9 billion, bid from the Dart Group, a discount retailer based in Landover, Md., that already owns 4.9 percent of Safeway's stock. Dart's offer is scheduled to expire Aug. 5.
The deal is subject to a minimum of 41.56 million shares being sold under the offer. The tender offer would be followed by a merger of Safeway and an SSI subsidiary, in which Safeway's remaining shareholders would receive $61.60 a share and one warrant to purchase common stock in the holding company.
The Safeway statement said Bankers Trust Co. of New York has agreed to form a syndicate of banks to provide $3 billion in financing for the acquisition.
Safeway stock closed at $61.875 Friday.
Dart Friday accused Safeway of violating federal securities laws by taking "collusive action" with an unknown third party in trying to thwart Dart's bid.
"We are outraged," Dart lawyer Robert Hirsch said Friday, threatening legal action if Safeway's board sold the company to a third party.
There was no answer at Dart's Landover office Sunday. Dart chairman Herbert Haft did not immediately return a message left at his home.
Kohlberg Kravis, which earlier this year bought the Beatrice Cos. for $6.2 billion in a leveraged buyout, received a $15 million fee from Safeway and will get an additional $45 million if the deal is called off under certain, undisclosed circumstances, Safeway said. BIOG: NAME:
Archive ID: 276617

Santa Fe Industries, Inc., the parent company of the...

Posted on April 08, 2018by with No comments

Santa Fe Industries, Inc., the parent company of the...

Sept. 27, 1983


CHICAGO -- Santa Fe Industries, Inc., the parent company of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe railway, and Southern Pacific Co. Tuesday announced they planned to merge.  See (BOD)
The merger will form a combined western railway system covering approximately 25,000 miles in 14 states.
The two companies will become equal subsidiaries of a new holding company, to be called Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp.
The announcement ended intense speculation about a pending merger sparked by a halt Monday in trading of stocks of both companies on the New York Stock Exchange.
The new company will combine services in basic rail transportation, natural resources, real estate and financial services, Santa Fe Industries chairman John J. Schmidt and Southern Pacific chairman B.F. Biaggini said in a joint statement.
'The combination of the rail properties of the two companies will afford substantial economies and efficiencies and will result in a greatly improved capability to provide increased service to our customers,' the statement said.
Revenues for the new holding company could reach $6.260 billion. Total revenue for Santa Fe Industries in 1982 reached $3.159 billion and revenue for Southern Pacific was $3.104 billion.
This is the second time the Chicago-based Santa Fe and the San Francisco-based Southern Pacific have proposed a consolidation of their railroad lines. In 1980, Santa Fe proposed a $1.2 billion plan to take over Southern Pacific, but negotiations broke off before the plan could be implemented.
The merger will bring important new rail gateways for Santa Fe, including New Orleans, Memphis, Tenn., and St. Louis.
It will also allow the two companies to consolidate considerable timber, farm acreage and industrial acreage holdings. Southern Pacific currently holds 450,000 acres of timber, 160,000 acres of farmland, and 30,000 acres of industrial real estate. Santa Fe holds 655,000 acres of timberland and 22,000 acres of industrial acreage. It has no farm acreage holdings.
The merger comes close on the heels of other rail consolidations involving Union Pacific Corp. and Burlington Northern Inc., which produced the two largest western railroads.
'This agreement moves us into a position to compete effectively with those other combinations,' said Robert Gehrt, assistant vice president for public relations at Santa Fe.
Under the merger agreement, each outstanding share of Southern Pacific will be exchanged for 1.543 shares of common stock in the new holding company. Each outstanding share of common stock in Santa Fe Industries will be exchanged for 1.03 shares of holding company stock.
Presently, approximately 84.1 million shares of Santa Fe Industries stock are outstanding, as are 56.6 million shares of Southern Pacific stock.
Gehrt said the two companies plan to consummate the merger by the end of the year.
Pending final approval by the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission, the companies will also seek to begin merger operations immediately under temporary management arrangements.
'We'll probably segregateone of the railroads under separate management pending ICC approval,' Gehrt said. 'We'll do whatever the Commission says.'
Santa Fe and Southern Pacific will each nominate one half of the membership of the board of directors for the new holding company, Gehrt said.
Headquarters for the new holding company will not be chosen until after the board is appointed. Santa Fe Industries headquarters will remain in Chicago; Southern Pacific Co. headquarters in San Francisco.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

MeyersNave:Steven T. Mattas

Posted on April 01, 2018by with No comments

Steven T. Mattas

Overview

Steven Mattas is the City Attorney for the City of Walnut Creek and Town of Los Altos Hills, and Assistant City Attorney for the City of South San Francisco. He also serves as General Counsel for the Ventura County Transportation Commission, Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority, South San Francisco Conference Authority and Monterey County Housing Development Corporation, as well as special counsel to several public agencies and private developers. Steven focuses his practice on land use, environmental law, public agency elections and municipal law.
Recognized statewide for his land use work, Steven is the Co-Managing Editor of a leading comprehensive publication on land use law, California Land Use Practice, published by Continuing Education of the Bar in 2006 and updated annually. He also authored and contributed to several chapters of the book, including those covering general and specific plans, sustainability and climate change regulations, housing, specially regulated land uses, and compliance with federal, state and regional agency requirements for wetlands and endangered species, wastewater and stormwater discharges, annexation issues, and much more.
Steven frequently authors articles and gives presentations on land use law, public agency compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, density bonus and adult business regulations, among other topics. He has spoken before the California State Bar, the League of California Cities (LOCC) and many other organizations. He previously served as the City Attorney Department representative to the LOCC’s Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee and the Environmental Quality Committee. Steven has also served as an expert witness on land use and Fair Housing Act issues for the City of San Diego.

Southern Pacific Transportation Company

Posted on April 01, 2018by with No comments
The Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Railyards. This project involved the redevelopment of the historic Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Railyards in Sacramento. This urban infill project will combine 10,000 residential units along with adaptive reuse of historic rail marshalling yard buildings to create a city within a city.


Southern Pacific Transportation Company

List of Deals

Southern Pacific Transportation Company originated with the efforts of Theodore D. Judah to build an earlier railroad, the Central Pacific. Together with Collis P. Huntington, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, Mark Hopkins, and other investors, he created the Central Pacific Railroad of California in 1861. The majority of the funds used to build the railroad were provided by the U.S. government, which agreed to loan a varying amount of government bonds for every mile of road built, depending on the difficulty of terrain traversed, and to grant the company a checkerboard pattern of land on alternate sides of the railroad. An important caveat deprived the railroad of most mineral rights to this land, a category generally interpreted by the courts to include oil.
The company attempted to raise capital by selling its stocks and bonds, but few buyers could be found in the early years of the industry. To ease its chronic financial burden, Central Pacific persuaded municipalities to buy its bonds, threatening bluntly that if such support were not forthcoming the railroad would simply be built around the town in question, destroying its economic viability. Further blackening Central Pacific's reputation was the widespread belief that the promoters of the road were skimming profits. They awarded lucrative contracts to construction companies owned by themselves, contracts calling for payments in the form of both cash and Central Pacific stock and so liberal in terms that by the time the road was completed in 1869 the construction company was, in effect, its owner. The net result was that a railroad had been built over the Sierra Mountains to Ogden, Utah, with government funds, but was now owned by four individuals.
The promoters decided to remain in the railroad business after the road was finished. Central Pacific's attention was drawn to a new government railroad venture known as the Southern Pacific, chartered by Congress in 1866 to build rail lines from the San Francisco Bay area to San Diego, California, then eastward to California's eastern boundary. The Central Pacific promoters gained control of this new road in 1868. During the following fifteen years, Southern Pacific spread its lines from Sacramento to New Orleans, having effected a number of mergers in the process. By 1877 the Central Pacific-Southern Pacific combination controlled 85 percent of all rail traffic in the state of California. That year, the companies had sales of $22.2 million and a capital of $225 million.
By 1884 the three remaining promoters had sold the bulk of their holdings in Central Pacific and formed a new corporation, Southern Pacific Company of Kentucky, with which they acquired all of the stock of the old Southern Pacific and its subsidiaries while agreeing to lease the use of Central Pacific's roads. Southern Pacific and its owners remained extremely unpopular for many years. The railroad's early bullying of municipalities, its discriminatory pricing, suspected trafficking in legislative votes by means of bribery, and monopoly power fueled popular resentment. In the 1890s the federal government became increasingly involved in the regulations of railroads. The transcontinental railroads owed the U.S. government a great deal of money in the form of the thirty-year bonds they had borrowed for construction and that were due to mature in the mid-1890s. None of the railroads, including Southern Pacific, had made provision for the repayment of these huge debts. Partly in response to this crisis, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created in 1887 as a federal agency charged with general regulation of the railroads. So unpopular was Southern Pacific in California that a San Francisco newspaper gathered 195,000 signatures (more than 10 percent of the state population) on a petition asking the government to foreclose on the railway and to run it as a public service. The government refunded the company's debt until 1909; by that time, the company was able to pay off debt and then became financially independent of the government.
In 1901 Southern Pacific's rival Union Pacific bought a controlling interest in the road and, in effect, merged the two great western rail systems. An ICC investigation was followed in 1911 by a federal antitrust suit against the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific combination. In 1913 the Supreme Court ordered the sale of Southern Pacific stock, much of which ended up in the hands of the Pennsylvania Railroad. As of that date, then, the Southern Pacific Railroad was restored to the general configuration it had had before the 1901 merger, its three principal routes being those between San Francisco and Portland, San Francisco and Ogden, Utah, and San Francisco and New Orleans. A second antitrust action deprived Southern Pacific of its Ogden lines for a number of years, but these were eventually restored. Other litigation forced Southern Pacific to give up most of the oil-producing land included in its original grants, oil falling under the rubric of mineral rights, as well as its timberland.
Southern Pacific survived and enjoyed a decade of unbroken prosperity in the 1920s. Southern's net income steadily rose to its 1929 peak of $48 million, despite having lost to the ICC the right to fix its own freight rates. Truck and auto traffic increased threefold during the 1920s, and along with the airplane would soon wrest from the railroads most long-distance passenger service and many types of freight, except those bulk items for which rail transport is ideal. The impact of these changes was not really felt by Southern Pacific until the Depression brought to an end the era of plentiful business for all. Reeling from these double blows, Southern Pacific watched its net decline to $4 million in 1931 and then disappear altogether for the next four years. Southern Pacific began to respond more to the needs of its customers, offering a much more flexible schedule of service and the use of the railroad's own short-haul trucking company, Pacific Motor Trucking Company. Southern Pacific also fought a well-publicized if losing battle for passenger business, offering low-priced tickets on a number of famous routes between California and the East. It ultimately proved to be impossible to move passengers by rail as cheaply and directly as by car and airplane.
Despite such problems, Southern Pacific remained a giant among U.S. corporations. Its 1936 assets of $1.95 billion were exceeded by only two other U.S. industrial corporations. With $200 million in annual sales, Southern Pacific was among the three largest U.S. railroads. When World War II erupted, the railroad industry boomed along with many other industrial segments, and Southern Pacific's net income reached an all-time high of $80 million in 1942.
Revenue rose from $650 million to $840 million through the 1950s and mid-1960s, and the company expanded its trucking service and added a profitable oil pipeline along a segment of its track in the Southwest. The company spent liberally on maintenance of track and rolling stock, and Southern Pacific built a reputation as one of the country's soundest railroads. The tremendous growth of California's population and agricultural production, along with the rapid increase in intermodal (rail-to-truck and truck-to-rail) transport and a booming oil business in Texas and Louisiana, kept Southern Pacific healthy. By 1969 the entire railroad was under the guidance of a computerized information system that helped to cut down on idle cars and switching delays. By means of such changes, Southern Pacific was able to reduce its labor force from 76,000 in the mid-1950s to 45,000 by 1970, while substantially increasing its volume of rail traffic. In 1972 Southern Pacific diversified into telecommunications. Using its existing network of microwave transmitters, the company became a carrier of long-distance telephone and data communications, first to large corporate users and later to the general public under the Sprint name.

San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway

Posted on April 01, 2018by with No comments

San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
San Francisco & San Mateo Electric Railway
LocaleCalifornia
Dates of operation1892–1902
SuccessorUnited Railroads of San Francisco
Track gauge4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Electrification550-volt DC
Length21 miles (34 km)
HeadquartersSan Francisco
The San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway (SF&SM) was the first electric streetcar company in San Francisco, California. The company was only in business for ten years, starting in 1892 until its merger into the United Railroads of San Francisco (URR).[1]

Initial founding[edit]

Brothers Isaac and Fabian Joost were real-estate developers in the neighborhood of Sunnyside. They saw the success of Frank Julian Sprague's Richmond Union Passenger Railway in Richmond, Virginia, and determined that an electric streetcar system running through their then-isolated portion of the city would be a good way to boost property values. In 1890, the San Francisco & San Mateo Railway Co. was incorporated, and the railway opened for business on April 27, 1892. A double-track railway ran from the Ferry Building at the foot of Market Street, over Steuart Street, Harrison Street, Bryant Street, Fourteenth Street, and Guerrero Street, with single track extending down San Jose Avenue to the Baden area of South San Francisco,[2] with a transfer required at 30th Street and San Jose Avenue. The line did not actually extend to the city of San Mateo, which lays 13 miles (20.9 km) further to the south, although it did run through part of the County of San Mateo.[3]
The Geneva Office Building and Power House, built in 1901 for the San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway
A powerhouse and car barn were built on Sunnyside Avenue one block off San Jose Avenue. The streetcars were of the California car design, with an enclosed center section and open center bench seating at either end of the car, similar to the cable cars used on the California Street line. Single-truck (four wheel) cars 26 feet (7.9 m) long were used on the double track line, and 28-foot (8.5 m) two-truck cars were used on San Jose Avenue.[2]
The route chosen by the company was rather unfortunate. They were not able to traverse any of the major streets, as rival streetcar companies already had lines on them. Furthermore, beyond 30th Street, the area of the city was not yet fully settled. With an unpopular route that led to sparsely populated neighborhoods, the company could not generate much revenue despite having nearly 4,200,000 riders annually.[3] This trend continued after the merger into URR well into the 1920s, when electric streetcars were at their most profitable.[1]
The line also gained a reputation for being dangerous. Although the company had built a counterweight system to slow cars on a Harrison Street hill between 2nd and 3rd, no such system was added to another hill on Chenery Street, which became the site of a number of runaway cars. Even an injury to a boy there on opening day did not spur the company to action. After a few such accidents, the company finally relaid the track and purchased cars with better brakes.[1]
By late 1892, the company opened a second line from the Mission District to Douglass Street via 18th Street, hoping to cash in on the Golden Gate Park traffic (the intersection of Douglass and 18th, however, is about 0.8 miles (1.3 km) southeast of the park). They were able to extend this to within five city blocks of the park, but could go no further because the Market Street Railway Company had their line on Frederick Street, which denied the SF&SM any further access.[1]
The company did find one new source of revenue, however. The SF&SM served Holy Cross, Lawn, Mt. Olivet, Cypress, and Woodlawn cemeteries, all in Colma (via the cemeteries' own tracks). As a result, funeral traffic became a consistent source of income. Special funeral trains were run consisting of a short mail, express, and funeral car carrying the casket, followed by one or more conventional passenger cars carrying mourners. An 18 September 1893 newspaper article describing the first use of the car notes a charge of $10 to carry the casket, with the regular fare of 10 cents for each mourner.[2]
Unfortunately, this was not enough to cover the debt incurred from the line's initial construction as well as subsequent interest payments, forcing the company into receivership. The receiver subsequently was granted permission by the Market Street Railway to use a portion of their line and the SF&SM 18th & Park line finally opened in November 1894 (this eventually was converted to San Francisco's first trolleybus service in 1935). New cars, the first in the city to have front windows,[1] also arrived in summer of 1894, making it finally possible to go from the Ferry Building to Baden without a transfer.

Sale to new owners[edit]

Adolph Spreckels
John D. Spreckels
Adolph (left) and John D. Spreckels
Still, the receiver was unable to generate much of a profit and on April 11, 1896, the company was sold to a group of prominent San Franciscans, headed by brothers Adolph and John D. Spreckels. The investors paid off the debts and renamed the company to the San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway. The new ownership replaced the original 50-pound rail in San Francisco with 85-pound rail in 1897; and the San Jose Avenue line was relaid with 60-pound rail in 1899. The original fleet of thirty motor cars and three trailers was increased by purchase of forty more motor cars in 1898 and ten more in 1900 plus twenty larger motor cars.[2] One of these cars from 1898, Car 0304, was still in service on the San Francisco Muni as late as 2000[1] (it has since been retired).

United Railroads of San Francisco[edit]

In 1901, the company was sold once more to the "Baltimore Syndicate", a group of East Coast investors looking to purchase a number of Bay Arearailways. In 1902, these companies all merged to form the United Railroads of San Francisco (URR). The URR then quickly built out the line 10.635 miles (17.115 km) to San Mateo which was operational on 31 December 1902. Nineteen new motor cars, numbered 1225 to 1244 went into service on the new line on 7 September 1903.[4]
As URR struggled to rebuild after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, a shortage of motor cars resulted from conversion of former cable car lines to electric power. The Philadelphia and Western Railroad had ordered twelve 52-foot (16 m) motor cars from the Saint Louis Car Company; but these cars were sold to URR when the original purchaser couldn't pay for them. These 300-horsepower (220 kW) cars were promptly put into service on the San Mateo line where they became known as the Big Subs. Their size became a problem as the streets they used became congested with automobiles, and they required too much power on hills. The Big Subs were retired in 1923;[5] and the cars built in 1903 were modernized with electric heaters and deeply cushioned leather seats to continue service until this route was abandoned.[6]

The 40 line[edit]

URR rebuilt from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake with more efficient routing along major streets replacing formerly parallel lines of the consolidated competing companies. Cars on the San Mateo extension and former San Francisco & San Mateo line through Baden, Colma, and Daly City were routed along Mission Street through San Francisco in what became known as the No. 40 line. The 40 line became one of the URR's most profitable routes, and remained in service until 16 January 1949.[7] Funeral service remained an important source of revenue, and three longer cars were repainted with appropriately somber colors and interior decor for exclusive use in funeral service after rebuilding with a baggage door near one end for loading and unloading coffins.[4]
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)