On August 20th, KALW Public Media hosted a forum in San Francisco titled “The Future of Great Highway,” where multiple experts were invited to discuss the current status of the highway and the potential impact of the K proposal. Many residents had to stand throughout the event due to the venue being full.
The four panelists participating in the discussion were: San Francisco District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, San Francisco District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, Lucas Lux, Chair of the Board of Friends of the Great Highway Park, and Richard Correa, spokesperson for “Open Great Highway.”
The topic of whether the Great Highway should be permanently closed has been a hot topic among citizens. This stretch of road, connecting Skyline Boulevard to the Richmond district, gained popularity as a park during the COVID-19 pandemic when parts of it were closed off. The K proposal suggests permanently closing this stretch and converting it into a waterfront park, with a public vote scheduled for November.
Representing the Sunset District, Supervisor Joel Engardio explained that the K proposal does not encompass the entire Great Highway but aims to transform a section into a waterfront park. He outlined the three parts of the highway – south of Sloat Boulevard, between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard, and the portion connecting the Richmond and Sunset Districts north of Lincoln Way.
Engardio pointed out that the southern end of Sloat Boulevard is gradually disappearing due to coastal erosion, leading to a legislative decision to close that part. The section between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard lacks vehicle entrances and exits, and the K proposal plans to redevelop this area to create a park.
The segment between the Richmond district and Lincoln Way will remain open for vehicle traffic 24 hours a day. Engardio emphasized that transforming the park will inject vitality into the Sunset District, becoming a landmark loved by tourists and driving small business development.
In opposition, Supervisor Connie Chan representing the Richmond district criticized the K proposal as too extreme – either fully closed or fully open. She suggested seeking a compromise to avoid community division, mentioning a 2021 county transportation study proposing an alternative including a recreational promenade and a two-lane road to balance transit functionality and leisure needs.
Lucas Lux noted that the Great Highway has become the third-largest park in San Francisco, attracting around four thousand visitors every weekend. He mentioned that keeping it as a road leads to nearly 65 closures annually due to sand accumulation.
Chan argued that since the Great Highway is already the third-largest park in the city, why not maintain the status quo – for commuting on weekdays and park leisure on weekends? She questioned why citizens should have to choose between transportation and a park.
Engardio countered that a compromise solution would result in subpar experiences for both the park and the road, along with increased infrastructure costs. Therefore, allowing voters to decide on the K proposal is reasonable.
Richard criticized the K proposal for disrupting the existing compromise and insufficiently considering community safety and environmental impacts, as well as lacking any mitigation measures or infrastructure considerations.
In the discussion about the Great Highway, Lucas cited studies by the transportation authority, claiming that even if that section were closed, commute times would only increase by three minutes, urging the public to consider whether those three minutes are worth exchanging for a permanent waterfront park.
However, Richard argued that in emergencies, even a one-second delay could be critical. Chan recalled the difficulties of visiting her hospitalized mother due to traffic congestion during the pandemic, expressing concerns that although the proposal exempts emergency vehicles, neglecting maintenance of the Great Highway could delay emergency response if the road was covered in sand.
She particularly noted the adverse impact of this decision on the Chinese community, especially on Chinese businesses in the Richmond and Sunset districts, where traffic inconvenience has led to customers being lost to Daly City and South Bay, weakening the local economy and dividing the two Asian communities.
Moreover, Richard, a former officer with 35 years of experience, believed that the Great Highway used to have 14,000 vehicles traversing it daily. After its closure, this traffic would divert to surrounding streets, potentially increasing accident-prone areas and threatening public safety. Chan advocated for resolving Lincoln Way’s traffic issues first before considering closing the Great Highway.
Engardio argued that the connection between the Richmond and Sunset districts via the Great Highway would remain unchanged since the stretch between the Richmond district and Lincoln Way would still be open 24 hours. Access to Sunset District shops would require a left turn at Lincoln Way, making it more difficult for vehicles to enter the Sunset District directly without detouring via Sloat Boulevard. Additionally, with the closure of the southern segment, alternative routes would bring vehicles closer to Sunset Boulevard.
Lucas further supported this viewpoint, citing years of data and research showing minimal traffic impact and urging the public to trust institutional data to make wise decisions, which garnered some applause from the audience.
Richard questioned Engardio, “If the proposal is so beneficial, why wait until the last minute to make it public?” In other words, the proposal was put on the ballot without prior discussion, lacking transparency. This question led to cheers and applause from some audience members.
In response, Engardio claimed that the proposal was jointly submitted by five city supervisors and was sent for voting in June, nearly five months before the election, allowing ample time for public debate. He emphasized that the current proposal is not set in stone, and voters still have a say.
The host then asked the two supervisors, “If the K proposal is rejected, what’s the next step?”
Engardio replied that regardless of the outcome, the current plan would continue until December 2025. Even if the proposal passes, the city government would take a year or longer to plan a park. If the proposal is rejected, the status quo would be maintained, and the final decision would be left to the city council or potentially back to voters for another referendum in 2026.
Chan expressed concerns about inadequate funding, estimating the cost of the alternative proposal from 2021 to be around $30 million for park construction and traffic facility repairs, with future mayors and council members possibly unable to provide sufficient financial support, leading to budget shortages and difficulty in park maintenance.
She emphasized that according to the Controller’s statement, although closing the road might save one-time costs of $1.5 million and annual maintenance fees of $350,000 to $700,000, the long-term maintenance costs of the park are still unknown.
Engardio explained that closing the Great Highway would save costs for road cleaning and traffic light replacements, which could be redirected towards new traffic relief measures or park planning.
In conclusion, Richard emphasized that the K proposal should be based on considerations of social utility, fairness, and safety, expressing disappointment about the current lack of transparency in the discussion and sarcastically remarking, “Our coast is not for sale to the highest bidder.”
Lucas stressed that the proposal could expand the third-largest park without additional investments, benefiting more people. Chan urged voters not to support the K proposal to promote the city departments to discuss a compromise solution further.
Engardio, focusing on traffic and economic benefits, believed that the Great Highway has lost its utility as a shortcut, and transforming it into a park would rejuvenate the Sunset District and the city as a whole, bringing long-term benefits. He believed that traffic issues could be resolved.