The San Francisco Office of the Controller wrote in an analysis this week that Proposition G, a ballot measure to let cars back on the Great Highway, would cost the city millions of dollars if it passes in November.
Making the road suitable for cars would “significantly increase the cost of government by approximately $9.8 million in one-time capital costs and by approximately $500,000 to $1.9 million annually,” wrote Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma in a letter to the city’s Department of Elections on Tuesday.
Prop G will ask all San Francisco voters if they want to allow cars back on the coastal road during weekdays and keep it as a park on the weekends — which supporters of the measure call the “compromise.”
The compromise went into effect during the COVID-19 pandemic when fewer cars were on the roads and the city wanted to have more open space for the public when social distancing was needed.
Voters then decided to turn the 2-mile stretch of the Great Highway into a permanent park during the November 2024 election, officially closing it to cars. Streetlights at intersections were removed, and park structures and amenities began popping up.
However, a group of voters and residents on San Francisco’s west side, where a majority voted against the closure, started a movement to reopen the Great Highway to cars and return to the “compromise.” The group’s measure received enough signatures to qualify for the upcoming November election.
But the Controller’s Office estimates that adding new traffic signals, restriping the road, erecting signage and removing park amenities could cost the city about $10 million. Additional annual costs for sand removal could cost up to about $2 million annually.
Friends of Sunset Dunes, the group fighting to keep the road as a permanent park, launched a campaign in response called “No on G: Save Sunset Dunes Park.”
“Proposition G will charge San Franciscans millions of dollars to close a beloved park,” said the campaign’s manager, Lucas Lux, in a statement. “This expensive ballot measure would waste taxpayer money to replace a thriving park with a failed road, a section of which has closed anyway due to coastal erosion.”
Supporters point to traffic concerns
But Albert Chow, a west side resident and firm supporter of restoring the compromise, thinks that potential safety risks of not allowing cars back on the roadway could outweigh the financial cost.
In an interview, Chow mentioned concerns over road and traffic safety and congestion that could increase on other roads in the Sunset District if more people move into the area under the Family Zoning Plan, which rezoned parts of the area to allow for the construction of denser housing. The Sunset District is bordered by the Great Highway to the west, and much of the roads within the district are referred to as the “avenues.”
“I think that at some point, somebody’s going to get hurt because they’re driving through the avenues as a direct result of the road being closed and forcing faster cars to go through the avenues, which were never meant to take that kind of traffic,” Chow said. “Is $9.8 million better to abate that? Yeah, I think so.”
The Controller’s Office also added in its letter that additional costs are possible since a new plaza is being planned at the intersection of Sloat Boulevard and the Great Highway as part of the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project. The project involves structural improvements and recreational elements in the area to help address shoreline erosion and sea level rise.
Erecting new traffic signals at the intersection could result in added costs from redesigning elements of the plaza.
The office also wrote that it estimates additional costs at an “undetermined” amount involved in applying for a coastal development permit, a process that includes possible studies and other requirements in order to allow cars back on the road.
A full financial analysis of the measure with possible revisions will be provided in the city’s voter pamphlet for the November election.
