City Hall

City Hall: Joel Engardio

Upper Great Highway Legislation

This November, San Franciscans will decide whether a section of the Upper Great Highway becomes an oceanside park or remains a road for cars. It’s important to note we’re only talking about the section between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard, which does not have any on or off ramps for cars.

If there is one issue both pro-park and pro-highway people can agree on, it’s that the city needs to implement solutions to keep traffic away from local streets and make it flow better on arterials like Sunset Boulevard and Lincoln.

Above all, westside residents need the City to hear their frustrations and concerns about getting to work, school and important errands. They also need assurances the City is committed to making transparent, data-driven decisions in consultation with communities.

No matter what happens with the Upper Great Highway ballot measure this November, I am drafting legislation that will address the traffic flow improvements we need in the Sunset. We will get traffic improvements whether the ballot measure wins or loses.

Traffic Management Legislation

My legislation will help expedite the planning, development and contracting process for city agencies to implement westside priority traffic management projects. We need to make the City more responsive to westside transportation concerns, wants and needs.

We know the Upper Great Highway south of Sloat is set to close due to coastal erosion. That closure has already been legislated, which means drivers will no longer be able to use the highway as a direct connection to Daly City and Interstate 280. And for many days of the year, the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat is closed due to drifting sand, sending vehicles to alternate routes.

These roadway closures – both planned and unplanned – create unpredictable traffic patterns through our parks and neighborhoods. Many residents are frustrated and feeling that the City is failing to coordinate and adequately manage current traffic as they move across the west side.

Park or no park on a section of the Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat, I remain committed to improving the flow of traffic so our communities in the Sunset and Richmond districts remain connected to one another.

Read more about the legislation at engardio.com/blog/westside-traffic-management.

Park Planning Legislation

I’m also drafting legislation for a park planning process among city departments, should voters pass the ballot measure this November. This legislation is being drafted in collaboration with Supervisor Myrna Melgar. Her westside district borders the Sunset and includes the Great Highway south of Sloat.

A robust planning process would allow for all stakeholders to participate as necessary approvals for a future park are obtained from city and state agencies.

We need to ensure those who are wary about a potential park are listened to. I’ve heard concerns over traffic, environmental and small business impacts. I believe additional studies and analysis can be used to inform mitigation measures throughout the park’s approvals process. We must be equipped to respond with data and evidence highlighting community development potential, habitat restoration opportunities and broad-based economic benefits.

This companion legislation to the ballot measure picks up where pilot legislation left off. Some have wondered why the ballot measure strikes language from the 2022 pilot legislation that enabled traffic studies. Those studies were completed and now we need to call for additional studies in anticipation of a full-time park.

Going forward, we will legislate a new planning process should voters decide to close the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat to cars full time. It’s important to note that if the ballot measure wins, the current weekend pilot will continue as-is. There will be a long and public process about the how/what/when of a transition to a full-time park. It won’t happen overnight. It could take a year or longer of status quo. It will still require state Coastal Commission approval.

Addressing Traffic Concerns

I understand why people are nervous about turning one section of the Great Highway into a park. I get that being stuck in traffic or not being able to find parking means spending less time with family. It’s a concern I take very seriously.

My husband and I drive the same roads and deal with the same traffic that every Sunset resident endures. We don’t want more traffic on Sunset Boulevard and we don’t want drivers speeding through our neighborhood streets as shortcuts.

As we plan this park, we can ensure westside residents can still get to work, take their kids to school, and drive an elderly parent to the doctor.

Also, remember it’s already been decided that the section of Great Highway south of Sloat will close due to coastal erosion — California’s Coastal Commission will not let the city rebuild this road at the expense of the beach. Without a direct connection to Daly City, we have to think about what is the best use of the section between Lincoln and Sloat.

The latest SFMTA traffic data shows that Great Highway traffic is down nearly 40% from pre-pandemic highs. Even traffic on Sunset is down 30%. There is capacity on Sunset to absorb the Upper Great Highway traffic. Read the report: engardio.com/sfmta-great-highway-study-2024.

We are currently making improvements to traffic flow on Sunset Boulevard, like moving the bus stops to the other side of the intersection, so cars don’t back up behind the bus when people are getting on and off. It’ll become easier for drivers to make right turns. And we can time the traffic signals on Sunset better. Replacing the stop signs along Lincoln with traffic signals will make a huge difference. We’re also putting a traffic signal at the three-way stop at Skyline and Sloat.

Even without these improvements, the latest traffic study from June of this year says the travel time from the Richmond to Sloat via Lincoln/Sunset is only a few minutes longer than going down Great Highway to Sloat.

The Political Reality

I’ve always talked about the pending closure of the Great Highway south of Sloat due to coastal erosion and how it would create the opportunity for a permanent oceanside park between Lincoln and Sloat. This language has been on my website and platform since my campaign in 2022.

While I agreed with many residents that the weekend compromise was good, a lot has changed in the past two years. A ballot measure to reopen the Great Highway to cars 24/7 failed both citywide and in the Sunset. Supervisors voted 9-2 to reject removing Fridays from the weekend closure. Advocates wanting to open the Upper Great Highway to cars failed multiple attempts to appeal the compromise, all the way up to the Coastal Commission. And the Board of Supervisors has already voted unanimously to protect the oceanside wastewater treatment plant from coastal erosion – a project that requires closing the Great Highway south of Sloat.

This November’s measure was put on the ballot with five supervisors along with support from Mayor London Breed. As a single supervisor, I cannot unilaterally put a measure on the ballot or remove it.

A majority of the Board of Supervisors currently supports closing the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat. And there will likely be a supermajority in January willing to legislate a closure in 2025.

There won’t be another election until June 2026. By then, the Board of Supervisors will have likely closed a section of the Great Highway. That’s why I believe we must let voters have a say this November.

A ballot measure lets residents who oppose a park organize against it. And it gives supporters a chance to make their case for why we need it.

Imagine the Benefits

For residents who are opposed to the park or undecided, I invite you to imagine the benefits of transforming the section of the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat:

• It’s good for the environment as we face coastal erosion and climate change.

• Small businesses throughout the Sunset district will benefit. Two train lines offer a direct ride to the beach. Locals and tourists alike will become new neighborhood customers as they hop off the train for lunch, dinner, or drinks on their way to or from the park.

• Generations of kids will learn how to ride a bike and play in a car-free space, seniors will have better access to the coast, and communities will have a gathering place to celebrate art, music, and culture.

• We can improve traffic flow so residents can still get where they need to go.

What to do with the section of the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat is a policy issue that reasonable people disagree on. Our coast is not owned by drivers, cyclists or one neighborhood. It belongs to all San Franciscans.

I believe voters should get to hear the facts and make their own decision. Every voter deserves to have their voice heard.

Joel Engardio is the District 4 representative on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He can be reached at engardio.com/contact.

10 replies »

  1. I would like to benefit from having a supervisor that doesn’t feel compelled to think about how I should travel and live. I would like a supervisor who leaves the streets alone and concentrates on supporting the businesses and residents by repairing all the damaged roads and sidewalks and listens to the residents instead of forcing controversial changes on them. If people don’t agree, just don’t do it. The cheapest easiest thing to do is nothing.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. hey Joel. This is a total decel proposal. We need MORE roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, housing, etc. The city planners and politicians back in the early half of the 20th century clearly understood this. They executed on many big and brilliant ideas that we have been lucky to inherit including the Great Highway. Why can’t our BOS think big? You know who this proposal hurts the most? The poor and working class who rely on the great highway as part of their outrageously long commute every day to their service sector jobs in SF. While I commend you for proposing something other than renaming schools or tearing down statues, the bar is still set way too low for members of the BOS with this idea. It’s anti growth, it hurts the very people you often claim to want to help most and worst of all it promotes more scarcity. If you’d truly like to leave a lasting mark on your neighborhood and city you’d do better to emulate Michael O’Shaugnessy. Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Let’s look at the individual claims made :

    “It’s good for the environment as we face coastal erosion and climate change.”

    -Ridiculous. Farcical. A complete fabrication WITH NOTHING BEHIND IT.

    “Small businesses throughout the Sunset district will benefit.”

    -What a great track record he has to say so! What has he done otherwise so far?

    “Locals and tourists alike will become new neighborhood customers as they hop off the train for lunch, dinner, or drinks on their way to or from the park.”

    -Like the lies that preceded the 2.5 BILLION dollar Chinatown subway.

    “We can improve traffic flow so residents can still get where they need to go.”

    -At best an afterthought, at worst an empty promise and a lie.

    “Generations of kids will learn how to ride a bike and play in a car-free space,”

    THERE IS A BIKE PATH THE ENTIRE LENGTH, AND GOLDEN GATE PARK.

    It’s never going to be enough for this dishonest carpetbagger. Send him packing.

    Go run a Bicycle Coalition, sellout Joel. RECALL ENGARDIO.

    We need leadership and he clearly is not the honest broker he pretended.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Wow. Dense.

    “We need to improve traffic.” Ok – then don’t close roads.

    “We need to come up with a planning process.” Ok – then don’t ask folks to vote on unclear plans.

    “There are political realities.” Ok – then go ahead and commit political suicide by ignoring your constituents and dividing the community.

    This guy might want to keep his mouth shut now that he has been exposed as Scott Weiner’s lying puppet. The more he attempts duplicitous excuses, the more transparently it reads as purely corrupt nonsense – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

    Liked by 1 person

    • “A ballot measure lets residents who oppose a park organize against it.”

      “What, districts 1 and 4 don’t have BILLIONAIRE-backed non-profits throwing dark money at them for their pet projects, as they try to get to work?”

      You nailed it, nothing but a corruption-explainer in Wiener’s image.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Joel Engardio works for Together SF, Abundant SF, Scott Wiener and their interests, not the people of San Francisco. In this case, those of the real estate industry. Do a little homework and see who funds those astroturf organizations and who Mr. Wiener’s major donors are.

    Closing the Great Highway benefits real estate developers because luxury high-rises next to parks are far more valuable than they are next to noisy roadways. Joel, who likes to be known as a moderate, is anything but moderate. He is concerned with advancing his donor’s interests, not his constituents.

    This plan is half-baked at best. The changes to north-south traffic will undoubtedly cause congestion, make the streets more dangerous, and harm the environment, contrary to what Mr. Engardio states.

    Mr. Engardio often uses platitudes to make his points, but the real point is that he does not look out for his constituents. He does, though, carry the water, much like his partner in this foolish endeavor, Myrna Melgar, and for those who aim to remake our western neighborhoods into gentrified shells of what they are today.

    San Francisco has been a battleground for real estate since its beginning. Today, ghouls like Mr. Engardio and Ms. Melgar are happy to carry the water of rezoning and gentrification because their donors demand it of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. My legislation…”
    I’m also drafting…”
    I understand…”
    I have always talked about…”

    “… the city needs to implement solutions…”
    “…residents need the city to hear their frustrations…”
    “…we need to make the City more responsive…”

    Is Mr. Engardio not part of the city? He seems to be ignoring the fact that he threw his own constituents under the bus – and now he writes as if he were a knight in shining armor, trying to “save” his own constituents.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Everything about this discussion is disheartening. I’m not sure what is worse, the plan itself or the small minded comments.
    1) saying it is a half baked plan is being generous – why is such a poorly defined plan even up for discussion. It’s a waste of time and city resources, a.ka. our tax dollars “at work”.

    2)”we can ensure westside residents can still get to work…” but at what cost to the resident in terms of time spent, fuel costs and tax costs??? Making commute times longer is nonsensical and comparing pre-Covid to current commute times is neither here nor there. Why would anyone want to extend their commute, especially with today’s fuel costs… which they ignored in this discussion.

    3) we should only be looking at programs that get us to work faster, cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Until that is solved, you are going to have grumpy residents, empty store fronts and high fuel costs, all of which make it more difficult to live here. What is the point of having a nice park when you can’t get home early enough to enjoy it? More tourists in the area means more crowds, more car break ins and more TRAFFIC!

    4) having said all of that, I’m not actually opposed to new parks that are well funded, maintained and accessible. However, you have to fix transit first!! Until then, let’s just agree not to waste time and money on ideas that ignore the real issues.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. First of all, as an urbanist and a YIMBY, let me say that the two most evil things in the world are cars and single family homes. We need to eliminate both of those things. If we do this we will end racism and climate change. People need to be content staying where they are in coffin sized public housing units. Travelling has an effect on climate so we need to drive a stake in the ground and chain people to it so they can’t move around so far.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment