11 replies »

1. I’ve written to Engardio showing him that his statements that there’s no environmental impact to closing the GH is false. UC Riverside did a study about post pandemic smog rebound. The study was noted in the SF Chronicle article that smog emissions spiked along 19th Avenue and the authors postulated it was due to the Great Highway being closed. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sf-air-quality-17633562.php

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. And here’s an article from UC Riverside outlining the findings. Again much higher smog emissions along 19th Avenue post pandemic because the Great Highway was closed and diverted traffic. Just one of the many mis-statements by Engardio such as the GH being the third most visited park. Number one that’s based on dubious counters used by the SF P&R to count usage. Secondly that’s only for SF controlled parks. Federally controlled parks like Crissy Field, the Presidio, and even Ocean Beach itself which is part of the GG National Recreation Area have higher use. Another mis-statement is that the planned closure of the extension makes the GH’s use as a north south commuting route useless is blatantly false. As a 40 plus year user of the GH, making the east of the zoo diversion when the extension is closed is no hardship to either the driver nor any affected residents in nearby streets because there ARE NO affected nearby residents when diverted around the zoo. https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/12/05/post-lockdown-auto-emissions-cant-hide-grass

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Hi Christina. As a scientist, I always love the bringing of peer-reviewed science to a policy debate! Thank you. However, the paper you cite does not find what you say it does. In the study you cite, the authors use the Great Highway as a control. What the study actually finds is that between 2020 (during COVID stay-at-home orders, at a time when traffic was way down) and 2021 (when traffic had picked back up), emissions increased on 19th avenue. Which we would expect as the stay at home orders eased and traffic correspondingly increased as people resumed their lives. The findings also indicate that emissions did not increase on Great Highway over that same period. But of course that’s true, because the Great Highway remained closed to cars over the study period, while 19th Ave did not. The paper simply shows that when traffic levels increase on a road, C02 emissions go up. This is not new information, and as the Great Highway was closed to cars at both time points that the study measured emissions, there is no causal effect of Great Highway *whatsoever* on the emissions measured at 19th Ave in this study.

     While it’s totally intuitive to worry about traffic congestion if lanes of roadway are reallocated, fascinatingly, nearly every time it’s been studied, the traffic concerns don’t pan out. There is actually a robust body of research on this – what happens when you reduce lanes of traffic (which Prop K would do, by converting a section of the Upper Great Highway to a pedestrian promenade). This is the concept of “reduced demand”. See this paper here, that looked at 70 cases of roadspace reallocation. The cliffsnotes of the takeaways are that: counterintuitively, traffic tends to IMPROVE/lessen when lanes are converted to other use for three main reasons: (1) drivers pick other modes if they can (this was true for my family when Great Highway closed – we switched from driving to biking); (2) drivers find other routes (Sunset Blvd!); (3) drivers change how – and when – they travel (which we’ve seen already in that traffic is down ~40% on Great Highway from pre-closure). All to say, especially given SFMTA’s commitments to improve signal lightning on Lincoln and Sunset, as well as the intersection at Sloat/Skyline, I hope this eases some of the concerns and worry some folks have around traffic congestion.

     LikeLike

     Reply

3. Thank you for your strong, sensible voice laying out the undeniable facts why it is necessary snd important to continue to share the Great Highway and Vote No on Proposition K.

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. Paul, I think it’s rather strange that you paid for a ballot argument opposing Prop K, signed in your capacity as Editor of the Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon. You have every right to your opinion and to share that opinion with others, but when you’re spending hundreds of dollars to promote a political position, what you’re doing really doesn’t resemble journalism anymore. There’s a difference between an editorial and actively purchasing advertisements for one side of a political campaign.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   • And yet this publication exists to serve the Richmond/Sunset, where the proposal in question not only unfairly burdens the local residents exclusively (*while allowing the rest of the city to decide its fate, a complete sellout by D4’s Engardio BTW), but also where their (deliberate!) process and methodology of blindsiding residents and voters alike with this sham foisted by corrupt non-profits at the trough via dark money funding groups knowingly pushing disinformation (and yes, LIES, such as pretending closure of this thoroughfare will create “cool green urban zones” that will “mitigate climate change” and other whole cloth nonsense) while traffic and pedestrian safety and other issues are given a hand-wave as afterthought…

     Paul frankly would be undermining his paper’s credibility if he were to pretend that Prop K was something other than a dishonest trojan horse political PR stunt by a corrupt Mayor (and a few carpetbagging tourists who have nothing to do with our districts) who only come around when they can privatize (and thus control) more of the public commons that longtime residents know is not theirs to snatch away dishonestly, with dubious “plans” from opaque and corrupt city departments (that bow to the Queen of Corruption directly, Breed) amid a pending major deficit that she created and ridiculous promises that have not ever been her priority to fulfill.

     To sit and pretend it’s a neutral apolitical ballot initiative is so naive, it’s depressing – because they rely on that uninformed “fair and balanced” naivete to maintain their corrupt grip on SF for their “moderate” Billionaire backers. You want to complain about partisanship masquerading as information, perhaps look a bit closer.

     LikeLike

     Reply

     • Paul is free to have whatever position he wants on Prop K. But I’ve honestly never heard of the editor of a newspaper expending funds to buy an ad in support of one side of a political campaign while using the paper’s name.

       It’s more than clear you don’t like the measure, which is your right, but what’s with the hyperbole here? Some facts:

       “unfairly burdens the local residents exclusively” – majorities of both the Sunset and Richmond districts voted against Prop I. Plenty of people in both neighborhoods support the park, while yes, others do not. That’s democracy.

       “while allowing the rest of the city to decide its fate,” — the ocean belongs to everyone. Residents of one neighborhood don’t have the only say on how we use the coast.

       “dark money funding groups” — campaign finance disclosure laws are a thing, and Prop K discloses its donors. Open the Great Highway, on the other hand, does not.

       “traffic and pedestrian safety and other issues are given a hand-wave as afterthought” — traffic and pedestrian safety are important. Traffic patterns will need to change whether Prop K wins or loses because the part of the Great Highway south of Sloat is closing to cars no matter what. It’s important that we plan for that—both how to get drivers where they need to go efficiently along new routes and how to continue the success of the existing traffic calming on Lower Great Highway to ensure pedestrians are safe. Prop K says that since things are changing anyway, let’s ensure those plans include turning inland a little earlier so we can have a great coastal park as part of the planning: a win-win.

       “a dishonest trojan horse political PR stunt by a corrupt Mayor (and a few carpetbagging tourists who have nothing to do with our districts)” — every part of the Great Highway Park effort has been led by local Sunset residents, most all of whom live adjacent to the Great Highway, because they saw the amazing potential of our coast during the pandemic and want to create a lasting benefit for the neighborhood and the city.

       “they can privatize (and thus control) more of the public commons” — the Great Highway is Rec & Park land, and has been for over a century. With or without Prop K, it will remain Rec & Park land. The City Charter protects it from being privatized. City parks are, by definition, the opposite of privatized.

       “maintain their corrupt grip on SF for their “moderate” Billionaire backers” — Prop K is endorsed by progressives including Supervisor Dean Preston and the League of Pissed off Voters along with moderates, the Sierra Club, SF League of Conservation Voters, the SF Democratic Party, the SF Chronicle, Surfrider Foundation, and so on.

       Agree with the measure or disagree, that’s up to you, but instead of the bizarre conspiracies and hyperbole, it’s just not that complicated: we tried using the Great Highway as a promenade during the pandemic, a group of people in the neighborhood really liked it and organized around trying to build on that success. Other people disagree with them, so we’re doing the thing we do in a democracy when we disagree on a decision like this: voting on it.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

     • Paul Kozakiewicz is a volunteer editor. He speaks for himself and shares his personal views. He does not speak for the papers. His column reflects his opinions. I am the publisher and have not expressed a political opinion in the five-and-a-half years since I bought the newspapers. Thank you for sharing your views. — Michael Durand, publisher and editor-in-chief.

       LikeLike

     • “But I’ve honestly never heard of the editor of a newspaper expending funds to buy an ad in support of one side of a political campaign while using the paper’s name.”

       So you’ve never heard of hearst, sfchronicle, sfgate?

       LikeLike

     • “we’re doing the thing we do in a democracy when we disagree on a decision like this: voting on it.”

       No, the entire city is voting on something that negatively impacts 2 districts of 11.

       And the lies being promoted by the proponents are myriad and desperate BS.

       What if we put the Castro or Chinatown up for a vote citywide to “become a park” or put up a citywide vote to ban bicyclists from city streets? It’d be unfair. When Breed’s PUC wanted a Chinatown bike lane and residents complained, she top-down killed the project for PR and votes. It’s simple political pandering at both extremes, and the short attention spans of her supporters can’t get enough.

       Putting such a divisive and under-planned-for proposition on the ballot is inherently flawed, and the fact that it’s promoted by “non-profits” that we don’t get a vote on, yet receive city taxpayer funds, is another obvious problem – not to mention 501c3 and c4 collusion and the total lack of traffic and traffic safety studies to even prepare for such a move legitimately.

       And the unbelievable naivete of those pretending this is legitimate and the way public administration should make major changes to neighborhoods and public safety without a plan to address the obvious problems already in plain sight, it just goes to show that Breed backing carpetbaggers know where their bread is buttered and will say anything to get what they want from her corrupt administration without any real regard for the long term residents impacted.

       LikeLike

   • So in your reply you say it’s perfectly reasonable for the entire city to vote because the coast “belongs to all”. “ALL” or the general public across SF DOES have access to the coast at the GH – all of Ocean Beach (part of the GG National Recreation area) and the walking path adjacent to the GH. Marina Blvd abuts a beautiful coast – should the rest of SF have a say on closing a public traffic artery so far fewer people can bicycle and walk “along the coast” when they have the Marina Green and other recreational areas directly adjacent to that major traffic artery? Why should just SF voters have a say on closing a major public road for their personal recreational when a far greater number of people including non-SF residents will be significantly impacted? Should Daly City residents vote on closing Hwy 1 because they want to bike there? Did you read Phil Ting’s recent column (https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2024/09/07/assembly-phil-ting-75/comment-page-1/?unapproved=40388&moderation-hash=7688597d248682df108d2f59cf66f4ab#respond) where he outlines the 19th Ave construction nearing completion but now is moving to Sunset Blvd? How 19th Avenue took far longer than anticipated – likely to happen on Sunset? That means the “three minute longer commute” that Engardio and Luxe tout is totally false. We all know what a nightmare 19th Avenue has been and now Sunset is at the beginning of it’s construction work. To close 1/3 of the major north south traffic arteries BEFORE ensuring alternative routes are functioning is ludicrous.

     LikeLike

     Reply