Editor:
The commentary by Paul Kozakiewicz in the April issues argues that the traffic crashes resulting in injury have increased since the Upper Great Highway (UGH) closure, but the date ranges he compares both fall after the closure, rendering his analysis unable to comment.
Using San Francisco Open Data, a more accurate picture of the closure’s impact emerges. The number of traffic crashes in the Sunset and Parkside districts resulting in injury in the 24 months leading up to the closure (March 14, 2022 – March 14, 2024) totals 232, while in the 24 months following the closure (March 14, 2024 – March 14, 2026) there have been 173 – a 25% decrease following the closure of the road.
The closure has made our community significantly safer, but this is not where the benefits end as Sunset Dunes is a wonderful addition to our City’s parks. The park has allowed for the flourishing of a restored and beautiful coastal habitat and helps prevent erosion of the shoreline, a problem that is forcing the closure of the southern extension of the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline. With the park has come a diverse community of birds and other animals that are likely to bring with them the many positive benefits of a healthy, flourishing ecosystem.
According to a city press release, more than half of documented park attendance is on a weekday and 25% of visitors are residents of the Sunset District, demonstrating that the park is regularly utilized during the week and disproportionately so by the residents living nearby. The closure of the UGH and the creation of Sunset Dunes Park has been a great boon to the Sunset and our City, enriching and protecting our residents and our coastline. I hope that we as a community can prevent the hazards and losses that would come with the reopening of the highway and the destruction of the park.
Gabriel Small
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
The only “destruction” in terms of parks has been Golden Gate Park (an actual park) along Chain of Lakes as the stop and go traffic from diverted cars has turned a park into a congested mess.
Sunset Dunes is a road. Open the Great Highway.
LikeLike
traffic safety improvements were and remain needed in our residential areas which have been sorely impacted by the closure
LikeLike
Frankly, I have not found friends of Sunset Dunes Park or the SFMTA to be either conscientious or reliable in the information they provide regarding the Upper Great Highway.
LikeLike
How is this logically tenable?
“Using San Francisco Open Data, a more accurate picture of the closure’s impact emerges. The number of traffic crashes in the Sunset and Parkside districts resulting in injury in the 24 months leading up to the closure (March 14, 2022 – March 14, 2024) totals 232, while in the 24 months following the closure (March 14, 2024 – March 14, 2026) there have been 173 – a 25% decrease following the closure of the road.”
One has zero to do with another. If anything, the added aggravation of the detour might make accidents more likely!
“The park has allowed for the flourishing of a restored and beautiful coastal habitat and helps prevent erosion of the shoreline.”
How does it do that?
It is ludicrous to call a closed road a “park, but, that aside, there can be no basis for these figures. This might represent a biased poll:
“According to a city press release, more than half of documented park attendance is on a weekday and 25% of visitors are residents of the Sunset District, demonstrating that the park is regularly utilized during the week and disproportionately so by the residents living nearby.”
A final example of a silly supposition:
“With the park has come a diverse community of birds and other animals that are likely to bring with them the many positive benefits of a healthy, flourishing ecosystem.”
Do you mean the rusting giraffes that have taken up residence along the asphalt road?
Let’s try to remove the road and see how these faux “environmentalists” scream!
LikeLike
This letter leans heavily on a single stat (a claimed 25% drop in injury crashes) but skips over some pretty big issues.
First, changing the time window completely changes the story. Comparing two-year blocks smooths everything out and hides where and when problems increased. That’s exactly what Paul Kozakiewicz was looking at: specific corridors and timeframes where impacts actually showed up. You can’t just zoom out until the problem disappears and call that “more accurate.”
Second, total crash counts don’t tell you distribution. If collisions drop overall but spike on key corridors like 19th Ave or residential streets, that matters. Especially for the people living there. Averages don’t sit in traffic or wait for ambulances.
Third, there’s zero acknowledgment of response times. Even the city’s own benchmarks show delays in emergency response in the Sunset. You can’t claim “increased safety” while ignoring whether help is arriving slower when it’s needed most.
Fourth, the environmental claims are presented as fact without real sourcing. Saying the closure “prevents erosion” or creates a “flourishing habitat” doesn’t make it true, especially when increased foot traffic on fragile dunes has raised concerns from multiple directions.
And finally, this follows a familiar pattern: highlight one favorable stat, ignore trade-offs, and declare victory. You can support the park if you want but calling it an unquestioned safety win, without addressing these gaps, isn’t analysis. It’s propaganda.
And the same goes for the constant claim that “Sunset Dunes is thriving.” According to San Francisco Chronicle reporting, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sales-tax-recovery-data-22186030.php
Sunset/Parkside sales tax is still down about 8% compared to 2019 and even dropped another 2% from 2024 to 2025. That’s not what a thriving neighborhood looks like. If this park is such an economic success, where’s the recovery? Because real businesses don’t run on foot traffic counts or “visits”. They run on customers spending money. And the data shows that hasn’t come back. You can call it popular. You can call it busy. But “thriving”? The numbers don’t back that up.
LikeLike
I agree with all of the above comments that disagree with the author and support the factual article written by Paul Kozekiewicz.
LikeLike