Where the rubber meets road, the city foots the bill.
The proposed “Great Highway for Everyone Act,” which seeks to reopen the stretch of the Great Highway to weekday car traffic some two years after 2024’s Proposition K turned the road into Sunset Dunes Park, could cost nearly $14 million to implement, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department.
Pro-park organizer Lucas Lux obtained an initial estimate of costs in a public records request and shared it with Mission Local. The numbers were subsequently revised upwards to $13.95 million, the city agencies told Mission Local.
Creating the park has so far cost at least $1.2 million in public and nonprofit funds, far less than the cost of traffic infrastructure that would otherwise have to be maintained. That figure includes some $700,000 from Rec and Parks for signage and amenities, and $500,000 in nonprofit funds that were directed toward public art and other installations.
Much of the financial burden for reopening the park to private car traffic would come from the road’s restoration.
An estimated $13.2 million would be shouldered by SFMTA to replace and restore traffic signals that are “past their useful life,” according to Michael Roccaforte, a spokesperson for the agency. Had the road not closed to cars in 2024, the cost of signal restoration would have been similar, Roccaforte added.
SFMTA’s estimate is based on an anticipated $12 million to restore signals at various intersections along the stretch. An additional $1.2 million would go toward replacing a traffic signal at Lincoln Way, currently the park’s northern edge.
The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department estimates that it will cost an additional $750,000 to remove the park’s amenities and convert it back into a road suitable for private car traffic, Tamara Barak Aparton, a Rec and Parks spokesperson, confirmed.
The organizers behind the measure have said that they collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Those signatures, which were turned in to the city on Monday, are still being verified.
Roccaforte said the numbers reported by SFMTA are only estimates. A more official report would come in August from the city controller’s office.
The latter is tasked with performing an independent analysis of the cost of every citywide initiative that qualifies for the November ballot. It would consider the measure’s impact on all relevant departments, including SFMTA and Rec and Parks, as well as the Department of Public Works.
If the proposed measure makes the ballot, it may be an uphill battle. In 2024, 55 percent of voters citywide were in favor of Proposition K, which closed the road to cars.
In the neighborhood, however, the proposal is likely to be popular: 64 percent of Sunset voters opposed closing the road to cars in 2024, and successfully recalled their then-supervisor Joel Engardio over the issue.
More recently, the top candidates in the district’s recent crowded supervisor race all supported the proposal to keep the road open to cars during the week and closed on the weekends.
The dunes remain buried in litigation. An anti-park group sued the city and five supervisors in 2025, and appealed last April after their case was thrown out.
The proposed measure also faces a lawsuit, filed in June by a group of Sunset Dunes supporters, which argues that the language of the petition that was used to gather signatures to get the measure on the ballot included several “false or misleading statements.”
Among those, they argue, is the claim that the creation of Sunset Dunes has slowed down emergency vehicles, and that the measure is a “compromise” between park lovers and park haters that will keep the two miles of former roadway “exactly as it is.”
Emergency vehicles can still drive through the park, the lawsuit claims, and reopening the area to private car traffic means the removal of several park features added post-closure, among them a skate park and a giant octopus sculpture.
Enough is enough. This is ludicrous. We’ve voted. The new supervisor declined to bring this up again. Now we may potentially need to spend MILLIONS on this? No. Residents pushing this are acting like Trump. Stop it already.
I walk down to Sunset Dunes every day and more people use it on a daily than ever drove there. Kids on bikes, families, dogs out walking. Bikes joggers, skaters, stroller groups. I saw this really cute gaggle of kids on bikes early one weekday morning being guided by a pair of lovely volunteers. See some raptors, an osprey, some hawks, maybe even a bald eagle.
It’s a nice park. Let’s save that money and use it to fix some actual problems. You know, improve things.
I’d like to point out that the 65% “majority” opposing Sunset Dunes and recalling supervisor Engardio was 65% of the pathetic approximately 30% voter turnout. I am so disappointed in those of you that didn’t bother to vote.
I also had canvassers coming to my home and flat out lying, for example saying that voting for recalling Joel Engardio would reopen the Great highway to cars. Wish I had a video camera set up to catch that.
Oh ok Alan, so by deduction I have to assume you think the Sunset Dunes naysayers have *never* lied (or in this case, exaggerated a worst-case scenario?)?? OH PLEASE. All the ‘Open the Great Highway’ folks do is lie! They lie about being ‘trapped’ in their neighborhood. They lie about the City taking away a vital disaster evacuation route. They lie about how many drivers were using the Upper Great Highway before it was closed to cars for good roughly 16 months ago. They lie about how Sunset Dunes has made traffic ‘so much worse’ even though Sunset Blvd is still under capacity for roughly 23 hours a day. Even more pathetically, they still lie and try to convince people the Upper Great Highway is essential for reaching shopping areas in Daly City…even though the southbound Great Highway Extension has been closed for quite some time so geometrically speaking it does not matter at all timewise if a driver takes the east side of the zig-zag or the west side. Oh…and by the way, recalling Engardio did threaten the existence of Sunset Dunes but Shamann Walton decided to throw his replacement under the bus and not support a Supervisor-led measure to roll it back. How were the petitioners supposed to know that in advance?
Dude, read a little more carefully. He is on your side.
It’s cheaper to maintain a park (that voters chose) than to maintain a road on a stretch of coast that is eating the infrastructure…The negligible increase in commute times for the locals is gonna be okay!
I like parks, but I will vote to bring back the great highway for motorists.
Lincoln Boulevard? Mission Local can’t even get the name of a street right. Embarrassing.
Sir or madam —
This story was written by a city native and, occasionally, even the most knowledgeable people make mistakes. We appreciate the eyes. It is possible to alert people to errors without being nasty and condescending. We’ll do better. Will you?
Best,
JE
Wow, do all traffic lights in the city cost that much, or are the beach ones especially expensive? I wonder how much we spend across the city on them…
Let’s stop with the patronizing, high-horse rhetoric and look at the actual reality of what is happening on the Westside.
First, to the claim that we are “saving” $13 million by keeping the road closed: SFMTA’s own spokesperson admitted these traffic signals are “past their useful life.” Keeping a road closed does not magically make ancient, rotting electrical infrastructure at major crossings like Lincoln Way safe or maintenance-free. Leaving critical transit infrastructure to decay is not a “fiscally responsible saving”—it’s a massive city liability waiting to happen, and SFMTA owed the Westside these upgrades years ago.
Second, calling residents who utilize the city’s legal petition process “election deniers” or “Trumpian” is incredibly lazy and intellectually dishonest. Collecting thousands of physical signatures, verifying them with the Department of Elections, and placing a measure on the ballot to let voters decide is literally the democratic process in action. If a “Yes” vote on Prop K was so ironclad and popular, why are you so terrified of letting the public weigh in on a weekday compromise?
Third, let’s address the emotional blackmail about “tearing down” the temporary skate park and the octopus sculpture. Those cheap, temporary installations were quietly fast-tracked by Rec and Parks for one specific reason: to bypass the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and community master-planning, creating a visual “fait accompli” before a single public meeting could happen. Trying to hold a vital north-south transit link hostage over temporary plywood ramps is absurd.
A real compromise is simple: a world-class park on the weekends when people actually use it, and a vital commuter link on the weekdays for the working-class families, nurses, and teachers who actually live here and have to get to work. Demanding 100% of the road, 100% of the time, while name-calling your neighbors who ask for a basic middle ground, is the definition of selfishness.
“Anti-park?” Please *try* to write an unbiased article for once about this issue. The folks who want actual sanity restored to their neighborhood are “pro-compromise” or “pro-sharing the highway.”
The only “anti-“ anything are the selfish folks who don’t want to share a needed N/S thoroughfare on the west side.
This isn’t about compromise. This about closing a park.
Closing Sunset Dunes M-F means tearing out infrastructure, including the skate park and the bike ramp, and the amazing Octopus Sculpture–things that make Sunset Dunes the third most visited park in San Francisco. These things can not simply be removed M-F and then brought back Sat and Sun.
The fear of traffic mageddon has not materialized. Traffic on Sunset Boulevard remains below pre-pandemic levels.
San Francisco has been through this debate before–Embarcadero Freeway, Central Freeway, JFK Promenade, and Noe Valley Town Square. Each time residents have seen through the fear mongering of the “anti-change caucus” and embraced a future where pedestrians, bicyclists, seniors, and the disabled have a right to dedicated, safe spaces, too. And those who need to drive their cars are able to get where they are going with no to little additional time added to their commute.
“Compromise” is a nice marketing word, but make no mistake, this measure is about asking the voters if they want to close a park. It is not a compromise
@Todd David – I’ll note that the temporary weekday/weekend arrangement that Gordon Mar came up with was attacked by the “Open the Great Highway” (OtGH) people, who put Prop I on the ballot in 2022 to destroy it. They also trashed Mar when he ran for Supervisor again.
They lost Prop I, and in 2024 when Prop K came along suddenly OtGH spun themselves as the world’s most steadfast supporters of this arrangement that they failed to kill, and that’s then they started calling it The Compromise.
Other dishonest marketing is that they’ve rebranded themselves (and their new ballot measures) as “for Everyone” when it’s really only for cars. Also, they’re misusing “Restore” to mean a dilution of the original arrangement.
Always call out the lying buzzwords.
Seems like the selfish folks in this situation are the ones who think their personal will should override the democratic process. You’re an election denier, kind of Trumpy if you ask me. Sad!
Let’s do a quick line-item audit of this headline, because the math is an absolute shell game.
The article tries to scare voters with a massive $14 million price tag to restore weekday car traffic, but the SFMTA’s own spokesperson, Michael Roccaforte, accidentally gave away the entire game in a single sentence: ‘Had the road not closed to cars in 2024, the cost of signal restoration would have been similar.’
Let’s strip away the spin and look at the actual numbers:
$13.2 Million (Deferred City Maintenance): This money is for replacing traffic signals that are, by the city’s own admission, ‘past their useful life.’ The SFMTA owed the Westside this infrastructure maintenance years ago. Rolling ancient, neglected transit-light upgrades into the ‘cost of the ballot measure’ is peak creative accounting.
$750,000 (The Actual Cost): This is the actual Rec and Parks estimate to remove temporary signposts and benches.
But here is the real truth bomb regarding public spending: San Francisco taxpayers never consented to a park.
Go back and read the official 2024 Voter Information Booklet. Even if you voted ‘Yes’ on Prop K, all you voted for was closing the Upper Great Highway to motor vehicles. That’s it. Prop K never contained concrete park language, it did not permanently re-zone the land, and it did not approve a budget or master plan for a park.
Yet, Sunshine Ordinance public records requests reveal that Rec and Parks quietly funneled at least $2 million of public funds into building temporary theme-park amenities before a single legal community planning process even began.
The city easily finds millions to build an unvoted-upon ‘park’ based on a false campaign promise of ‘sand-clearing savings,’ but cries foul when it costs a fraction of that ($750k) to restore a vital commuter artery for working-class families, nurses, and teachers.
For a city operating on a $15.9 billion budget, investing $750k to restore a major transit link isn’t a burden—it’s basic accountability. Calling overdue street maintenance a ‘cost of reopening’ is pure propaganda. If a pipe bursts in your house because you didn’t maintain it for a decade, you don’t blame the person asking for a glass of water.
That’s a whole lot of words to say you are a sore loser who hates parks
Great argument ‘ No nay’ did you vote to deny working families access or just for an approved park 24/7 without the approved compromise
If pointing out that the city is trying to pass off a decade of its own neglected street maintenance as a “ballot measure cost” makes someone a “sore loser,” then I suppose demanding basic fiscal accountability makes you a defense attorney for bureaucratic waste. The math doesn’t lie, even if you don’t want to read it.
There’s nothing covert here and there’s no shell game, Jason. You seem to be either willfully or accidentally ignorant of the fact that $2 million had already been DONATED to Rec and Park to kickstart the park, and use of those funds were contingent on the passing of Prop K. That’s it. Rec and Park owns this land and nothing has happened yet that would even require environmental review. In any case—$2 million is an investment that will handsomely pay dividends in the future given how much roads cost us. You seem to forget that maintenance of this road is particularly expensive because sand blows onto it every day. And nice job concern trolling for the ‘working-class families, nurses, and teachers’ but SFMTA has demonstrated, repeatedly, that in terms of getting from the Richmond to Daly City it *does not matter* timewise how, southbound, you have to zig to the east and make your way south. Remember, the Great Highway Extension is under separate jurisdiction and is permanently closed. As for teachers and families…we live in a very compact city. Any way possible to allow kids to commute to activities on their own, car-free, is a way to get more cars off the road. Maybe you should take some time to observe the morning commute during the school year and see just how many people are using the protection of Sunset Dunes to get where they need to go, safely.
You can’t even be honest. Here is the exact language of Prop K. “Ordinance amending the Park Code to establish new recreation and open space by restricting private vehicles at all times on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard, subject to the City obtaining certain required approvals;
making associated findings under the California Vehicle Code; and reaffirming the
existing restriction of private vehicles on the Great Highway Extension. ”
Prop K didn’t just say closing the road. It was very specific: to create a park.
Thank you for pasting the exact legal text, because you just proved my point perfectly. Look closely at the words you typed: “establish new recreation and open space by restricting private vehicles.”
In land-use and municipal law, restricting vehicles to create an open space is not the same thing as funding, designing, or legally authorizing a permanent park asset.
Prop K was a use initiative. It changed the rules of the asphalt. It did not authorize a permanent Master Plan, it did not allocate a multi-million dollar budget for permanent infrastructure, it did not authorize the Recreation and Park Department to bypass environmental reviews, and it certainly didn’t grant permission to quietly funnel millions into temporary boardwalk amenities before a single legal community planning process occurred.
The city told voters they were voting on a simple road restriction. Trying to retroactively claim that a “Yes” vote gave them a blank check to spend whatever they want on a permanent theme park while crying poverty over a $750k restoration is the real dishonesty here.
“Recreation and open space” is the definition of a park.
“They didn’t vote for a park, they voted for recreation and open space” is not the winning argument you think it is.
It’s sad that people spend this time and money on a losing campaign.
I read it as the City would’ve had to pay $13M to replace the lights, but since the Park was created instead, that $13M didn’t need to be spent. But, if the Park goes away and the highway returned, that $13M would in fact need to be spent. So yes, there would be a $13M cost on tap should the Highway measure pass.
$14 Million was created when City Abruptly closed great highway based on political campaign goals, and removes traffic safety from Great Highway without a proper community input when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions was winding down instead they left closed. Now independent traffic study (same one that SFMTA used in past) showed closing Great Highway has decreased safety in the avenues near great highway.
Great Highway belongs to all users even safe drivers who going work, dropping off and using to access businesses. It must open and not pander “Pro Park People” who doesnt care about business or community input. Great Highway Must Open
The cost all avenue roads were greatly increased because of the pollical closure great highway. Constant 311 call to clear our Great Highway garbage on lower great high and graffiti (who Anti Car people called art)
Reopen Great Highway to restore balanced safety