Prop. G, the ballot measure to reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars on weekdays, would “significantly increase the cost of government” by about $9.8 million in one-time costs, plus $500,000 to $1.9 million a year, according to the San Francisco city controller’s office.
A majority of the $9.8 million one-time cost — $8.8 million — is for adding new traffic signals at eight intersections on the Upper Great Highway, the controller’s letter says.
A full signal upgrade would be necessary about every 30 years, according to the letter. Had the road not been closed to cars via Prop. K in 2024, an SFMTA spokesperson said in early July, the cost would have been similar.
“Proposition G will charge San Franciscans millions of dollars to close a beloved park,” said Lucas Lux, campaign manager of the “No on G” campaign, adding that the measure would “waste taxpayer money to replace a thriving park with a failed road.”
Otto Pippenger, campaign manager of the Great Highway for Everyone campaign, disagreed. He said the “bulk of the cost is for pedestrian safety measures.”
“San Franciscans understand that our loved ones are irreplaceable,” he said. “These moderate costs are a small price to pay for the safety of our families.”
Another $750,000 would be dedicated to “removing existing park elements,” such as the skate park, the art installations, benches, among other amenities. About $200,000 would be spent on restriping and signage on the roadway.
The cost estimate turned out to be lower than the initial quote of $14 million in early July from the SFMTA and the Recreation and Parks Department. But the departments cautioned at the time that the estimates were preliminary.
On top of that, there is also a recurring annual cost of $500,000 to $1.9 million for road maintenance and sand removal.
Whether the Upper Great Highway is a road or a park, the city has to remove sand from it. But doing so costs more when the Upper Great Highway was a weekday roadway, compared to when it’s a full-time park.
The measure, if passed, would also require a coastal development permit, which could lead to an unclear cost to the city.
Countering the cost additions, reopening the road, the letter says, would decrease staffing needs and park maintenance, which would likely reduce staffing costs. Staffing at the park costs about $300,000 every year.
> Otto Pippenger, campaign manager of the Great Highway for Everyone campaign, disagreed. He said the “bulk of the cost is for pedestrian safety measures.”
It’s absurd to try to call $10M worth of highway costs “pedestrian safety measures.” What are the pedestrians being kept safe from? Why does Pippenger want a ballot measure that’s apparently so dangerous that it requires $10M worth of expenses just to keep pedestrians safe on this one street?
Did you mean [closing+reopening] cost of $9.8M? While not closing was not far from zero.
Watching Proposition G fail on Election Night will be delightful entertainment. Be sure to have plenty of drinks and snacks on hand for the festivities!
It has become clear this was the city’s plan to reduce costs. Call it a “park” via a city wide vote so the locals lose control and now defer as much maintenance as allowed just like the rest of the city parks….9.8 million saved…Lurie’s coat tails indeed will remain long…at least on paper