Californians have voted to close part of a nearly century-old highway in San Francisco to cars, transforming a two-mile section into a park for pedestrians and cyclists.
On election day, city residents voted to approve Proposition K, extending the ban on vehicles on a portion of the Upper Great Highway along the coastline. The measure has sparked intense debate over whether cars should have regular access to the area.
Opponents argue that shutting down the highway will increase traffic congestion and impose high costs on the city, while supporters believe the closure will help mitigate coastal erosion and create a safe pedestrian space for the community.
The roots of the Prop K debate trace back to the Covid-19 pandemic, when the city’s board of supervisors closed the Upper Great Highway to vehicles, allowing residents to walk and bike there while social distancing to reduce virus transmission.
The decision’s popularity led to a pilot program in 2022 that closed the road to cars on weekends but allowed weekday access.
The pilot concludes at the end of 2025. With the measure’s approval, the city can now begin the process of permanently closing the section after the pilot ends.
As of Monday afternoon, the vote stood at more than 54% in favor of Prop K, according to San Francisco’s department of elections. The measure needs 50% or more to be approved.
Critics argued that redirecting traffic from the Upper Great Highway to inland routes could add up to three minutes to commutes for drivers and create safety risks for pedestrians at intersections. “Many of us on the west side feel unheard and overlooked,” said Vin Budhai, founder of the Open the Great Highway/No on K Campaign. “Families, seniors and workers who rely on this road will now have to spend more time in traffic.”
Jared Lozano, a resident, told CBS News Bay Area: “I’ve already had a friend who’s been T-boned at [a nearby] intersection,” adding: “I was almost run over at that intersection today. This is just going to create so many safety problems for the city.”
While the city has installed speed bumps in some areas to reduce speeding, opponents contend that the existing weekend-only closure was already a fair compromise for weekday commuters and recreational users.
Supporters of the park conversion say it will enable public agencies to restore dunes and coastal habitats, strengthening them to withstand rising sea levels. They also argue that limiting vehicle access will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in this sensitive coastal ecosystem, making the coast safer and more accessible for people using wheelchairs, roller skates and bikes.
Supporters also point to the high costs of maintaining the highway, which is closed up to 65 days per year – 18% of the time – due to sand accumulation.
Keeping the highway accessible to cars costs the city between $350,000 and $700,000 annually for sand removal, with an additional $1.5m in one-time capital costs, according to the San Francisco controller’s office. Proponents argue that converting the stretch to a park could save these funds for other uses.
Prop K received notable endorsements from former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, the state senator Scott Wiener, and the incumbent San Francisco mayor, London Breed. Organizations and groups including the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Parks Alliance, and Sierra Club also extended their support.
Opponents included Aaron Peskin, president of the board of supervisors; Daniel Lurie, the city’s newly elected mayor and Mark Farrell, former interim mayor.
The city supervisor, Joel Engardio, who supported the measure, expressed on Sunday his commitment to listening to residents who voted against Prop K.
“I understand and respect the views of voters who said no to Prop K,” he said in a statement. “I will work with residents to ensure that they have a voice in decisions about how to keep traffic moving quickly while minimizing the impacts on neighborhood streets.”
