Proposition K on November’s ballot asks San Francisco voters whether we want to permanently close the Upper Great Highway (UGH) to cars in favor of establishing what proponents optimistically refer to as an “oceanside park.” What comes to mind when I hear “oceanside park” is something like Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk: an amusement park with rollercoasters, carnival games, funnel cakes, and an arcade.
Thanks for this. Today I drove the Great Highway from Sloat to Fulton, and I saw a lot of people enjoying themselves. There was a large sidewalk people were jogging on and walking their dogs, and there were bicyclists on the bike lane of GH. Everyone was positively sharing the space without any issues. It still saddens me that there are people who can't appreciate the fact that the current state of the GH accommodates everyone, and need to turn a highway for cars into walking space when they have an eight-foot wide sidewalk right next to it.
No one was pushing for GH closure until it was adopted as a covid *emergency* measure. Meaning-- the RE developers had this in the hopper for a while, and compliant supervisors went along with it.
SFBC’s anti-car activism is of no surprise. Like most bicycling organizations (CalBike, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, LA County Bicycle Coalition), they’ve been completely captured ideologically by the same ideas responsible for many of the problems in California. They now follow the dominant ideology that’s taken over sensible principled-based cycling advocacy based on obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Instead this new ideology seeks to pit recreational and commuting cyclists against working class motorists in a turf war over public rights of way.
This includes the installation of dangerous “protected bicycle lanes” and projects such as closing down this public highway to motorists.
This ideology also insists that motorists are “oppressors” responsible for an “epidemic of traffic violence” (https://principledbicycling.substack.com/s/traffic-violence-epidemic) and that “vulnerable road users” (their term for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other road users not encased in a motor vehicle) are always “victims.”
Huge Profits for a very few Developers will happen if this Land is closed to Cars. The Door opens to building towering Condos and massive High Rises... because K does NOT create a Park. It creates a Rec Area... which, unlike a Park, CAN BE SOLD. ... And Cash Strapped Rec & Park, (with no money to build a Park anyways), Most Likely Will SELL to Developers. ... Hello Miami Beach!
Why not have one side for public use, and the other to remain as roadway, has not been proposed. It's an obvious solution to keep both parties somewhat happy. But there is little logic to the way things are done in San Francisco.
Not enough demand by Peds and Bikers to actually close Half. The Pathway beside the Great Highway is adequate for the demand, and Also could be Expanded, Paved, Widened. No Problem.
Thanks for this. Today I drove the Great Highway from Sloat to Fulton, and I saw a lot of people enjoying themselves. There was a large sidewalk people were jogging on and walking their dogs, and there were bicyclists on the bike lane of GH. Everyone was positively sharing the space without any issues. It still saddens me that there are people who can't appreciate the fact that the current state of the GH accommodates everyone, and need to turn a highway for cars into walking space when they have an eight-foot wide sidewalk right next to it.
Ten words or less: It's simple. No Covid, no Great Highway closure.
No one was pushing for GH closure until it was adopted as a covid *emergency* measure. Meaning-- the RE developers had this in the hopper for a while, and compliant supervisors went along with it.
We can remove highways. It can be done, it should be done. It takes public transport investment, yes, but it creates much more liveable cities.
https://trafficnightmare.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Dusseldorf.jpg
SFBC’s anti-car activism is of no surprise. Like most bicycling organizations (CalBike, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, LA County Bicycle Coalition), they’ve been completely captured ideologically by the same ideas responsible for many of the problems in California. They now follow the dominant ideology that’s taken over sensible principled-based cycling advocacy based on obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Instead this new ideology seeks to pit recreational and commuting cyclists against working class motorists in a turf war over public rights of way.
Part of their activism insists that mass bicycling can address the climate crisis, and that currently in a world of critical theory derived “motonormativity” (https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/motornormativity-critical-car-theory) and that to create this mass bicycle utopia akin to Amsterdam billions need to be spent so “would be cyclists” of “all ages and abilities” can “feel safe” cycling. (https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/the-bicycling-advocacy-drama-triangle)
This includes the installation of dangerous “protected bicycle lanes” and projects such as closing down this public highway to motorists.
This ideology also insists that motorists are “oppressors” responsible for an “epidemic of traffic violence” (https://principledbicycling.substack.com/s/traffic-violence-epidemic) and that “vulnerable road users” (their term for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other road users not encased in a motor vehicle) are always “victims.”
The late California cyclist John Findlay Scott warned cyclists of the potential backlash to marrying their activism with anti-car ideology in his essay, “The Danger to Cycling of Anti-Car Advocacy” (https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/john-finley-scotts-the-danger-to) and so too have the principled bicyclists ousted from the League of American Bicyclists when it went through a leadership coup over ten years ago (https://www.labreform.org/carculturefallacies/)
Huge Profits for a very few Developers will happen if this Land is closed to Cars. The Door opens to building towering Condos and massive High Rises... because K does NOT create a Park. It creates a Rec Area... which, unlike a Park, CAN BE SOLD. ... And Cash Strapped Rec & Park, (with no money to build a Park anyways), Most Likely Will SELL to Developers. ... Hello Miami Beach!
Why not have one side for public use, and the other to remain as roadway, has not been proposed. It's an obvious solution to keep both parties somewhat happy. But there is little logic to the way things are done in San Francisco.
Not enough demand by Peds and Bikers to actually close Half. The Pathway beside the Great Highway is adequate for the demand, and Also could be Expanded, Paved, Widened. No Problem.