logo
Backlash as San Francisco votes to transform stretch of highway into park

Backlash as San Francisco votes to transform stretch of highway into park

The Guardian12-11-2024

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.
Sign up to Headlines US
Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scottish councils, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, to be given full powers to introduce road charging
Scottish councils, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, to be given full powers to introduce road charging

Scotsman

time21 hours ago

  • Scotsman

Scottish councils, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, to be given full powers to introduce road charging

A new strategy cover car use charges has been announced after the Scottish Government ditched an ambitious traffic reduction target. Sign up for the latest news and analysis about Scottish transport Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ministers are to provide councils with the powers needed to charge drivers for using roads as part of a new strategy to cut car use. The move on Thursday came after the City of Edinburgh Council's transport leader said last month charging should be considered, but the relevant legislation remained incomplete. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A cheating Chesterfield mechanic who registered a customer's campervan in his own name before selling it on has since been pummelled with '160' congestion charges 'from Bradford to London', a court heard. | Archive The pledge forms part of a new Scottish Government strategy after Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop admitted in April that its long-standing, but highly ambitious target of reducing traffic by 20 per cent by 2030 was 'unachievable'. Cars contribute nearly 13 per cent of Scotland's total emissions with traffic levels rising sharply since the Covid pandemic. Transport Scotland said it would make a 'regulatory check' of the 2001 Transport (Scotland) Act 'to allow local authorities and/or regional transport partnerships (RTPs) the option to implement' local road user charging schemes. The organisation said: 'While a number of the necessary technical regulations to give effect to this power were made, initial scoping identified that further regulations must be put in place to enable local authorities and RTPs to enforce schemes. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Given the passage of time since the existing regulations were brought into statute, the Scottish Government will take the opportunity to check whether these remain fit for purpose. Once the necessary regulations and guidance are in place, it will be a decision for local authorities or RTPs whether and how to implement schemes.' Transport Scotland said it would also 'revise' its car use reduction objective 'to develop a new, longer-term target, which will support our 2045 net zero target'. Ms Hyslop said: 'The renewed policy statement reiterates our commitment to reducing car use in Scotland. It recognises the high level of car dependency in many parts of Scotland, particularly mainland rural and island areas, and that car use will remain a transport need for many people.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop will step down from Holyrood next year | NationalWorld City of Edinburgh Council transport convener Stephen Jenkinson said in May that road charging 'should be on the table for discussion' despite being overwhelmingly defeated in a local referendum 20 years ago. He admitted it would be 'challenging' and would be best introduced across a wider area than the capital. 'Potentially divisive' Deborah Paton, the city council official in charge of transport, said the Scottish Government should take the lead on such schemes and provide local authorities with the powers needed. She said: "The legislation is not complete and Transport Scotland are charged with doing a regulatory review, so we really have to wait for that. It would be more equitable if Transport Scotland looked at this on a national basis. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "Leaving it to local authorities to do it on a local level is a real struggle and potentially a little bit divisive." Scottish Conservatives transport spokesperson Sue Webber said: 'This looks like the SNP have upped the ante in their war on motorists. 'Show some common sense' 'Reducing car usage depends on providing efficient and affordable public transport alternatives. READ MORE: Drivers face 43 miles of roadworks as huge road upgrade ramps up Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Yet under SNP control, ScotRail is deterring passengers by cutting services and packing commuters like sardines into carriages. The result is, despite being left with pothole-scarred roads and taxes to drive into the city, Scots still need to use their car. 'SNP ministers need to show some common sense and focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage Scots to leave their cars at home.' The Scottish Greens said the Government's car reduction plan lacked vision, with transport spokesperson Mark Ruskell arguing the ambitions did not go far enough to revolutionise the country's transport. Mr Ruskell said: 'We are in a congestion crisis in our major cities. Air quality is suffering and communities are being cut off by the lack of affordable and accessible public transport. It's dragging our economy down and damaging our health. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The decision to walk away from the 20 per cent reduction target was a huge step backwards that undermined years of work to decarbonise transport. The plans laid out today give no indication of a new target and no plans on how to deliver better public transport.

Sheku Bayoh inquiry told chair's independence is 'torpedoed' by family meetings
Sheku Bayoh inquiry told chair's independence is 'torpedoed' by family meetings

The Courier

time2 days ago

  • The Courier

Sheku Bayoh inquiry told chair's independence is 'torpedoed' by family meetings

Meetings between Sheku Bayoh's family and the chair of an inquiry into his death have 'torpedoed the independence of the chair', a hearing was told. The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC said 'secret' meetings held several times since Lord Bracadale was appointed to head the £50 million probe in 2020 were 'spectacularly ill-advised'. He is representing the Scottish Police Federation – one of a number of groups calling for Lord Bracadale to step down – and two of the officers involved in Mr Bayoh's death. A public inquiry running since 2021 is investigating the circumstances of Mr Bayoh's death in Kirkcaldy in May 2015 and whether race was a factor. Mr Dunlop said Mr Bayoh's family had made 'inappropriate' remarks during these meetings, with Lord Bracadale claiming to have ended the meeting as a result. He said this was contradicted by the minutes of the meeting, which showed further conversation taking place. He said: 'These meetings were, almost in their entirety, completely inappropriate. 'They were doubtless well meaning, they were doubtless arranged out of the best of intentions but – and with the greatest of respect – they were spectacularly ill-advised and they have torpedoed the independence of the chair.' Mr Bayoh died in custody after a group of police officers involved in his arrest in Kirkcaldy responded to multiple reports of him in the streets with a knife. Mr Dunlop also said Mr Bayoh's family were as positioning him as 'Scotland's George Floyd'. 'The arresting officers, on the other hand, argue this was a man bent on violence, heavily intoxicated and armed with a knife – creating a clear and present danger. 'The attempt to equiparate this inquiry with, for example, the Covid inquiries or the Omagh bombing inquiry is entirely specious.' He added the fact Lord Bracadale had written to Mr Bayoh's family stating he was 'humbled and honoured' to hear from them was 'alarming'. He said it showed clear bias and that the officers were not afforded any opportunity to similarly meet with the chair. Claire Mitchell KC, representing the family, said they had the 'utmost confidence' in Lord Bracadale. She said: 'There is a preliminary matter I'd like to address and that is the idea that the meetings that the chair and others had with the family were secret – they were nothing of the sort. 'The chair mentioned in open hearing that he had met with the family, matters were stated publicly, indeed, it was even recorded in the national press. 'But perhaps rather than being surprised that the family met with the chair a question might be asked, why did other core participants not expect it? 'Because meetings with families is common place in public inquiries.' She listed a number of such, including the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Omagh bombing Inquiry. She added the legislation that governs public inquiries states not all core participants have the same rights. 'The family of Sheku Bayoh have an Article 2 right, which this inquiry as a public body itself in terms of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act must not breach. 'That duty is not held to any other core participant and it places this family in a unique position. 'It follows from that that any and all suggestions that the core participant should be treated equally is wrong. It falls into the same error as those who say they don't see colour and therefore they treat all people the same, can't have issues of race. 'The inquiry has duties to the family of Sheku Bayoh that it does not have in respect of others and the chair has made that clear repeatedly from the outset of this inquiry.' Father-of-two Mr Bayoh, died after he was detained and lost consciousness on Hayfield Road by police officers at around 7am on May 3, 2015. The public inquiry into his death, the actions of police, and whether race was a factor began in Edinburgh in May 2022. The hearing heard from members of the public who reported seeing Mr Bayoh on the streets of Kirkcaldy with a knife, including a nurse who would go on to treat him in A&E. He wasn't carrying the knife when officers arrived at the scene but a violent confrontation followed, with up to six officers restraining the 31-year-old on the ground. Former police officer Nicole Short told the inquiry she was attacked by Mr Bayoh and believed his death was 'unavoidable'. But nearby residents refuted the claim he had 'stomped' on PC Short, with a doctor noting she was not in pain. The officers were allowed to stay together in the cafeteria of Kirkcaldy police station while family members claim they were given conflicting accounts of events.

Joe Rogan says two former presidents complained to Spotify in bid to censor his COVID views
Joe Rogan says two former presidents complained to Spotify in bid to censor his COVID views

Daily Mail​

time2 days ago

  • Daily Mail​

Joe Rogan says two former presidents complained to Spotify in bid to censor his COVID views

Controversial podcaster Joe Rogan claimed two former presidents tried to get him kicked off Spotify in a bid to censor his COVID-19 views. Rogan, 57, gained widespread recognition during the pandemic for being a COVID-19 skeptic and encouraging young people not to get vaccines designed to lessen the effects of an infection. His strong opinions - which went against the advice of public health officials - led many to call for his ultra-popular podcast to be taken down from Spotify, where he signed a $100million exclusivity deal in 2020 and has since resigned a $250million deal. The conservative host took to his podcast on Tuesday to reveal some very high-profile people had begged the streaming service to cut his show, including two unidentified former presidents. 'Spotify got calls from two former presidents,' he told his guest, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, without naming either lawmaker. has reached out to Spotify for comment. Singer Neil Young also issued Spotify an ultimatum, telling the company he would not share a platform with a podcaster who spread 'false information about vaccines.' The singer's catalog was removed from the site but has since returned in 2024. Despite the massive backlash that threatened to derail Rogan's empire in the public sphere, he says he was unbothered by the fuss and 'grew by two million subscribers in a month.' 'I did [grow], because people started listening,' he said on the podcast. 'Because they made it sound like I was this maniac and they started listening, like: "Oh, he's really reasonable and pretty humble about all this stuff and is just asking questions."' Rogan, whose podcast is hugely popular among young men, also defended his beliefs, saying he brought on doctors and medical professionals who were well-known and published. 'You'd see their eyes glaze like they didn't want to hear it,' he said of critics. Ultimately, Spotify did not remove Rogan's podcast from its platform. Founder Daniel Ek later addressed the controversy in 2022, saying: 'I think the important part here is that we don't change our policies based on one creator, nor do we change it based on any media cycle. 'Our policies have been carefully written with the input from numbers of internal and external experts in this space – and I do believe they're right for our platform.' However, despite allowing him on the platform, Ek said there were 'many things that Joe Rogan says that I strongly disagree with and find very offensive.' At the time of the incident, then-White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, called on Spotify to do more to 'combat misinformation' during the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed more than one million Americans. 'Our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify,' the Biden-era secretary said at the time. Spotify would go on to flag content that covered the virus, which Psaki said was a 'positive step.' 'But we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation while also uplifting accurate information.' It is unknown if Joe Biden was one of the former presidents who contacted Spotify. During the 2024 election cycle, Rogan's guests included Donald Trump himself, who later credited podcast appearances as a major boost to his campaign. Rogan had previously turned down having the two-time president on his show, but changed his mind after he saw the politician on fellow comedian Theo Von's show. He has since had on several of Trump's top camp, including FBI Director Kash Patel and former First Buddy Elon Musk. Kamala Harris was keen to appear on the show, but plans fell apart after she refused to travel to Rogan's Austin studio during her campaign. Rogan's podcast has 14.5million followers, as of 2024 - largely outshining his competition, despite no longer being exclusive to Spotify.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store