Proposition L would tax ride-hail companies, including those that operate self-driving cars, and devote the tax revenue to improving San Francisco’s public transit.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates the Muni public transit system, faces a major budget deficit due to reduced ridership and fare revenue in the pandemic’s aftermath. 

Proposition L’s funding would protect up to a dozen bus lines from being cut and expand discount fare programs, says nonprofit San Francisco Transit Riders in the official proponent argument for the measure. That would help commuters who could not afford ride-hail services, lacked personal vehicles or faced mobility issues and might struggle to walk or bike to their destinations. 

Without this funding, overall traffic congestion could increase and parking availability could decrease, the proponents say. With fewer public transit options, commuters might resort to cars or ride-hail services, which are less passenger-efficient than buses and light rail. 

The measure might also help the city’s downtown area recover from the ravages of COVID-19, said proponent and public transit advocate Chris Arvin. If foot traffic to the area increased, more frequent bus service would be necessary to accommodate it; today’s service is sparse outside of peak commute hours. 

Proposition L’s supporters include many local and other groups, like Transport Workers Union Local 250A, which represents Muni operators, as well as Senior and Disability Action, the Sierra Club and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club. State Sen. Scott Wiener and a majority on the Board of Supervisors support it too. 

Opposition

But Proposition L would also indirectly increase ride-hail costs, says the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in the official argument against the measure. Companies would make up their losses from the tax by jacking up the price of their rides, which are more convenient for senior and disabled commuters than buses since they offer door-to-door service, the chamber said. 

Proposition L would also fail to address the root causes of the transportation agency’s financial woes while insufficiently holding the government accountable for how it would spend the tax revenue, the chamber added. 

Other opponents include TogetherSF Action, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, California Nightlife Association and SF CITI, a tech industry trade association. 

What it would do

Proposition L would levy a new tax on ride-hail companies, including Lyft, Uber, private limousine services and Waymo, which uses autonomous vehicles. The tax would apply to companies’ gross receipts, or total earnings from rides provided in San Francisco. Earnings from rides outside the city or from other services such as meal delivery would not be taxed.

The tax rate would increase with the companies’ earnings: 

• 1% on earnings between $500,000.01 and $1 million;
• 2.5% on earnings between $1,000,000.01 and $2.5 million;
• 3.5% on earnings between $2,500,000.01 million and $25 million;
• 4.5% on earnings over $25 million.

The tax could generate $25 million annually, the city controller said, based on the past performance of a similar tax. Up to 2% of the tax revenue would go toward covering the cost of administering it.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency would use the money to boost bus service frequency and add routes to public schools, libraries and parks. It would also expand discount fare and fare-free programs for people with disabilities, seniors, youths and students. The funding might let Muni increase outreach for, and uptake of, its Lifeline Pass program, which discounts rides within the city for low-income people. 

San Francisco’s current 3.25% tax on ride-hail companies is lower than those in some other major cities, and that would still be true if Proposition L passed. For example, the tax is 6% in Washington, D.C., and 8.9% in New York, plus a $2.75 congestion charge for any ride that passes through Manhattan.  

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on L” campaign committee had raised $278,677, including $40,000 from Jessica Jenkins, $30,000 from Laura Yakovenko and $20,000 from Benjamin Cochran, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

The “No on Prop L” campaign committee had raised $912,838, including $750,000 from Uber and $103,000 from Lyft.

History and context

Muni serves hundreds of thousands of passengers every day, connecting them to work, school, food, housing and more. 

But that foot traffic is a shadow of what it was before the pandemic, which normalized remote work. The drop in people taking buses and light rail to their downtown offices diminished fare revenue, which accounts for 10% of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s operating budget, down from a pre-pandemic 30%. Emergency financial assistance from the federal government is set to run out by 2026. 

SFMTA faces a $214 million deficit that threatens services in coming years. 

San Francisco has a goal of producing net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. Transportation was responsible for 44% of citywide emissions in 2020, and that share could fall if public transit were more robust and more people rode it, according to the city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan. 

Ride-hail companies have made city roads more congested and grown San Francisco’s carbon footprint. From 2010 to 2016, the companies were responsible for 51% of the city’s increased traffic and 47% of total vehicle miles traveled, according to a 2018 county Transportation Authority report. Ride-hail vehicles emit roughly 50% more carbon dioxide per passenger mile traveled than commuter-owned vehicles, according to a 2019 report from the California Air Resources Board. 

Votes needed to pass

Proposition L requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

The tax would be permanent unless voters repealed it through a future ballot measure, which would also require a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass. The Board of Supervisors could amend the tax with a two-thirds vote, as long as they did not fundamentally change it — for example, by redirecting it to apply to a different industry. 

This November, San Francisco voters will also consider Proposition M, an overhaul of the city’s business tax. In the event that voters passed both measures:

• If Proposition L got more “yes” votes, both measures would be implemented.
• If Proposition M got more “yes” votes, only Proposition M would be implemented.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition L — Tax Ride-Hailing and Autonomous Vehicle Companies to Fund Public Transit appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition K would start a process that could, about a year later, permanently close a large section of San Francisco’s Great Highway to car traffic so that the city could later turn it into a park. The measure would not fund the design or creation of the park.

The measure would affect a section of roadway called the Upper Great Highway, a 2-mile stretch along Ocean Beach on the city’s western edge, from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard.

Proposition K marks the latest chapter in a saga that began early in the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, the Board of Supervisors closed the Upper Great Highway to vehicle traffic so that residents could walk and bike there while social distancing, to slow the disease’s spread — a move that was widely popular. In 2022, the board approved a pilot project that kept the street closed to cars on weekends but open to them during weekdays. The pilot project is set to end at the close of 2025, at which point the board would decide whether to change the road’s use.

If passed, Proposition K would decide the Upper Great Highway’s fate instead.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Five San Francisco supervisors co-sponsored Proposition K’s placement on the ballot: Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, who has been the most vocal of the measure’s advocates. Engardio represents the Sunset District, which contains the Upper Great Highway.

Proposition K is a “once-in-a-century opportunity” to transform the road into an iconic oceanside park that could bring the Sunset to life, Engardio has said.

Proponents say that the highway’s pilot project has been a success, drawing an average of 4,000 visitors per weekend day. Making the road a permanent park could boost business opportunities, reduce automobile pollution in the area and create more safe space for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the beach, they say. The park would also increase coastal access for people with mobility challenges, such as wheelchair users and those with physical disabilities.

Proposition K has secured support from prominent political figures, including Mayor London Breed, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, state Sen. Scott Wiener, BART Board director Janice Li and former District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar.

Friends of Great Highway Park, a group that hosts events and activities on the roadway during weekends, has advocated loudly for the proposition. Other supporters include a diverse array of organizations focused on urban planning, environmentalism and local politics, like Livable City, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Sierra Club, SPUR, the San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco YIMBY and GrowSF.

Opposition

Since the proposition’s announcement, it has divided residents on San Francisco’s west side. Opponents expressed frustration that Engardio did not consult them before deciding to place it on the ballot. They argue that it’s unfair for voters citywide to decide their neighborhood’s future.

Opponents say the Upper Great Highway is vital for north-south travel, and permanently closing it to vehicles could worsen traffic and divert it into residential areas, as well as lengthen commutes — a recent study by the city’s transportation agency found a minor potential impact on commutes. Some merchants worry that these inconveniences would discourage long-time customers from continuing to patronize them.

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan represents the Richmond District, home to many Great Highway commuters in the city’s northwest. She opposes the ballot measure, arguing that it’s too extreme; she has proposed converting only half the road into recreational space and keeping the rest of it open to cars.

Some prominent local groups representing Chinese and other Asian American residents oppose Proposition K, including the Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club, Chinese American Democratic Club and Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco.

Aaron Peskin, Board of Supervisors president and a mayoral candidate, also opposes Proposition K, calling it divisive and an “unfunded mandate.” Mayoral candidates Daniel Lurie and Mark Farrell oppose Proposition K, too.

Other detractors include Open The Great Highway, a group formed to oppose the road’s closure, and several neighborhood groups, including Planning Association for the Richmond, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and Neighborhoods United SF.

What it would do

Proposition K would not immediately and permanently close the Upper Great Highway to cars and transform it into a park.

Instead, the measure’s passage would begin a long bureaucratic process, involving numerous local and state government agencies, that would lead to that outcome.

Because the measure would not create funding for the park, officials would have to find a way to pay for it.

If voters passed Proposition K, then the San Francisco Planning Department would propose changes to the land-use rules governing the Upper Great Highway so that it could become a park. The Board of Supervisors would publicly review that proposal, and residents and concerned citizens could attend hearings and offer comment.

The board would likely approve the proposal, as rejecting it could be seen as “not implementing the will of the voters,” said Jonathan Goldberg, legislative aide to Supervisor Engardio. That would be “unheard of,” he added, and could expose the city to risk of lawsuit.

To proceed, the city would also need approval from state regulators.

At that point — possibly 10 months to a year after Proposition K’s passage, at the soonest — the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department could start designing the new park, a process that might take several years, Goldberg said. In the meantime, the department could apply to close the road to vehicle traffic permanently, so that it could be used entirely for recreation.

The Recreation and Parks Department did not respond to requests for comment about its role in implementing Proposition K.

Cost

The San Francisco Controller’s Office analyzed what it would cost City Hall to manage the Upper Great Highway after permanently closing it to car traffic — a scenario that Proposition K’s passage would enable, but not immediately bring about.

The office’s analysis did not include the costs associated with obtaining regulatory approval for the closure. It also omitted design and construction costs for a new park.

By closing the Upper Great Highway to car traffic, the city would save an estimated $1.5 million in one-time infrastructure expenses, Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma wrote in the office’s analysis. That factors in $4.3 million that the city would avoid spending on canceled road construction and traffic signal replacements, offset by $860,000 to $2.7 million in new costs for traffic calming measures and traffic lights to divert vehicles from the Upper Great Highway to alternative routes.

Keeping the road closed to cars may cause increased expenses for trash collection and other operations, Ma said. But overall, the city would save $350,000 to $700,000 each year in reduced road and traffic light maintenance, as well as sand removal.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on K” campaign committee had raised $608,553, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Much of that money has come from leaders in tech and finance, including $350,000 from Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman; $75,000 from Emmett Shear, a partner at venture capital firm Y Combinator; $50,000 from Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO of Solana Labs, a public blockchain platform developer; and $49,900 from the Benjamin Spero, managing director of Spectrum Equity, an investment firm.

The “No on K” campaign committee had raised $110,645. Matt Boschetto, a candidate in the District 7 supervisor race, created the committee.

By a quirk of election laws, the measure-focused committee lacks the per-person $500 contribution limit that applies to committees focused on getting candidates into office.  Boschetto cannot legally use the funds from “No on K” for his supervisorial campaign. Boschetto’s father, Michael Boschetto, had contributed $50,000 to “No on K,” while the Boschetto Family Partnership added $10,000 and Matt Boschetto himself gave $5,000.

Anti-Proposition K group Open the Great Highway is the target of an ethics complaint, which alleges that it fundraised without first registering as a political action committee.

History and context

Proposition K is highly controversial. Both supporters and opponents have contested how it is presented to voters, from its title on the ballot to its official financial analysis. It has been the focus of numerous political demonstrations and media roundtables, and candidates in many supervisorial races have invoked the issue in their campaigns.

In 2022, San Franciscans considered a ballot measure that would have ended the Upper Great Highway pilot program and allowed cars back on the road seven days a week, as well as let cars resume driving on John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure, with 65.11% voting against it.

Closing the Upper Great Highway could leave the city’s Chinese American community feeling isolated, said Supervisor Chan at a recent debate on Proposition K, hosted by local radio station KALW. Chan, the only Asian American on the Board of Supervisors, said that Chinese residents frequently use the thoroughfare to travel between the Richmond and Sunset districts, both of which have historically served as cultural hubs for the community. But, of all drivers who take the Upper Great Highway, just 5% use it to commute between those districts, according to a 2021 study of pre-pandemic traffic data. Most drivers use it to get to the South Bay, the study found.

The section of road south of the Upper Great Highway, which is called the Great Highway Extension and connects the Sunset District to Daly City, has already been slated for closure due to coastal erosion. The Upper Great Highway faces a moderate risk of erosion, with its southern portion particularly affected.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition K requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

Editor’s notes:

On 10/15/2024, this article was updated with information about the share of drivers who use the Upper Great Highway to commute between neighborhoods, as well as to the South Bay.

On 10/18/2024, it was corrected to call Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker emerita.

The post Proposition K — Authorize Great Highway to Become Car-Free, Possibly a Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

一位三藩市的民選官員正面臨越來越多來自選民及當地團體的批評。主因是他支持一項投票提案，永久禁止車輛通行海洋公路（Great Highway，又稱海旁公路，大公路），並將其改造為海濱公園。

代表日落區的第四區市參事殷嘉立（Joel Engardio）聯合其他四位民選官員共同提出這項提案。這一舉措令許多居民措手不及。他們表示，殷嘉立在提出這項提案之前應該先諮詢民眾的意見，而現在這項提案已經引起了社區的分歧。民眾的不滿令更多人去促使市參事們修改提案，或將此提案從 11 月的投票中撤回。

有些人發誓下次有機會，不會投票給殷嘉立。

「我不再認為他是我的市參事了，」住在海洋公路附近的Patricia Arack說道。Arack領導著Concerned Residents of the Sunset這一團體，該團體於2020年成立，反對當時實行的關閉道路的措施。她在該區上次選舉中支持殷嘉立，只因她寄希望於殷嘉立會維持道路的現狀 —— 目前，這條公路在工作日允許車輛通行，而週末禁止車輛通行，以便人們可以在這裡步行和騎自行車。

三藩市公共新聞報（San Francisco Public Press）就他是否曾提前告知他的選民與當地社區與政治組織他有打算提交議案這一事，對殷嘉立進行提問。

殷嘉立沒有直接回答本報的問題。而相對的，他說「自去年以來，我在各種市民大會或團體的聚會中曾多次在被問到此路時，都有泛泛地提過海洋公路的未來」。他補充，「我有談過關於打造一個海濱公園的願景。」

「我應該更好地向選民解釋將此議題納入公投這件事，這會給予反對建公園的人一個用選票反對的機會，」他接著說。

但根據本報對殷嘉立所在選區的選民和社區團體的走訪，他會將此議題放進11月公投的意圖，並未傳達到他所代表的選區裡。

許多住在城市西邊的市民說他們擔心，在未能了解此事對當地的影響的情況，譬如更多車流分流到居民區以及19街和日落大道（Sunset Boulevard），遍佈全市的選民們會通過這一提案。

提案缺乏公眾外展

目前，兩個主要由華人成員組成的組織已經站出來公開反對此提案：三藩市華裔民主黨協進會（Chinese American Democratic Club）於上週投票反對，同時在社交媒體X中表明立場；而舊金山日落區商戶聯會，即是舊金山華埠商戶聯會（Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco）的日落區分會則在六月公開反對，他們的總部隨即在7月1日投票反對。

來自這兩個組織的代表都表示殷嘉立並沒有在公開支持此提案之前咨詢他們的意見。華裔民主黨協進會的主席招霞對此表示憤怒。

長城五金店的老闆周紹鋆（Albert Chow）是代表當地商家同市民的社區組織 People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）的主席。他亦對殷嘉立未能征求他的意見表示沮喪和困惑。

許多在殷嘉立所在選區內的市民亦有同樣感受。

「他沒有同他選區裡大量反對此事的人講過一句話，」Arack在就此議題談到，「他就徑直去做了。」

同Arack一樣，王运（Wendy Wong）在上次市參事選舉中投票給了殷嘉立，但她說她計劃下次現任市參事面臨挑戰時，她將會把選票投給別人。

「通常情況下，他會同社群接觸，傾聽社群的想法，但是這次他並沒有做到，」王运在提到這次的投票提案時說道。

朱偉（Selena Chu）亦曾是殷嘉立的支持者。她說當地的華人群體為選出「合適的人選」付出了巨大的努力，她們曾經認為這個人選會是殷嘉立 —— 但現在他們發現殷嘉立並沒有聽取他們的意見。

海洋公路事件導致「鄰里對立」

據三藩市康樂及公園部門（San Francisco Recreation and Park Department）稱，自疫情期間它被關閉以來，這條高速公路一直是一個受歡迎的公園目的地。從2020 年4 月開始，已有數以百萬計的遊客參觀此處，每場重大活動平均下來吸引了超過十萬人。支持永久關閉此路車輛通行的人表示，這一變化將提升行人過街的安全。它還可以為行動不便，被海岸風沙滋擾的人，特別是老年人或坐輪椅的人，在海岸線沿岸創建一條替代道路。

在他六月份發表的一篇博客文章中，殷嘉立阐述了将海洋公路改造成公园所带来的潜在经济和其他利益，以及在車道轉為公園後，如何改變车辆交通以適應新的模式。

「疫情期間的兩年來，這個公園已經過了考驗，」一名在離海洋公路不遠開藝術館的藝術家Anne Marguerite Herbst說道，「這讓我們知道它是可以成功的，同時我們也知道有多少人從城市的各個地區過來這邊使用海灘，使用公園，騎自行車，等等。我們如同活在夢境裡一樣。」

她曾在最近的第四區市參事選舉中投票給了當時在任市參事馬兆明。但她說，當殷嘉立今年與其他市參事共同發起關閉此高速公路的投票提案時，她來了個「360 度」大轉彎，她現在計劃投票給他。

Herbst是其中一名對這件事的某一方充滿熱誠的人，然而這兩方中經常發生爭執。

「這件事闡釋了很大的分歧，」前租戶權益倡議者Alyse Ceirante說道。她同樣住在離海洋公路距離幾個街區的地方有38年之久。她是開放海旁公路（Open the Great Highway）組織的一員，一個反對該高速被關閉的組織。「這造成了鄰里間的對立。」

在收到她稱之為「辱罵性」的回帖後，Ceirante不再使用在鄰里間使用的社交媒體Nextdoor發帖了。

同樣住在日落區的局面Stephen Gorski表示，在接受了CBS新聞的採訪，表示了他反對的立場後，他收到了一通帶有威脅性質的電話。

民眾現在正在「為此事爭執不休，」周紹鋆說。他稱這個提案對社群的安寧是「具有危險性的。」

在周紹鋆上週組織的一個社區活動中，殷嘉立與People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）成員坐下來，傾聽了他們對此提案的不同意見。

當晚，周紹鋆就此事與殷嘉立對峙。

周紹鋆問他，過去這幾年，「我們討論多各種各樣，讓日落區變得更好的事情。為什麼偏偏在這件事上，你要向我們隱瞞呢？」

「我很抱歉我們沒有提前通知你，」殷嘉立答到，「但多年來這件事一直是社區的熱門話題。」他向周紹鋆以及他人說，通過將其列入公投，他想讓選民能決定這條公路的未來。否則， 殷嘉立補充，市參事會很有可能在目前道路多樣使用的模式結束之後，立法關閉這條道路。

群眾施壓撤回提案

市參事們在6月18日將此投票提案上交，當天亦是在能以收集市參事們簽名的方式提交投票提案的最後期限。周紹鋆提到，這讓西區的居民幾乎沒有時間組織和制定一個與其競爭的提案。

這就是為什麼他試圖說服殷嘉立改變他發起的提案，或將其從 11 月的投票中撤回。修改或撤銷提案的截止日期分別為7月26日和7月30日。

來自Concerned Residents of the Sunset組織的Arack也在促使市參事取消該提案。在她本周三於Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon裡發表的一封致編輯的信中，她呼籲保留此公路的多樣使用模式。

「現在是時候去將這項有缺陷的提案從11月公投的選票中撤回了，」她說，「同時計劃一個能包容所有利益相關者的訴求的折中方案。

如需聯繫本文作者吳哲，請發郵箱至zhe@sfpublicpress.org。

編輯註：2024 年 7 月 17 日，本文更新了有關海洋公路混合使用模式中，它作為公園時的影響的相關信息，以及將其完全改造成公園的潛在好處。 7 月 18 日，本文再次進行了更新，加入了市參事殷嘉立 6 月發表的博客文章，進一步解釋了這項更新迭代將如何進行。

The post 三藩民選官員遭反對，因其提案關閉海洋公路 appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A San Francisco lawmaker is facing increasing criticism from his constituents and some local groups for supporting a ballot measure to permanently close the Great Highway to car traffic and turn it into a park. 

District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who represents the Sunset District, caught many residents off guard when he co-sponsored the proposition. They said he should have consulted them before backing the measure, which has caused divisions in the community. Some people have urged the supervisors to change or withdraw it from the November ballot.

And some vowed to vote against Engardio at the next opportunity.

“I don’t consider him my supervisor anymore,” said Patricia Arack, who lives near the Great Highway and leads the group Concerned Residents of the Sunset, founded in 2020 in objection to the artery’s closure at the time. She supported Engardio in the district’s previous election, expecting that he would maintain the status quo — the thoroughfare hosts cars during the week and closes to cars on weekends so that people can walk and bike along it.

The Great Highway’s hybrid use is slated to cease at the end of 2025. The ballot measure, which Engardio sponsored alongside four other supervisors and Mayor London Breed, would discontinue the hybrid use ahead of schedule. 

The San Francisco Public Press asked Engardio if he ever told his constituents and his district’s various community and political groups about his intent to co-sponsor the ballot measure.

He did not directly answer that question. Instead, he had “generally talked about the future of the Great Highway when asked about it at various town hall meetings or other group settings since last year,” he said. “I’ve talked about the vision for an oceanside park.”

“I should have done a better job explaining to constituents that putting this on the ballot gives people who oppose the park a chance to vote against it,” he added. 

But messages about his intent to put his name on the ballot measure did not reach many in the neighborhoods he represents, based on the Public Press’ interviews with those people and groups in recent weeks. 

Many westside residents said they were concerned that citywide voters would approve the measure without understanding the local impacts that they feared it would have, like worsening traffic in residential areas and on 19th Avenue and Sunset Boulevard.

Lack of public outreach 

So far, two prominent organizations with predominantly Chinese American members have come out against the ballot measure: The Chinese American Democratic Club voted to oppose it last week, and announced their position Tuesday on social media platform X; and the Sunset branch of the Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco opposed it in June, with the full association following suit July 1.  

Representatives from both groups said Engardio had not consulted them in the lead-up to publicly supporting the measure, with the Democratic Club’s leader, Josephine Zhao, expressing anger about it. 

Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware and president of People of Parkside Sunset, a neighborhood group with merchant and resident members, also said he was frustrated and bewildered that Engardio did not consult him.

Many of the supervisor’s constituents had similar feelings. 

“He did not say one word to a very significant number of people in his own district who are against it,” Arack said, referring to the ballot measure. “He just did it.”

Like Arack, Wendy Wong voted for Engardio in the last election but said she now plans to vote for someone else next time around if the incumbent has competition. 

“Usually, he will reach out to the community and want to hear from the community, but then he did not do that part” when it came to the ballot measure, Wong said. 

Selena Chu, who used to support the supervisor, said the local Chinese community went the extra mile by campaigning to get the “right person in office,” and Engardio seemed like that person — but now it appears that he is not listening to them.

Great Highway issue ‘pitting neighbor against neighbor’

The highway has been a popular destination as a park since its closure during the pandemic, with millions of visitors since April 2020 and major events that have each drawn an average of more than 10,000 people, according to the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. Proponents of the permanent closure say it would increase safety for pedestrians. And it would create an alternative path along the coastline for people with limited mobility who might struggle with sand, like seniors or those in wheelchairs.

In a June blog post, Engardio explained the potential economic and other benefits of transforming the Great Highway into a park, and how vehicle traffic might shift to accommodate it.

“For two years, the park was tested during COVID,” said Anne Marguerite Herbst, who runs an art gallery near the Great Highway. “This is how we know what a success it is, and how many people from other areas of the city came out to use the beach, to use the park, to ride their bikes, whatever. We’ve lived this dream.” 

She had voted for then-incumbent Gordon Mar in the most recent election for District 4 supervisor. But when Engardio co-sponsored the ballot measure this year to close the highway, she made a “360 degree” turn, she said, and now plans to vote for him.

She is one of the many passionate people on either side of the issue, who are often at odds.

“This has been so divisive,” said Alyse Ceirante, a former tenant advocate who has lived blocks away from the Great Highway for 38 years. She is a member of Open the Great Highway, a group that opposes the street’s closure. “This is pitting neighbor against neighbor.” 

Ceirante stopped posting about the issue on neighborhood social media platform Nextdoor after users sent her responses that she called “abusive.”

Sunset resident Stephen Gorski received a threatening call after voicing his opposition to the measure in an interview on CBS news, he said. 

People are “really at each other’s throat on this issue,” Chow said. He called it “dangerous” to the community’s harmony. 

At a neighborhood event that Chow hosted last week, Engardio sat down with People of Parkside Sunset members and heard their opinions, which were mixed, on the ballot measure. 

That night, Chow confronted Engardio. 

Chow told him that, in the past, “We talked about all kinds of things to make Sunset better. Why was this the one thing that you just hid it from us?”

“I’m sorry I didn’t give you a heads up,” Engardio replied, “but it’s been a topic front and center for years.” He explained to Chow and others that by putting it on the ballot, he wanted to give voters control over the Great Highway’s future. Otherwise, supervisors would probably legislate its closure after its hybrid-use mandate expired, he said.

Pressure to withdraw measure

The supervisors put the measure on the ballot on June 18, their last possible day to do so. That left westside residents little time to organize and create a competing measure, Chow said.

That’s why he is trying to persuade Engardio to alter the measure he co-sponsored or remove it from the November ballot. The deadlines to amend or withdraw it are July 26 and July 30, respectively. 

Arack, of Concerned Residents of the Sunset, is also pushing for the measure’s removal. In a Letter to the Editor, published Wednesday in the Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon, she called for retaining the Great Highway’s hybrid use.

“Now is the time to withdraw this flawed initiative from the ballot,” she said, “and plan for the inclusion of all stakeholders in a decision that is a compromise.”

Editor’s note: On July 17, 2024, this story was updated with information about the popularity of the Great Highway’s hybrid use as a park, as well as potential benefits if it were fully converted to a park. On July 18, it was updated with a reference to Supervisor Joel Engardio’s June blog post further explaining how that conversion could work.

Also, this article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post SF Lawmaker Faces Growing Backlash for Supporting Great Highway Closure appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

一個代表日落區數十名商戶的團體公開反對三藩市海洋公路（Great Highway）禁車提案。該提案將讓選民決定是否禁止車輛通行海洋公路，並將其改造為海濱公園。

該商戶團體表示，關閉海洋公路会對城市西邊的商戶造成損害。

舊金山華埠商戶聯會的主席邵旗謙（Ed Siu）代表該聯會的日落區支部表示：「我們會全力反對這項提案。」該支部於去年成立，代表日落區 45 間商户。

該團體可能是第一個正式反對此提案的組織。上個月，市長布里德（London Breed）與五名市參事將該投票提案提交到 11 月的公投裡。如果選民通過該提案，它將永久禁止車輛通行Lincoln Way與Sloat大道之間的海洋公路。目前，這條大道在周末禁止車輛通行，以便人們可以步行或騎自行車通過。

邵旗謙說，在工作日期間，海洋公路對當地商業至關重要，因為它是司機出入日落區與列治文區的捷徑。永久關閉這段路可能會阻緩交通，並損害這兩地商業的人流。邵旗謙提到，更長的通行時間也會讓送貨公司有理由推遲運送貨物。他們可能要等到街道不再擁堵時再運送貨物，導致商家在營運時間期間庫存不足。

邵旗謙表示，有其他兩條主要幹道可以作為海洋公路的替代路線，分別是日落大道（Sunset Boulevard）和19街。

「但是，如果有一天需要關閉其中一條路進行維修，怎麼辦？」他說，這種情況下，司機沒有辦法選擇其他路線，可能會導致更嚴重的延誤。

海洋公路的多樣用途 —— 即在工作日供私家車通行，在週末供行人通行 —— 是一項實驗性計畫，該計劃原定將持續到 2025 年底。屆時，市參事會將決定這條公路的長期命運。

代表日落區的第 4 區市參事殷嘉立（Joel Engardio）表示，在多種用途之間來回切換是「不可持續的。」這是因為「在每週一早上都必須重新恢復為道路的情況下，只存在於週末的公園很難建立持久的公園基礎設施，」他說。

殷嘉立提到，市參事會的大多數成員都對有意向禁止車輛在這條公路通行。他推測，在不久的將來，擁有否決權的市參事會多數成員可能會推動關閉這條道路。

作為將該投票提案列入今年公投的市參事之一，殷嘉立並沒有直接回應邵旗謙的批評。相反，他提到，該提案會將決定如何使用海洋公路權利交還居民決定，而非民選官員。

他說：「提案會給予反對關閉海洋公路的人一個機會去聯合起來並反對它。」

這提案不會影響海洋公路延伸段（Great Highway Extension），該長約一英里的路段位於Sloat大道和天際線大道（Skyline Boulevard）之間，連接三藩市和帝利市（Daly City）。市參事會已於 5 月投票決定關閉該延伸段，作為其保護沿海地段免受海平面上升侵蝕計畫的一部分。

代表列治文區的第 1 區參事陳詩敏（Connie Chan）反對該提議。她在一份聲明中表示，海洋公路是「西區重要的南北連接點」。她表示，市府應將一半的車道留給汽車通行，另一半則改為休閒空間。

殷嘉立表示，陳詩敏的提議不能讓司機和公園遊客都滿意，也不划算。他說，在這種情況下，市政府「仍將承擔維護可供汽車通行的道路產生的所有費用，而此道路的實用性卻大大降低。」

但在Taraval街做生意的長城五金老闆周紹鋆（Albert Chow）則認為陳詩敏的提議聽起來不錯。

周紹鋆說，提案中若沒有這個選項，「我將被迫投反對票」。他補充說，一些將此提案列入選票的市參事似乎對日落區的情況知之甚少。周紹鋆同時也是當地幫助促進小型企業發展的社區組織 People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）的主席，該組織的成員對此提案的有不同的看法。

彭子茵（Dorothy Pang）是一名在日落區Parkside執業的兒科牙醫， 她曾居住在海洋灘（Ocean Beach）附近。她認為，這條公路目前的使用模式就已經足夠好了。她喜歡將其用作一個美麗的海濱公園，但她也表示，許多司機需要使用該公路來往返城市之間。

「為什麼我們不能共享這個空間呢？為什麼我們要如此極端地只容納一方的存在呢？」彭子茵問。 

如需聯繫本文作者吳哲，請發郵箱至zhe@sfpublicpress.org。

The post 商戶們反對將海洋公路改建公園的提案 appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A group representing dozens of merchants in the Sunset District is objecting to a ballot measure that would close San Francisco’s Great Highway to cars and transform it into a park. 

The closure would hurt businesses on the west side of the city, the group said. 

“We will strongly oppose the proposition,” said Ed Siu, chairman of the Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco, speaking on behalf of its Sunset branch, which formed last year and represents 45 businesses. 

The group may be the first to come out officially against the proposition, which Mayor London Breed and five city supervisors last week approved to be put on the November ballot. If passed by voters, it would permanently remove car traffic from the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard. Currently, the thoroughfare closes to car traffic during weekends so that people can walk and bike its length.

The Great Highway is vital for local commerce during the week, Siu said, because it is the quickest route for drivers traveling between the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods. A permanent closure could slow travel, discouraging commuters and harming foot traffic to businesses in both areas. The longer travel time could also give merchandise-delivery companies a reason to delay transporting goods to stores until hours when street congestion was lighter, leaving store inventories sparse until after customers had left, Siu said.

Siu acknowledged that two major arteries, Sunset Boulevard and 19th Avenue, serve as alternatives to the Great Highway. 

“But what if one day one of those routes needs to close down for maintenance?” he said. That would leave drivers without options, possibly causing worse delays. 

The Great Highway’s hybrid use — for vehicles during the week, and for pedestrians on weekends — is part of a pilot program that will be in effect through the end of 2025. At that time, supervisors would be able to decide the highway’s long-term fate.

Switching back and forth between uses is “unsustainable,” said District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who represents the Sunset District. That’s because “it’s difficult to create lasting park infrastructure when the weekend park has to convert back to a road every Monday morning,” he said.

A majority of the Board of Supervisors is already interested in closing the street to cars, Engardio said. He speculated that in the future, a veto-proof majority of the board might push for closure. 

One of the supervisors to put the measure on this year’s ballot, Engardio did not respond directly to Siu’s criticisms. Instead, he said that the ballot measure empowered residents, rather than supervisors, to decide how to use the highway. 

“A ballot measure gives people opposed to the closure a chance to organize and defeat it,” he said. 

The measure would not affect the Great Highway extension, a nearly one-mile stretch between Sloat and Skyline boulevards that connects San Francisco with Daly City. The Board of Supervisors voted in May to close the extension as part of a plan to protect coastal properties from erosion due to sea level rise. 

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, who represents the Richmond District, opposes the proposition, saying in a statement that the Great Highway is “a vital North-South connector for the Westside.” She said that the city should leave half its traffic lanes to cars and convert the other half to recreational space.

Engardio said that Chan’s suggestion would not satisfy both drivers and park goers, and it would be an inefficient use of money. The city would “still have all the expense of maintaining the road for cars, while the road has far less utility,” he said.

But Chan’s proposal sounds good to Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware, on Taraval Street, and president of the People of Parkside Sunset, a neighborhood group that helps promote small businesses. 

Without that option on the table, “I will be forced to vote no” on the measure, Chow said, adding that some of the supervisors who put it on the ballot seem to know little about the dynamics of the Sunset District. Opinions on the measure are mixed among members of Chow’s group.

Dorothy Pang, a pediatric dentist with a practice in the Parkside neighborhood and a former resident of the Ocean Beach area, said the highway is fine as it is. She enjoys using it as a beautiful outdoor park, but said she recognized that many drivers need to use it to commute in and out of the city. 

“Why can’t we share the space? Why do we have to go so extreme to make it all inclusive for one thing or another?” Pang said.

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post Merchants Oppose Ballot Measure to Turn Great Highway Into Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

The California Public Utilities Commission did not even consistently collect the most basic industry information, such as ride requests and miles driven, the report from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority shows.

The state’s spotty information about company operations makes it more difficult for policy makers, especially at the local level, to address top priorities like road safety, air quality and access to transportation for people with disabilities, the study says.

Cities bear the brunt of congestion and other industry side effects — particularly San Francisco, which had by far the greatest ride concentration of any municipality in the state, with more than 820,000 trips per square mile in the year ending Aug. 30, 2020. But they have little jurisdiction over the ride-hailing giants, which are regulated by the state.

“The lack of accurate, timely and transparent data has left localities without necessary information to support a basic understanding” of ride-hailing company operations within their borders, the study said. 

According to the report, the commission let Uber and Lyft submit inconsistent and incomplete data in their mandatory annual reports to the agency.  

The problems are exacerbated “if not directly caused by” the commission’s unclear reporting requirements and “lack of quality assurance or enforcement of quality standards,” it said.

On Tuesday, Joe Castiglione, deputy director for technology, data and analysis at the Transportation Authority, presented the study to its board.

“TNC 2020: A Profile of Ride-Hailing in California,” is the first broad analysis of annual reports from Uber and Lyft, which are the dominant players in a sector known as transportation network companies. It covers September 2019 to August 2020, the interval for which the most complete data is available.

Although the transportation agency’s initial goal was to examine ride-hailing’s effects on the state’s people and environment, it also found “pervasive” problems with the commission’s data collection practices.

Among the study’s findings:

• Lyft filed only 36% of the required data with the commission, while Uber reported more than 99%, suggesting that the commission enforced the reporting rules inconsistently. 
• Even basic data on company activity was self-contradictory, with Lyft stating two different figures for its total completed trips that varied by 49.7 million trips, or 81%. Uber’s totals varied by 9.3 million trips, or 6%.
• If San Francisco had accurate figures, Castiglione told the board, it could better assess whether Uber and Lyft are paying the city a per-trip surcharge that funds public transportation.
• Uber produced an estimated 494,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an amount comparable to that released by the 2020 Caldwell Fire in Northern California, which burned 81,000 acres. Almost a third of those vehicle emissions occurred with no passengers aboard. Because Lyft’s mileage data was incomplete, its emissions could not be estimated.
• While ride-hailing companies promised to reduce congestion through shared travel, the data shows that just 14% of calls are for “pooled” rides, and only 7% are filled.
• Only about half of all requests for wheelchair-accessible vehicles were served. Uber completed 47%, and Lyft 53%.
• Lyft reported three times as many public safety incidents on a per-trip basis as Uber did. These include collisions, assaults, harassments, drunk driving complaints and traffic citations. Lyft reported 30 times as many assaults and harassments as Uber did on a per-trip basis.

However, the study noted that the firms may be reporting differently, “pointing to the need for increased review by regulators.”

The ride-hailing firms have said that more than 99% of their trips end without safety issues, and that they have added security features to their apps. Uber, for example, offers “share my trip,” which lets riders send their location to friends or family. Lyft has a similar option.

The state commission has also released the firms’ 2021 data filings, but the local study said they appeared to be even less complete, and so heavily redacted they could not be fully evaluated.

The Transportation Authority emphasized that the commission, which also regulates driverless vehicles across California, has been heavily redacting its reports on them as well, even though cities need quality data on how the nascent services may affect them.

In 2013 the commission became the first agency in the nation to legalize ride-hailing, and is the only state agency that collects comprehensive data on the industry.

Terrie Prosper, the commission’s spokeswoman, said in an email that the agency was aware of the city’s concerns. “CPUC staff have been working with the TNCs to rectify many of the concerns for the 2020 data and for subsequent reporting years,” she said. 

Uber and Lyft spokespeople said in emails Monday that they had complied with the commission’s requests for information, but questioned the study’s overall conclusions. They did not respond to questions about specific findings.

The commission’s faulty data collection came to light in October 2021, after the Public Press obtained data on assaults and harassments from the 2020 annual safety filings for Uber and Lyft under the California Public Records Act. It was the first public disclosure of any annual ride-hailing safety reports, revealing that numbers the firms submitted to the commission varied widely.

The commission confirmed in a ruling in January 2022 that it had let the ride-hailing giants use varying definitions of sexual assault since at least 2017, and this “could impact the total number and types of incidents reported in their annual reports.”

The commission in June 2022 voted to require uniform definitions in reporting assault complaints. It did not address other categories of data.

San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston, one of several Transportation Authority board members, at the hearing Tuesday expressed frustration with the state commission.  

“We basically privatized and deregulated transportation, and this is what we get: clogged street, no accountability, no data,” he said. “This is a joke. I mean, a cruel joke in terms of data integrity.” 

Read more about the ride-hailing industry and the record of state regulators in our ongoing series, “Ride Hailing’s Dark Data.”

The post Local Planners Say State Failed to Track Safety Incidents on Uber and Lyft appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

In a recent Public Press poll to gauge residents’ opinion of the city’s thorniest issues, San Franciscans made their top concerns crystal clear: housing affordability, homelessness and the cleanliness of city streets.  

More than 200 people shared opinions with the Public Press when asked to identify the most pressing concerns in their supervisorial districts. Most participants completed the brief survey online early this fall, with about 15% replying in person to surveyors seeking diverse respondents in supervisorial districts with competitive races. A small number of respondents said they worked in the city but lived elsewhere. 

While concerns varied by district, housing, homelessness and street hygiene emerged as key issues. Aggregated concerns about different kinds of crime came in as a close fourth. City residents were also able to weigh in on these thorny matters in the Nov. 8 general election. 

Results are still rolling in that could decide several close contests. Based on the latest vote tally from the Department of Elections: 

• Neither of two competing efforts to streamline San Francisco’s building permitting process with stated goals of building more affordable housing has secured 50% of the vote. After hanging on for several days by a razor thin margin, over the weekend Proposition D drifted further away from victory, while E has lost.  
• Proposition M, a progressive empty homes tax meant to give owners incentive to rent out vacant units, passed and stands with almost 54% “yes” votes.  
• Proposition C’s proposed increased oversight of the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing was also voted into law.  
• Proposition B, which overturns a decision made by voters in 2020 to create a new Department of Sanitation and Streets, received strong support with about 75% “yes” votes, returning street-cleaning duties to the Department of Public Works.  
• Voters seem to have upheld Mayor London Breed’s choice for District Attorney in a closely-watched race after months of debates on the role of the DA in addressing crime. Brooke Jenkins declared victory in the race Nov. 9, though her closest challenger John Hamasaki has yet to concede.  

With the potential failure of both D and E, survey respondents’ concerns regarding the new construction of affordable housing may not see much progress as a result of this election. Many respondents noted the lack of affordable housing as a major concern, oftentimes linking the housing crisis with high costs of living and homelessness. 

In August, the California Department of Housing and Community Development announced an investigation into housing policies and practices in San Francisco to understand why the city’s permitting process is so lengthy. It is the first investigation of its kind in the state.  

Gov. Gavin Newsom also reported on Nov. 3 that he is pausing the distribution of $1 billion in funds meant to address the homelessness crisis. Money from the Homelessness Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program was meant to go to jurisdictions across the state, but Newsom said he will hold onto funds until local leaders meet up in mid-November to identify more aggressive strategies to reduce homelessness. 

The confusion of having two similarly worded competing measures may have undermined the ability for either to pass.  

Jason McDaniel, associate professor in the department of political science at San Francisco State University, said he believes the dueling measures are a sign of polarization and dysfunction in the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and Breed. 

“There’s not a lot of trust, there’s not a lot of signs of working together,” he said. “And so, when you see these dueling kinds of ballot measures, what you’re seeing is they don’t feel like they can govern and legislate — board and mayor together — on important decisions on housing policy.” 

More broadly, McDaniel said he sees two competing ideologies in the city, noting their presence in mobilizing around the DA’s race as well as various housing measures. 

“We have two kind of highly organized and competitive political factions in the city,” he said. These two factions are often referred to as progressives and moderate-liberals, though McDaniel “doesn’t love these terms.” As he sees it, the progressive faction is further left and usually positions itself in opposition to policies of political leaders such as Breed and state Sen. Scott Wiener. The moderate-liberal faction “mostly descends from the Willie Brown coalition, inherited by Gavin Newsom and Ed Lee.” 

These two groups are also “really good at making connections with voters — they care about, they listen to voters, they want to represent them.” In this way, McDaniel said, voter concerns are an important driving factor in what issues are central to elections.  

For voters, filling out ballots can already be time consuming even without the complexity of competing ballot measures.  

Survey respondent James Aldrich, who listed bike and pedestrian safety as his main concern, said “I think of myself as politically progressive, and yet, it’s pretty confusing when you try to figure out what is the solution” to some of the city’s biggest issues, such as the housing crisis.  

Transportation Priorities

Another hot issue for survey respondents that appeared on the ballot was the question of closed streets and car access. Much like the contentious split on the two affordable housing measures, voters and survey respondents had strong opinions regarding the potential re-opening of streets such as John F. Kennedy Drive and the Great Highway.  

Proposition J, which affirms the Board of Supervisors’ decision to close a portion of JFK Drive permanently to cars, passed. Its counterpart, Proposition I, which would have overturned a previous Board of Supervisors’ decision and reversed the city’s eventual closure of a portion of the Great Highway, was trailing by close to 30%.  

Richard Rothman, a native San Francisco resident who lives in District 1 and has followed local issues for several years sees the outcome of Propositions I, J, and L as reflective of a division between the eastern and western parts of the city. “I’ve never seen the city so divided,” he said. “Nobody wants to sit down and compromise; it’s either my way or no way.”   

Transportation concerns weren’t limited to closed streets. For survey respondents, concerns around transportation revealed a vast array of perspectives regarding whose transit needs should be centered in city policy — pedestrians, bikers, drivers, seniors, people with disabilities and various combinations of those groups. 

Some respondents called for improved Muni service and better traffic control. After a $400 million Muni bond failed in June, elected officials were hoping a different ballot measure could help tackle some of the city’s public transit woes.  

Proposition L, a proposed extension to San Francisco’s existing 0.5% sales tax, is the only measure on the ballot requiring a two-thirds affirmative vote to pass and currently stands at 71% “yes.” If approved, L would fund programs ranging from basic transit maintenance to large-scale transportation projects, as well as increased paratransit services and pedestrian and bike safety measures.  

The post SF Residents’ Concerns Were All Over Ballot. What Did Voters Say? appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition N would give the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department control of the Music Concourse Garage in Golden Gate Park. The 800-space parking garage is managed by a nonprofit created by a ballot measure in 1998 that raised private donations to help finance the facility. Supporters of Proposition N cite a series of financial scandals and mismanagement of the garage and say the parking lot is underutilized because parking rates are set too high. They want to amend the earlier ballot measure to give control of the facility to Rec and Park.

This measure requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

Proposition N would overturn part of a ballot measure (then-Proposition J) passed by voters in June 1998 that placed construction of the Music Concourse Garage in Golden Gate Park in the hands of a nonprofit called the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority.

The authority took over management of the garage from the Music Concourse Community Partnership, another nonprofit created to raise tax deductible donations to build the 800-space garage. Organizers raised $36 million of the $55 million needed to build the garage. Ongoing profits from the garage were supposed to pay off loans taken out to cover the balance.

The original measure also called for any excess parking funds to be returned to the operation, maintenance, improvement or enhancement of Golden Gate Park. No such funds have been distributed.

In 2008, a $4 million embezzlement scandal by a former chief financial officer rocked the original fundraising nonprofit. Since then, the concourse authority has struggled to pay rent to the city.

Critics of the nonprofit said that the parking spaces are overpriced, with many of the 800 parking spaces often going unused. They also criticize the authority for not providing discounts to park employees who work in the De Young Museum, California Academy of Sciences and other attractions near the garage.

No opponents to the measure have placed a counter argument for maintaining the current system in the official ballot pamphlet.

Mayor London Breed issued the “Official Proponent Argument.” She said that the passage of Proposition N would allow the city “to spend public dollars on the garage, which creates flexibility over the management and parking rates.” She said the change would make it possible for the city to offer discounts to low-income and disabled visitors who drive to the park. The mayor said that “flexible pricing” will also allow the city to pay down the debt incurred from building the garage. 

The post Proposition N — Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition L is a proposed extension of the city’s current 0.5% sales tax until 2053 to help fund public transportation projects. The measure also allows the city to issue up to $1.91 billion in bonds to be repaid with proceeds from the tax, which the city controller estimated will generate $100 million per year in its early years, increasing to about $236 million by 2052. Revenue from the tax would be used to fund the 2022 Transportation Expenditure Plan, which includes a variety of programs focused on basic transit maintenance, major transportation improvements, paratransit services, congestion reduction, pedestrian and bike safety, and community-based equity planning. This measure requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

San Franciscans first voted to approve this tax in 1989 and elected to extend it once again in 2003. The current tax isn’t set to expire until 2034. However, advocates say that passing the tax now will unlock the potential to qualify for billions in matching funds in state and federal grants, and note that all but one of the major capital projects under the current plan have been completed.

Local transportation agencies like San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency and Bay Area Rapid Transit have struggled since the start of the pandemic with decreased ridership and thus funding. A $400 million Muni bond measure narrowly failed in June. Supporters of Proposition L say the proposed improvements funded by the measure will be a key part of luring back riders, especially in the absence of other investments.

Supporters include Mayor London Breed, District 8 Supervisor and Chair of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Rafael Mandelman, the San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Transit Riders, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Walk San Francisco, Senior and Disability Action, the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Labor Council and others.

Opponents of the measure include Larry Marso, who also opposed the failed June Muni bond, and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods. They argue that the current tax will not expire for another 10 years and that San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s spending is out of control. Opponents also say that the amount of federal funding available is “false marketing” because it does not adjust for inflation. Instead, they are pushing to “retool” the transit system for reduced commutes in the current climate with increased work-from-home.

The process for creating the new transit plan included six months of public advisory committee meetings composed of neighborhood, business, advocacy and community representatives, in addition to partnerships with community-based organizations to conduct outreach with communities of color, low-income households and monolingual communities. More detailed aspects of the 2022 Expenditure Plan include:

• Muni reliability and efficiency improvements through transit-only lanes and other street design changes
• Improving Muni and BART core capacity through more frequent and longer trains, upgrades to control systems
• Extending Caltrain downtown and other Caltrain system capacity investments, which may be used in future light-speed rail services
• Routine maintenance and rehabilitation on Muni, BART, Caltrain and ferry transit
• Addition of zero-emission vehicles and other measures to reduce the impacts of climate change
• Creation of a Bayview Caltrain station and Mission Bay Ferry landing
• Investments in paratransit for seniors and people with disabilities
• Street resurfacing and maintenance
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities maintenance
• Improvements to traffic signs and signals
• Investments in safe streets, such as curb ramps and tree planting
• Creation of express bus lanes on freeways and other changes to encourage carpooling
• Other measures to increase freeway safety and to repair the harm caused by former freeway and street projects
• Creating and implementing neighborhood and equity priority transportation plans

The post Proposition L — Sales Tax for Transportation Projects appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.