Crossing at 25th is much better than it was before the 2005 redesign of Potrero, but it still has problems with turning southbound cars. I’m glad that folks who had opposed the Potrero changes are expressing concern for pedestrian safety, but I hope this concern extends to fixing these crosswalk problems.

I think the proposed fence will actually make Potrero more dangerous, as it will slice in half the width of the median that now provides some refuge and send other jaywalkers around to where there is no median at all.

I also think a fence will make Potrero more dangerous. Now, at least jaywalkers can wait on the very narrow median. If a fence runs down the middle of it, they’ll have even less space. If they go around the fence, they’ll be jaywalking where no median exists at all.

I can appreciate your survival of the fittest approach and no plaintiff’s attorney will ever leave me on a jury.

However since the city knowingly placed a facility designed to attract children in a location exposing them to a hazard, the fact that an eight year old kid doesn’t share your understanding of the dangers of jay walking presents both a real danger to safety of the eight year old kid and liability likely greater than the cost of the park rebuild, to the city. Read “city” as you and me as tax payers. We’re on the hook, and acting before a kid and a car get together and make us all losers, seems prudent.

btw I did tell my kids to use the cross walks.

John

If you’re crossing a busy street and freeway onramp in the middle of the block to avoid having to walk down to the intersection and you get hit it’s entirely your own fault.

We should try to make improvements, certainly, but seriously there’s a really simple solution to this problem. Just like not speeding and always waiting for the walk signal (or a green light) and looking both ways before crossing the street the common sense solution is usually the easiest and best.

The original text carries quite a different flavor than your current (revised) reportage.

As John Wilson pointed out, EMIA voiced concern about safety at the time plans for the current adult skate park were announced.

The *original* skate park plan was for a little kids’ skate park; an area for small children *with adult supervision*.

That plan was replaced with the plan for the adult skate park, which was eventually built. At the time of the introduction of the adult skate park replacement plan EMIA cautioned the city “…about the obvious dangers associated with putting a skate park next to a freeway off ramp and on ramp with six traffic lanes between the skate park and a ball field. Park and Rec proceeded with full knowledge of the hazards.”

I didn’t mean to instigate any personal criticisms that may have occurred from the comments here.

-Matthew Roth

Before you launch support for a mid block cross walk you might consider that on the north bound side you would be congesting an off ramp with the resulting potential for rear enders pushing stopped cars into the crosswalk and that on both north and south lanes a mid block signal and crosswalk would be unexpected and generate accidental running of the signal and endangering pedestrians as is already the case with the mid block cross walk three blocks north between 23rd St and 22nd St.

The Potrero exit off SB 101 carries a significant number of emergency vehicles traveling to SF General and the Paramedic facility on 25th and Potrero.

As to the issue of race by far the majority of skate park users are not minorities or children and also clearly at street level those most endangered by the present situation are the very young kids from public housing. They represent a very small number of users and are significantly younger and smaller than the typical skate board rider. They also show far less awareness of the danger and are, because of their stature more likely to be deterred to a crosswalk by a barrier.

John Wilson
President EMIA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FWIW:
There are two other extant and viable neighborhood associations in that immediate area:
Lower 24th St Neighbors & Merchants Assn
and
Rolph Park Neighbors

Otherwise, crossed wires on my part.

-marc

EMIA is quite pleased that the park renovations are so successful. It is unfortunate that they also brought dangerous unintended consequences.

EMIA was informed of the plan for a median fence by DPW in January.
EMIA had no input whatsoever into any of the decision-making prior to the pronouncement.

In January we were informed that the decision was a done deal.
When we later found it was not, we then began a dialogue with DPW.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
marc-

Neither CSFN nor EMIA support either side of the second floor of City Hall:
not the Mayor, not the Supervisors.

In general we believe that each part of an issue must be considered without reference as to who brought the matter forth.

-Judy B

“And just because the City responds to a concern of citizen who happens to be white does not mean it is racist.”

I’m not saying that because the City responds to an effective advocate like Judy that they’re racist. But that would be the case if the City responded to concerns of citizens, and by that I mean residents, taxpayers, families of color similarly as they’ve responded to Judy given that constituents of color with kids are in the majority in that part of D9.

And like Judy personally and don’t begrudge her anything, but I want government to respond equitably to all comers as to her.

In this case, given how rabid government gets about wanting to coddle white kids through an expensive array of policies which we childless San Franciscans tend to support because it is the right thing to do, and given how the immediate response to bridging the parks has been to inconvenience kids of color in favor of commuters, the racist bias of city government in action is clear. Some fairer skinned kids who get carted around in SUVs are more equal than other darker skinned kids who needs to sk8 across Potrero.

I’m a white guy who’s lived in the Mission for 20 years and we’re undergoing intensified, rampaging, ethinic cleansing here based on the consumption of rental units for TIC and condo ownership. My tiny block has been clearcut of affordable rental over the past 3years.

Racism in real estate and planning in San Francisco is alive and well.

-marc

When Judy Berkowitz at the EMIA, a member of the CSFN, a “neighborhood organization” that is known citywide for the predominance of better off white people whose kids, if any, have grown and left home, calls the MTA and complains about crossers, MTA hups to and imposes a fence. That is because the EMIA and CSFN support Gavin Newsom politically and Newsom appoints the MTA Board.

There is pervasive racism in this city as to the allocation of all sorts of city services moneys. Whiter and yellower neighborhoods tend to fare better than blacker and browner neighborhoods.

Did anyone mention closing down the interchange, or did Gillian suggest a planning process to change a horrible design, a relic of a bygone era, with something more in keeping with contemporary San Francisco values.

For so many motorists, a proposal for a few monents delay might seem like a proposal to eliminate an interchange but that does not make it so.

-marc

And please don’t play the race card, that is really pathetic. An uncalled for accusation of racism like that just shows how weak your arguments are.

The Mission and SoMa are already over-freewayed and serve as entrance ramps for the rest of the City.

What do we get in return for taking those hits, air quality, noise and collisions from the rest of the City?

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Apparently its all the rage in this town to bend over backwards to care for the children, that is, unless they are black or brown kids, in which case shaving seconds off of trip times for commuters and taxi drivers is more important.

The freeway was blasted through our neighborhoods with little concern to the consequences of those impacts, designed in a day when values and considerations were much different.

If Hayes Valley gets to “repair the urban fabric” of the disastrous exercise in freeway constuction, that after it is bleached out to be lily white in a previous wave of gentrification, then what does it take for the Mission and SoMa to get some consideration as well?

-marc

The fact is that the CC/101 interchange is used extensively by Mission/Bernal residents. Just because you don’t use it, doesn’t mean it isn’t vital to the rest of the neighborhood.

Usually these project based streetscape improvements are either part of the community benefits zoning or of mitigations to “environmental” impacts, so they are all bundled up in environmental review.

The WSOMA draft plan calls for greatly increasing the number of mid block crossings in that part of SOMA, but the current draft plan does not come nearly close enough in the exaction and community benefit department to build but a small handful over the lifetime of the plan, as the city leadership feels that developers need to be zoned to build irrespective of whether the developer pays the freight of the impacts of that construction, that is, doesn’t out source the costs of development to the community through higher taxes or more dangerous streetscapes.

The goal was to reduce the granularity of the streetscape from one designed for trucks to one that looks and feels more like a human scaled former industrial, now mixed used neighborhood.

I guess the issue is one of tradeoffs on where you throw the cement and the hardware. Would you rather have planted medians or would you rather have mid block crossings and traffic calming?

-marc

But the mall also induces some auto traffic, so they want to change the signals. I get that too. Even though they eliminated two crosswalks, I’m still OK with it, if it solves a problem.

Now look at the subject of this article. They built a new park amenity, which has induced pedestrian traffic. Following the Stevenson St example, the right thing to do would be to accommodate the new induced traffic. But because these people are unadorned with steel cages, Fleck’s position is to put up a fence. The equivalent in the other situation would be if Fleck proposed dropping sandbags on Stevenson to stop people from driving to the mall.

I can think of another place where new pedestrian traffic has been induced. On Mission between 1st and 2nd there are two new public outdoor spaces. One is at 555 Mission and the other is across the street at 580 Mission. There are lots of restaurants and cafes here, so people spend their afternoons in these outdoor spaces. It would make sense to install a crosswalk across mission to connect the two spaces. I assume if I brought it to the attention of Fleck, he’s just put in a barrier.

If I wanted to paint a bike lane on 3rd St there would be endless EIRs. But apparently if you want to erect a stop light so people can drive to the mall, no problem.