Urban Design Strategies for the Built Environment: A Case Study Analysis

Exploring strategies to encourage walkability and reduce automobile dependence

Dustin KhuuFebruary 6, 2014

Senior Research ProjectSubmitted in partial satisfaction of a BA in

Urban Studies and PlanningUniversity of California, San Diego

Abstract

Land use patterns in the United States have typically been oriented around the automobile since the mid-20th century. This research question aims to explore and identify urban design elements that encourage automobile dependence and what strategies encourage walkability and alternative modes of transportation. The area of study will focus specifically in the neighborhood surrounding the Euclid Ave. Transit Center in the Encanto neighborhood of Southeastern San Diego. Research was conducted through examining various case studies of urban design elements found in cities known to be pedestrian friendly. Field observations and interviews with design professionals and consultants were also conducted to identify design strategies for walkability. Appropriate strategies gathered from research were then applied to the context of the area of study. This paper argues that while many design guidelines exist and have been implemented in other walkable cities, many context-specific constraints exist in the Euclid Ave. and Market St. intersection, preventing dramatic changes to the urban form that would promote walkability.

Key terms: urban design, built environment, walkability, bicycling, transportation, sustainability, Southeastern San Diego

INTRODUCTION

Since the end of World War II, land use patterns in the United States have exhibited

sprawling automobile-oriented urban landscapes. This development creates a built environment

that is hostile to anyone not traveling by automobile. The hostility of built environments for

pedestrians and cyclists are rooted not in just the land use planning, but also its physical design

as well. My research question is: what are the specific urban design elements that can help

promote walkability and decrease automobile dependence? My goal to identify the various urban

design elements that may encourage alternative modes of transportation, as well as what designs

create hostile environments to those alternative modes, and explore context-specific case studies

that can be applied to a local case study. Specifically, I will be focusing on the immediate

neighborhood area surrounding the Euclid Ave. transit center in the Southeastern San Diego

neighborhood of Encanto.

Walkability for “Placemaking”

The organization of space in the built environment has clear and strong effects on quality

of life and a “sense of place,” a concept used by built environment professions to describe the

existence of meaning of purpose in public space. Placemaking involves “the deliberate shaping

of an environment to facilitate social interaction and improve quality of life” (Silberberg 2013:

1), because even if the physical infrastructure is designed to accommodate pedestrians, if there is

no destination spot, such as a retail stores or street furniture like patio seating and benches, that

built environment will not be utilized. Land use patterns designed to favor the automobile tend to

lack these place-making amenities in the built environment, and this study aims to recognize

those features, along with identifying which techniques would be suitable in the context of the

Euclid Ave. and Market St. area in Southeastern San Diego. The neighborhood is considered to

2

be a relatively low-income community lacking in amenities and economic investment. The lack

of placemaking in the built environment also creates a public realm hostile to walking and

alternative modes of transportation, leading to issues of public health, sustainability, and equity.

Walkability for Economy

Identifying suitable strategies for promoting walkability in this neighborhood of

Southeastern San Diego will lead to numerous positive impacts for the community. Cities

exhibiting urban design principles that facilitate high walkability tend to be vibrant spaces with

high levels of pedestrian activities. Prime examples include the consistently crowded Spanish

Steps of Rome or the bustling outdoor night markets in Taiwan. These places are fully active

urban spaces because no part of the environment is built to accommodate automobiles, but

instead are exclusively for pedestrians. The night markets in Taiwan are also large centers for

commerce, where independent vendors sell food and retail goods. These strategies for attractive

environments—if applied appropriately to this case study neighborhood—can lead to numerous

benefits such as economic development, which can stimulate new jobs, amenities, and recreation

space. This will create a sense of place in the community, especially with the nearby transit

center being able to facilitate alternative modes of transportation.

Walkability for Sustainability

Designing neighborhoods to reduce automobile dependence has further positive impacts

that go beyond stimulating economic development. The negative effects of increased automobile

usage worldwide has led to a number of issues affecting cities worldwide, from local problems of

heavy traffic congestion and air pollution, to global problems of diminishing non-renewable

resources and climate change. In the context of long range planning issues, reducing the

dominance of automobiles as the main mode of transportation is the only way to plan for the

3

cities to allow for a sustainable future.

Walkability for Equity

Additionally, land use patterns that support alternative modes of transportation also allow

for the access to mobility for certain demographics who are not able to drive their own

automobile, such as groups from lower socioeconomic classes, the elderly, and adolescents. A

built environment that allows for all sectors of a population to have equal mobility creates a more

equitable access to the space, whereas an environment that only accommodates the automobile

will only allow persons with the means and resources to own a personal vehicle to have efficient

access to the public space. Everyone has a right to the public space, and urban design that

accommodates all modes of transportation will ensure this equal access. In this case study of the

Euclid and Market neighborhood, the MTS trolley station connects residents to other areas of the

San Diego region if they do not own a vehicle, and thus serves as existing infrastructure that

currently facilitates equitable mobility, while also providing the capability to accommodate

future reduction in automobile dependence and greater utilization of alternative modes with

design changes.

The specific objectives for this research involve exploring different strategies in urban

design that facilitate walkability and alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing

automobile dependence. I researched into specific case studies of cities in the U.S., or specific

neighborhoods of cities in the U.S., that are known for their walkable designs and low rates of

automobile usage. Cities examined in the case study analysis are: Downtown San Diego,

Portland, and New York City, specifically Manhattan. Design elements learned from these case

studies were then analyzed to see what would be appropriate to apply to the case study area

around the Euclid Ave. and Market St. intersection. Goals for determining appropriate design

4

strategies are to create a built environment that promotes walkability and reduces the need for

automobile-dependent trips.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Public Health

A major concern with the presence of automobile-dominated land use patterns across the

U.S. is that the issue of public health. When an urban landscape that can be accessed safely only

by the use of driving or riding in a personal automobile, multiple health concerns begin affecting

the population. It is well known in contemporary planning that the built environment has direct

affects on quality of life. “Sprawling development patterns, for example, tend to reduce people’s

housing choices and limit their opportunities for health, active living” (LaGro, 2013: 6). A

growing issue in the United States is the national rise in obesity rates and Type II diabetes,

especially among the country’s youth adolescent population. While these health issues may seem

irrelevant to the field of urban planning and more to do with public health and food and

agriculture policy, there is a correlation between obesity and a sedentary lifestyle. This lifestyle

is only exacerbated among people living in medium density to low-density sprawl, where every

daily activity is traveled to by car. In a health study done by John M. McDonald et al. for the

American Journal of Preventative Medicine, MacDonald surveyed approximately 839 adults for

8-14 months who lived near a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system in Charlotte, NC and their Body

Mass Index (BMI) was measured. Through interviews through the survey process, MacDonald

found that respondents who reported using the LRT to commute to work were associated with an

“81% reduced odds of becoming obese over time” (MacDonald et al. 2010: 105). MacDonald

found a clear health correlation between those choosing utilizing transit for work and those using

other modes, and concluded that LRT systems could provide positive health outcomes for

5

millions of individuals. Land use patterns that support LRT systems tend to be of higher density

to provide effective coverage, and these are the types of urban environments where alternative

modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling, are also more likely utilized for every

day activities. These forms of active transportation thus have a positive effect on public health

through decreasing the sedentary lifestyle responsible for the nation’s current obesity epidemic.

Beyond obesity, reducing automobile dependence in physical planning also benefits other

aspects of public health. Automobiles themselves are responsible for numerous types of toxic

emissions, and this correlation is shown in cities throughout the world that suffer from

congestion problems due to heavy automobile usage. Smog regularly blankets the air in modern

day Beijing, Mexico City, New Delhi (McIntyre 2010), and even Los Angeles before the

invention of the catalytic converter. Even today, Los Angeles is still affected by smog, which is

large part is due to the region’s medium and low-density land use patterns and lack of a

connective public transportation system. Michael Bronner cited carbon monoxide (CO) as one of

the many dangerous emissions from vehicle exhaust that damages human health (Bronner, 1997:

496). He writes that the CO binds “so tightly to the red blood cells that they become incapable of

carrying oxygen, and thus inhibits the production of energy cells; the blood transports the

poisonous CO throughout the body instead” (Bronner, 1997: 496). CO is just one of the many

emissions from automobiles that carry a negative effect on human health. Long term exposure to

car exhaust has been linked to worsening symptoms in individuals with asthma, emphysema, and

bronchitis (Bronner, 1997: 496).

Sustainability

The issue of toxic emissions generated from automobiles leads to a larger overarching

issue of the importance of reducing automobile dependence. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)

6

are becoming an increasingly critical problem with global sustainability, and has even been

referred to as an immediate crisis. Bronner (2007) spoke of the dangers of GHGs from the

overuse of automobiles. He cites GHGs such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC),

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and tropospheric ozone (O3) as identified toxins being emitted from

automobiles that are causing harm to the planet in the form of global climate change, as well as

human health in the form of air pollution. The effort to reduce automobile dependence thus

incorporates the larger objectives of public health and sustainability that go far beyond micro-

projects in physical planning, but urban design and planning are strategies to help achieve those

objectives. Automobile dependent built environments also has negative effects for those with

access to a car, severely limiting their mobility.

Equity

The physical design of the built environment can have very real effects over who has

power and access over the streets, and these effects can in turn create differences among various

socio-economic groups. A land use pattern that prioritizes the automobile allows those traveling

by car to dominate the space, which means that only those who possess enough resources to

afford an automobile are able to properly access the built environment in the way planners

designed the space to be used. In these auto-dominated spaces, prevalent in most suburbs and

medium density cities like San Diego, people that are forced to rely on mass transit such as lower

income groups, teenagers, and the elderly, are left to navigate through a built environment that is

hostile to them. Not only are auto-oriented land use patterns hostile to those not traveling by car,

but the mass transit systems in these areas also tend to be sparse and inefficient due to the lack of

density and overall demand for transit. Koglin argues the same point, noting that current

planning “gives more power to motorised traffic and less to pedestrians” (2011: 226). When

7

segments of the population are denied safe access to public space that also limits their mobility,

this becomes a serious social equity issue, as those unable to have access to a car are severely

limited in the built environment. Today’s infrastructure is built for cars, but “everybody and all

have the right to be in the city” (Kolglin 2011: 225).

Aesthetic Features

Urban design features also play a strong role in promoting or degrading quality of life by

either contributing or degrading the previously discussed issues of public health, equity, and

sustainability. “The arrangement of streets and buildings involves ‘design decisions’ that—for

better or worse—shape the built environment” (LaGro, 2013: 9-10). A built environment that de-

emphasizes the car and is friendly towards pedestrians and cyclists also has a lot to do with

sidewalk design. Pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to utilize the sidewalk if the

environment allows them to feel safe. Appleyard (1980) claims that the street is the most

important part of the urban environment. His idea of the ideal street environment is one that is

“safe for children from speed and careless drivers … places where communal life is possible …

[where] people can sit out and talk easily” (Appleyard 1980: 107-108). These types of streets are

ones designed towards the hospitality of pedestrians, not for facilitating the fastest route for

automobiles.

To create a site that is pedestrian and cyclist-oriented instead of auto, urban design

principles need to be incorporated that provide a sense of place and meaning for the people using

the street. These design principles would include street assets such as trees and greenery to

provide aesthetic value as well as shade for pedestrians, street furniture such as benches and

tables that provide meaning, and protected bike lanes as part of complete street design. Good

urban design may be seen as just a practice for exterior pleasantness that critics may view as an

8

unnecessary luxury, but good urban design can also be cost efficient that will yield lasting

benefits. Good design “reduces the long-term life-cycle costs of operating and maintain

buildings’ infrastructure … when just 1 percent of a project’s up-front costs are spent, up to 70

percent of its life-cycle costs may already be committed … consequently, design excellence

enhances community livability and sustainability, which benefits society, the economy, and the

environment” (LaGro, 2013: 10-11).

RESEARCH STRATEGY

The research methods for this topic are: case study analysis, policy research into existing

conditions and neighborhood demographics, empirical field observations, and interviews with

professional practitioners and consultants.

Policy Research & Existing Design Guidelines

The policy research involves demographic data, zoning ordinances, general plan

specifications, and information, planning initiatives, and projects already proposed by the city

through the community plan titled: Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan. The

neighborhood has already been cited by the city of San Diego as an area of high potential for

development and has proposed development projects to a number of parcels in the area. The

Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan, along with the City of San Diego’s

Southeastern San Diego Community Plan, are used as a data source for identifying context-

sensitive information concerning the existing condition of the area.

Field Observations

Field observations involved first-person site visits to the area of study to collect empirical

data. Empirical field observations include factors about the street life of the area, such as number

of pedestrians utilizing the sidewalks, number of transit riders at the trolley station, number of

9

bicyclists, frequency of transit cars, volume of automobile traffic in the main corridors, speed of

traffic, observations of streetscape design, road design and width, and any design or

infrastructure currently existing in the built environment that facilitates alternative modes of

transportation. Date and times of the observations were noted to create the context for street

activities witnessed. These empirical observations are then used to establish the current existing

conditions of the site in terms of its level of automobile usage and utilization of walking,

bicycling, and public transit. Dimensions of current infrastructure were also noted using GIS in

Google Earth in order to compare existing designs to design strategies that are meant to enhance

walkability and reduce automobile dependence.

Case Study Analysis

The case study analysis looks into other cities that are known for lower rates of

automobile usage and greater utilization of alternative modes such as bicycling and public

transit. Case studies analyzed were Portland, OR, New York City, NY, and specifically

Downtown San Diego to give more local-based context, for certain design elements that either

reduced automobile usage or provided accommodation of alternative modes of transportation,

such as bicycling infrastructure or mass transit. These case studies were analyzed through the

Google Earth application from a purely design perspective, measuring features of the respective

built environment. I specifically measured: block size, sidewalk widths, road widths, number of

lanes, and distance of automobile right-of-way required to cross for a pedestrian to cross the

street. The objective of the case study analysis was to investigate how these cities’ designs

shaped their built environment to reduce automobile dependence. These design qualities were

then compared directly to the built environment found in the Euclid and Market area.

Interviews

10

Interviews were conducted with urban design professionals and consultants about

elements and strategies that create walkable environments and reduce automobile dependence.

Three interviews were conducted with: Susan Peerson, UCSD Professor of Urban Design

Practicum and Planning Commissioner of the City of San Diego; Jeff Howard, Senior Project

Planner at Parsons Brinckerhoff; and Nancy Lytle, Assistant Vice President of Civic San Diego.

Interviews were specifically chosen to feature input from professionals rather than community

members because of their formal education and expertise with the concepts of design and

planning. The purpose of interviews for data collection is to have professional input to serve as a

type of informal consultation for the area of study, and see what specific problems they identify

for the area, as well as context-specific strategies to improve walkability.

FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

Policy Research, Community Characteristics, and Demographic Data

The Euclid Ave. and Market St. Transit Center is located in the San Diego neighborhood

of Southeast San Diego, a portion of the city located east of its Downtown (Appendix A). The

transit center serves multiple public transit routes that include the Orange Line trolley station and

the MTS 3, 4, 5, 13, 916, 917, 955, 950 bus lines. Major circulation routes for vehicular in the

neighborhood include Market St. that runs east-west, Imperial Ave. that runs east-west, Euclid

Ave. that runs north-south, California State Route 94 that runs east-west, 0.57 miles north of the

transit center, and Interstate 805 that runs north-south, 0.77 miles west of the transit center.

Euclid St. and Market Ave. serve as the two main surface street corridors for the neighborhoods,

as they are the main entrances and exits for both the CA-94 and I-805 freeways, leading to

relatively high traffic volumes along both corridors throughout the day.

The neighborhood is currently served by two community plans from the San Diego

11

Division of Planning. The Southeastern San Diego Community Plan covers the Encanto

neighborhood along with sixteen other designated neighborhoods in the Southeastern region of

the city of San Diego. The area around the Euclid Ave. and Market St. intersection is also served

by a more specific community plan titled the Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan. Its

vision is to create a community with mixed-use development to generate quality retail,

employment, and housing appropriate for the community, facilitate usage of public transit to

access these developments, incorporate public facilities that serves the needs of the community,

and maximize the health of nearby Chollas Creek to provide natural open space for the

community.

Demographic data of the local population is shown in the graph below. Significant

demographic attributes to note about the local population when compared to the city-wide

average of San Diego are: the above average household size, below average median household

income (a disparity of almost $25,000), extremely higher levels of families living below the

poverty level, especially families with children (a disparity of close to three times the city-wide

average), higher levels of individuals having not completed high school (disparity of 2.5 times

the city-wide average), and the extremely low levels of individuals having completed a college

degree. According to the U.S. 2010 Census, the neighborhood is comprised with a large majority

of African Americans at 54.6%, with the Hispanic and White population following at 22% and

21.8%, respectively. Data was taken from the 2010 U.S. Census on the Block Group level to

generate greater accuracy for the immediate Euclid and Market site rather than the entire

Southeast San Diego neighborhood. In summary, the study area can be characterized as a low-

income community with limited rates of higher education, and a large percentage of ethnic

minorities.

12

Source: Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

In summary, the study area can be characterized as a low-income community with limited

rates of higher education, and a large percentage of ethnic minorities. The neighborhood can be

considered an area of low economic investment, with its higher rates of families living below the

poverty level and lack of higher education. This demographic population can be estimated to

13

have lower rates of car ownership than the city average, due to its lower income. This factor

creates a problem for the existing built environment since most residents may be relying on

alternative modes of transportation for mobility.

Existing community amenities in the surrounding area include mostly commercial and

retail centers nearby the transit center (Appendix B). The largest retail center in the area is

Market Creek Plaza, located adjacent to the south of the transit center. It consists of retail shops,

restaurants, banks, and a grocery store, providing the necessary amenities that otherwise would

not exist in a low-income, economically disinvested community. An organization in the

community providing civic engagement is the Jacobs Foundation for Neighborhood Innovation,

a non-profit organization aiming to generate economic development in the neighborhood. They

are located adjacent to the west of the transit center and are responsible for developing Market

Creek Plaza and attracting businesses to invest their shops in the area that was previously

considered a food desert without access to fresh produce and services such as a bank.

Natural amenities to the area include Chollas Creek, a major creek that runs through the

Jacobs Center from northeast southwest and drains at the San Diego Bay near the Port of San

Diego. The creek is currently heavily polluted and efforts to remediate the site and develop a

public recreation space along it are envisioned in the Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility

Plan. Community characteristics and demographic data of the study area prove that increasing

walkability is important to improve mobility and address social equity for the current residents.

Field Observations & Existing Infrastructure

The data collection involved 3 site visits for field observations. The observations ranged

from 45 minutes to 1 hour and at varying times of the day and week to give a sense of the

different levels of traffic and movement.

14

First site visit: Sunday 12-12:45pm. Overall street activity was very slow. Even vehicular

traffic seemed moderate. The transit center consisted of roughly 10 people waiting for busses and

approximately 10-15 people at waiting at the platforms at the trolley stations. Pedestrian

sidewalk traffic was hardly utilized. Up to 6 individuals total were seen utilizing the sidewalk in

45 minutes. Three individuals were headed east along Market St. to the transit center to wait for

a bus. Another two individuals crossed east across Euclid Ave. after stepping off the bus from

the transit center. The sixth individual seen utilizing the sidewalk was crossing Euclid Ave.

heading east. No bicyclists were witnessed riding during the site visit.

Overall pedestrian usage of the street was extremely low and expected of an automobile-

oriented design in a low-density setting. Most of the observed pedestrians utilizing the crosswalk

were only doing so to either board a trolley or bus or were arriving from one. The large majority

of mobility came from vehicles traveling along Euclid Ave. with the nearby freeway exit of the

CA-94 north of the transit center. It can be assumed that the pedestrian trips witnessed could be

characterized as “first-mile-last-mile” trips, a term used in transportation planning which

describes the requirement to walk from an origin to a transit stop, and similarly from the transit

stop to the end destination. These types of pedestrian trips are ones made of necessity when

using public transit, rather than walking for recreation such as strolling through a street full of

retail and restaurants.

Second site visit: Friday 4-5pm. Vehicular traffic was much more significant than the

previous visit on the weekday afternoon. Euclid Ave. was highly congested with a high volume

of cars traveling both north and sound bound. The transit center also experienced a slightly

higher volume of riders waiting at both the platforms for the trolleys and the bus terminals. The

level of pedestrian activity was still low however, with fewer than 5-7 pedestrians using the

15

sidewalks or crossing the intersections at any specific time. The majority of pedestrian activity

took place within the transit center and people walking south to the adjacent Market Street Plaza

retail center.

Third site visit: Wednesday 12-1pm. Vehicular traffic was moderate and similar to the

first site visit on the weekend. There were slightly more transit riders, at approximately 20 riders,

waiting for busses and the trolley than on the weekend, but fewer than the afternoon. Pedestrian

street activity was again very low and mostly consisted of passenger heading to the transit center

to board a bus or trolley, or just arriving from the transit center and making their way to their

final destination. Again, the majority of the pedestrian activity was taking place within the transit

center and some people crossing to and from the transit center to the adjacent Market Creek

Plaza. There was no observable pedestrian activity that exhibited recreation or strolling. No

bicyclists were also seen using the road.

Existing Infrastructure

The urban design of the area surrounding the transit center was documented in the site

visits to describe existing conditions of streetscape. Both Euclid Ave. and Market St. had a

posted speed limit of 40 mph for vehicular traffic. The main north-south corridor, Euclid Ave., is

built up of two lanes on each side, with an additional third lane for left turns at the start of the

intersection with Market St. for the northbound route. The southbound route for Euclid Ave. has

a additional fourth lane with two left turn lanes.

The northbound lanes at the intersection measure a total of approximately 45 ft. The

southbound route measured similarly at a total of 46 ft., even with the additional lane. The

furthest right lane was extra wide and measured 20 ft. accommodate and right-turning vehicles.

The routes without the turning lanes consisted of two lanes with different widths. The outer right

16

lane measured approximately 20 inches while the inner lane measured the standard 12 ft.

Altogether, the combination of all lanes in both the north and south bound lanes of the

automobile right-of-way on Euclid Ave. measure out to a total of approximately 82 ft. A

pedestrian attempting to cross this street would have to cross this total length, along with an

additional setback from the corner curve of the sidewalk, would have to walk approximately 96

ft. of automobile right-of-way from one sidewalk curb to the other across the street (Appendix

C).

As for Market St., the route approaching in intersection has 3 lanes, with one left turn

lane and an extra wide right side lane for right-turning vehicles. The left turn lane measures 13

ft., while the middle lane measures the standard 12 ft., and the right lane measures 20 ft. The

route after the intersection has two lanes measuring at 12 ft. for the left lane and 20 ft. for the

right side lane. The total width of all lanes on Market Ave. measures to a similar 83 ft., and

pedestrian would have to cross approximately 100 ft. of automobile right-of-way from one

sidewalk curb to the other.

Along Euclid Ave., the sidewalk width only measures approximately 4.75 ft. along the

northbound route with the corner bulb extending to 6.75 ft. The southbound route has a sidewalk

that measures 7.75 ft. with the corner bulb extending to 8 ft. There exists a thin island divider at

the middle of the intersection for both streets, but they are meant to protect vehicles from

oncoming traffic rather than serve as a safety zone for pedestrians crossing the street.

The length of the block from the corner of the Euclid and Market, going south along

Euclid Ave. until the next intersection—in this case a railroad track—was approximately 276 ft.

If excluding the railroad track, the next intersection would be approximately 590 ft. away at

Naranja St. The block length of the residential street of Naranja, from west to east at the next

17

intersection of 53 St., was 1,255 ft.

The measurements of the existing built environment, such as lane width, street width,

sidewalk width, and block size, all inhibit a safe space for a pedestrian or cyclist. Every design

feature measured was meant to allow automobiles to drive through as quickly as possible, while

creating a hostile environment for users of other modes of transportation. Now, case studies of

cities or neighborhoods known to be pedestrian-friendly will be analyzed to figure out what

strategies can be learned for improving walkability.

Case Study Analysis

Downtown San Diego

These infrastructure designs and dimensions are a stark contrast to neighborhoods in

cities that are considered more walkable. Even when compared to Downtown San Diego, with a

much higher level of density, the majority of blocks measure at 190” x 315” ft., excluding the

larger sidewalk curb corners (Figure 1). The same uniform block sizes are repeated throughout

the entire Downtown area between the San Diego harbor and the Interstate 5 freeway. In terms of

the street and sidewalk dimensions, the streets in Downtown San Diego were mostly one-way

streets that consisted of three lanes and side-street parking. Each of the lanes measured the

standard 12 ft. in width with a 10 ft. setback designated for side-street parking. The sidewalks

measured from 14-15ft. in width, as opposed to the 4.75-7.75 ft. found in the Euclid and Market

intersection in Encanto. Some sidewalks in Downtown San Diego even measured up to 20 ft.

with when Side Street parking setback was replaced with more sidewalk curb closer to the

intersection. Some of these intersections even included “bulb-outs,” an urban design strategy of

creating more sidewalk space at curb corners to narrows the road at intersections and allow the

pedestrian to cross a shorter distance of road space before reaching the next “bulb” at the other

18

end of the street. These bulb-outs measured 18 ft. from the corner of the sidewalk to the corner of

the nearest building. Intersections with four bulb-out corners, such as 5th St. and E St., measured

a distance of only 35 ft. of the automobile right-of-way that a pedestrian have to cross before

reaching the other bulb. Intersections in Downtown without the bulb-out corners measured

approximately 52 ft. of automobile right-of-way for pedestrians to cross. These measurements

are a dramatic contrast to the 100 ft. of automobile right-of-way a pedestrian would have to walk

in order to cross Market St. and the 80 ft. of right-of-way to cross Euclid Ave. in Encanto.

Figure 1. Source: (Google Maps).

Downtown San Diego is a much more walkable city than Southeastern San Diego not

through population density (since the majority of the buildings are office space), but through its

built form. Buildings typically over 20 stories cluster together which does not allow as much

room for automobile right-of-way and surface parking. Blocks are significantly shorter, leading

to more connective streets for both pedestrians and automobiles, sidewalks are wider, and roads

19

are narrower for the pedestrian to cross. These design elements all come together to create a

urban environment where walking is the main form of mobility within the neighborhood.

Portland, OR

Similarly in Portland, the blocks sizes in the city center are uniformly distributed

throughout the city center, measuring at a short size at approximately 215” x 200” ft. The

average street has only one lane in each direction with additional setback for side-street parking

on each side. The width of lanes measures at only 10 ft. from the beginning of the street-parking

setback to the middle lane divider, below the standard of 12 ft. found in San Diego lanes. The

total width of the automobile right-of-way measured approximately 35 ft., the same length found

in Downtown San Diego intersections with bulb-outs in place. With the intersections involving

bulb-outs in Portland, such as 5th St. and NW Couch St. (Figure 2), the entire length of right-of-

way a pedestrian would have to cross to reach the other end of the bulb was only a little over 24

ft., compared to 100 ft. to cross Market St. in Encanto.

Sidewalk widths in the same intersection of Portland measured 26 ft., compared to 4.75

ft. on the southbound side of Euclid Ave. Some differences in context may apply when

comparing streets in Portland to Encanto, since the Euclid and Market intersection is a major

corridor in the area. However, when analyzing Portland’s main corridors, such as Burnside St.,

measurements in street length were also significantly smaller than Encanto. Burnside St.

consisted of two lanes in each direction, with three lanes measuring 10 ft. in width and the

furthest right lane on the eastbound side measuring the standard 12 ft., and leading to a total

right-of-way width of approximately 43 ft. considering lane paint buffers.

20

Figure 2. Source: (Google Maps).

Portland’s elements of the built environment are extremely designed towards

accommodating alternative modes as the highest priority. The design throughout the city center

almost never prioritizes the automobile above others, and this is evident in the mere lane width

of lanes measuring only 10 ft. in non-major corridors like NW Couch St. Combined with bulb-

outs, the average roads of Portland are narrow enough that a pedestrian only has to travel 24 ft.

of automobile right-of-way to cross the street, the lowest of any case study. These strategies can

be considered when applying context-appropriate strategies to Market and Euclid.

New York, NY

In the Midtown Manhattan neighborhood of New York, NY, the intersection of 48th St.

and Park Ave. is one of the busiest in the city in terms of vehicular traffic. There are 3 lanes on

each side of Park Ave., with a separate fourth lane as a loading zone and side street parking for

vehicles, making a total of 8 lanes for both north and south. Even at this site of extreme density

in vehicular traffic, the block sizes in Midtown are uniformly at 230” x 420” ft. All lanes

21

measured approximately 11 ft., slightly below the standard of 12 ft. The sidewalk setback along

Park Ave. measures 15 ft., which allows the sidewalk to accommodate the appropriate capacity

of pedestrians for this level of density.

Between the 8 lanes is a middle island refuge for pedestrian crossing that spans 20 ft.

wide and large amounts of shrubs, trees, and potted plants planted along the stretch of the island.

The middle island includes its own pedestrian signal light, so pedestrians have the option to cross

Park Ave. in 2 increments before reaching the other side. The crosswalk section of the

automobile right of way is also marked repeatedly with thick white lines on the pavement to

catch drivers’ attention to the area that pedestrians cross (Figure 3). A pedestrian crossing Park

Ave. would have to cross 45 ft. of automobile right-of-way to reach the middle island, and

another 45 ft. to reach the other end of Park Ave.

Figure 3. Source: (Google Maps).

22

Without the installation of the middle island, this road would have more automobile

right-of-way than either Euclid Ave. or Market St. However, with the design features such as

wide sidewalk setbacks, the middle island for refuge, trees and shrubs planted to enhance

aesthetics, and boldly marked pavement for pedestrian crossing, this large corridor serves to

successfully facilitate both a high volume of vehicular traffic while still accommodating the

pedestrian. Park Ave. in New York proves that large vehicular corridors can still serve as highly

walkable environments, as long as proper design strategies are in place.

INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with Susan Peerson, professor of Urban Design at the

University of California, San Diego and Planning Commissioner to the city of San Diego; Jeff

Howard, Senior Project Manager at Parsons Brinckerhoff; and Nancy Lytle, Assistant Vice

President of Civic San Diego. Professional input was given about urban design strategies that

promote walkability and problems with the design around the Euclid and Market neighborhood.

Block size

She states that the one of the features of walkability from physical planning is the length

of blocks. Blocks that are long and stretch for miles do not form a hospitable environment for the

pedestrian because the streets are not connective to many destinations. Shorter blocks create both

a perceived sense of shorter distance as well as creating a more connective street grid that is in

line with the human scale and allows the pedestrian to get to a destination in a more direct

fashion.

Streets and sidewalks

Howard states that a walkable urban space should ideally have 20-25” ft. of sidewalk

space, which he considers very generous. However, most environments that are considered

23

walkable will typically have only 10-12” ft. Driving lanes should be 11 ft. at the lowest, with the

standard being 12 ft. Protected left turn lanes can lower to 10 ft., but right turn lanes need to be

wider of at least 11 ft. Side street parking lanes can be lower at 8 ft., and bike lanes can be 7 ft.

Lytle states that implementing side street parking also promotes walkability by promoting

a greater sense of safety. One of the greatest concerns to pedestrians is the sense of safety and

not having to compete with automobiles. Parked cars along the curb provide parking spaces and

also serve as a barrier that block pedestrians from automobile traffic. She claims “pedestrians

want to know there’s a buffer” when perceiving a sense a safety. The side street parking buffer

also helps to naturally slow down cars, since it creates a perception of a smaller space for the

vehicle to maneuver. Lytle claims this perception to drivers is more effective at traffic calming

than lowering speed limits.

Proper street frontage

Peerson states that the view from the curb to the first 30 ft. of a building is what defines

the urban form. This is the design of street frontage that is important to creating a pedestrian-

oriented development. Automobile-oriented developments, such as the Market Creek Plaza retail

center in Encanto, have a street frontage that consists of a parking lot, where the storefront is a

full 400 ft. away from the street-side curb. This type of development favors entering the street

frontage through an automobile and parking your car before entering the stores, instead of

designing a street frontage where the pedestrian enters from the street. Peerson adds that good

urban design also happens to follow a 5 ft. setback required by the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA). She cites Portland, OR as a very good American example of walkable urban design,

especially with the implementation of complete streets to accommodate all users of the street.

Howard emphasized the importance of street frontage to aesthetic value that contributes

24

to walkability. For proper street frontage that promotes walkability, he recommends a 10 ft.

building setback from the beginning of the sidewalk. He identifies to the pedestrian sidewalk as

consisting of 2 zones: the “café zone” and the “active zone.” The active zone is where the

walking takes place on the sidewalk. Proper street frontage takes place in the café zone, which is

the inner 8”-10” ft. of the sidewalk, between the active zone and the automobile right-of-way.

Street frontage can be enhanced in this zone by a strategy Howard refers to as “activating the

street.” This involves the placemaking strategy of “putting things there to make it happen.”

Examples of features include “café seating and water features,” and general street furnishings

that make “people linger.”

Green infrastructure

Lytle stressed the importance of green infrastructure to the promotion of walkability. This

includes the biological components of the built environments, such as street trees, shrubs, and

permeable surfaces. She states that these features enhance the quality of the built environment by

serving multiple purposes. Trees provide aesthetic complements to the sidewalks, as well

providing shade and protection from the elements for pedestrians and transit riders waiting at

stops. One constraint she regularly runs into when implementing green infrastructure in her

projects is deciding who pays for the routine maintenance and irrigation. She states that there are

ways in which the irrigation water usage for public green infrastructure can be calculated based

on property lines and billed to the appropriate property owner.

Area of study comments

Specific comments about the street design of the area around Euclid Ave. and Market St.

Problems Peerson identifies with site photographs are the sheer overabundance of pavement,

creating a very inhospitable environment tailored only for the fast transport of the automobile.

25

Street frontage was also lacking anything oriented towards the pedestrian, such as Market Creek

Plaza as mentioned earlier. There was also a lack of “site furnishings,” a term used to describe

decorative elements of the public space, such as street trees, light poles, and again active

storefronts to create a destination along the street for people to walk to.

To enhance aesthetic value and enhance safety to promote walkability, Lytle recommends

planting street trees along Market Ave., but emphasizes to place them in the “urban order” rather

than the “suburban order.” The suburban order involves planting trees, shrubs, and greenery

along the property frontage side of the sidewalk, rather than the side facing the street (Appendix

D). In suburban design this typically involves plantings serving as a buffer between the narrow

sidewalk a property line, such as the entrance to a parking lot. The urban order involves planting

the greenery on the sidewalk between the pedestrians and the street. This serves as a natural

barrier that further enhances the pedestrians’ sense of safety.

Suggestions Peerson gives to this particular site involve the inputting basic design

infrastructure that was missing, such as a sidewalk, which was missing on the eastern end of

Market St. A few feet towards the east of the intersection on Market St. the sidewalk turned into

an unpaved dirt road due to the underutilized or vacant parcels of land. Other design mechanism

to enhance safety and accessibility was to provide greater shelter at bus stop areas, so that riders

are not exposed to the elements when waiting for public transit, especially with some of the

narrow sidewalk curbs found in the area and nowhere to sit.

Accessibility issues could be addressed through greater sidewalk connection, which could

be different after the existing street grid is already laid out. Peerson stated that when the block

size or the width of the sidewalk can’t be changed, a design technique called the “road diet” that

aims to reduce the excess space set aside for vehicles on the road that often go underutilized.

26

These would include slimming down the number of lanes and their widths, to a suggested two

lane street of 10 ft. each way, and 10 ft. setbacks on either side for street-side parking, that can

also serves as a barrier between vehicles and pedestrians. Then similar to complete street design,

an additional 7 ft. can be set aside for a bike lane, behind the parked cars for protection, and at

curb level instead of at street level to enhance bicyclist safety. At least additional 10 ft. should be

set-aside on each side of the street for the pedestrian sidewalk, but without the bike lane could

allow for an extra space. This is wider than the current sidewalk widths of 4.75-7.75 ft. found in

the existing infrastructure. Howard recommends against installing bulb-outs because both

Market and Euclid are such large corridors. He states that bulb-outs only work when there is

street side parking to utilize the space before the bulb, since they can no longer be lanes used for

thorough traffic. Additionally, he stated most bulb-outs are not able to effectively accommodate

bike lanes since they block existing bike paths at the intersection. Being able to accommodate

biking infrastructure is still an important objective in walkability so these issues will need to be

considered when applying context-appropriate strategies.

As for actually bringing pedestrians to stroll on the street, both Peerson and Howard

recommended proper destination objects to be in place, such as patio seating from a café or

public sidewalk benches and trees to allow people to congregate. This creates the placemaking

effect of creating a sense of meaning on the street, rather than a desolate urban space that

pedestrians would avoid.

Analysis

Given all the findings about design strategies that will encourage walkability and reduce

automobile dependence, it is apparent that the Euclid and Market neighborhood lack many

elements that would facilitate pedestrian activity, especially with the dramatic differences found

27

in the case study analysis. The design features of its existing conditions inhibiting walkability

were the large block sizes, narrow sidewalks, lack of site furnishings, and the sheer width of the

roads to facilitate large volumes of vehicular traffic and the narrow width of sidewalks exposing

pedestrians to the dangers of moving cars. Second is the lack of proper store frontage along the

street that is oriented towards pedestrians. The neighborhood is not shy of destination centers due

to Market Creek Plaza, but that development does not have proper street frontage for the

pedestrian.

Block sizes

Block sizes may not be feasible to change with the already developed grid plan and

infrastructure in place, but adaptive changes can be made. Pedestrian comfort and safety can be

addressed through reducing the amount of right-of-way pedestrian has to cross on either Euclid

Ave. or Market St. The road diet strategy may not work on Euclid Ave. since it is a major

corridor for vehicular entering and exiting the CA-94. Reducing the number of lanes on Euclid

may create greater traffic congestion that can diminish quality of life.

Island refuge and lane slimming

The best strategy to work with this context is to install a middle island refuge at each

intersection crossing so that pedestrians are able to cross in two increments if needed (Appendix

E). This can be done on Euclid Ave. by eliminating just the additional left turn lane on the

southbound side before the intersection and instead using that space to expand the middle island

to create a refuge point in the middle of the road. The left lane of Euclid Ave. on the southbound

side can be slimmed from 14.5 ft. to the standard 12 ft. as well. The furthest right lane on both

sides of the road can also be slimmed down from 20 ft. to the standard 12 ft., so there isn’t extra

setback space for right-turning vehicles. Instead, that extra space can add additional sidewalk

28

width of 8 ft. or bicycle lane can be installed.

Curb design

A bulb-out strategy may not be the best option for this area, since prioritizing bike lanes

are important to promoting alternative modes of transportation. Instead, sidewalk space should

be widened to create more comfortable access for pedestrians and not have them feel exposed to

vehicular traffic (Appendix E). Since Market and Euclid are high traffic corridors, lanes cannot

be eliminated or else traffic congestion would worsen, with the exception of the additional left

turn lane on southbound side of Euclid.

These strategies, if implemented on Euclid Ave., have the potential to reduce the amount

of automobile right-of-way needed to cross by a pedestrian from 96 ft. down to 75 ft. on the

south side of Market and 93 ft. down to 67 ft. (down to 52 ft. if excluding the middle island

refuge), on the north side of Market (Appendix F). The length is still large compared to the 35 ft.

measured in Downtown San Diego, but may be the best option given the large volume or

vehicles utilizing the corridor for CA-94.

Aesthetics enhancements

Aesthetic features to “activate the street” may be the most feasible to implement in the

area in order to promote walkability. These would include site furnishings such as benches and

patio seating along the “café zone” in front of the street frontage. Green infrastructure such as

trees and shrubs can be easily installed on all sides of Market and Euclid. They would be planted

in the “urban order,” lining the edge of the sidewalk that faces the street, to create a natural

barrier between pedestrians and vehicular traffic (Appendix E).

Street frontage and placemaking

In addition to the aesthetic enhancements, proper placemaking also needs to occur for

29

pedestrians to actually have destinations to walk to. Otherwise, the built environment may be

perfectly suited for potential for walkability, but is not utilized because of the lack of

placemaking. This would involve fewer design elements and more economic development

strategies to attract businesses to open up destination spots along the street. However, design

techniques can be utilized to ensure proper setback and store frontage for buildings expected to

house these businesses. This would include proper orientation, where buildings entrances

directly front the sidewalk, rather than being hidden behind a large parking lot utilized in the

suburban method. Market St. is a good corridor to build these pedestrian-oriented frontage as

demonstrated in Appendix F).

CONCLUSION

The Euclid and Market area is lacking many urban design elements that allow it to be

friendly for pedestrians and cyclists. Although numerous design strategies have been identified

through case studies and consultations, many context-specific constraints prevent the area from

being as walkable has the case studies analyzed. The constraints are largely due to the existing

block sizes in place, as well as the area serving as a major corridor off two major freeways of the

city. Strategies involving eliminating the number of lanes would severely impact the circulation

networks in the region, with many automobile commuters from around the region using the

corridor daily. Improvements can still be made to the existing infrastructure to enhance

walkability, especially with the potential from the nearby transit center to facilitate a high

volume of transit riders. The most appropriate design strategies from the case study analysis

came from Midtown Manhattan, since its context was most similar to Market and Euclid, being a

heavy traffic corridor with a large number of lanes. Widening sidewalks and installing a middle

island and green infrastructure were all design elements that existed along Park Ave. in Midtown

30

Manhattan, and all these strategies were appropriate to the Euclid and Market area in helping to

improve walkability.

In regards, to reducing automobile dependence, it may take a transportation level-of-

service (LOS) analysis to estimate the reduction in vehicle usage after more transit-oriented type

developments take place in accordance to the vision of the Euclid and Market Land Use and

Mobility Plan. Walkability of the built environment around the immediate area of study will be

greatly enhanced with these strategies, but automobile dependence may not necessarily decrease

because drivers drive through Euclid and Market to reach other destinations. However, trips

made within the study area will have a reduction in automobile usage. If more communities aim

to achieve the same vision as the Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan, more

destinations in San Diego can be connected through public transit and have similar walkable

neighborhoods. This will result in an overall reduction in automobile dependence, as more trips

to more destinations can be traveled without a car and these destinations are designed to

accommodate safety and comfort for the pedestrian.

Promoting walkability and reducing automobile dependence can be achieved through

various design strategies and placemaking. To achieve this on a regional scale, planners and

policy makers will need to emphasize the importance of pedestrian-oriented design and the

human scale when developing new projects and retrofitting old ones.

31

Appendix (A-F)

A. CONTEXT MAP FOR SOUTHEASTERN SAN DIEGO REGION

Figure 4. Source: (Euclid and Market Land Use and Mobility Plan).

Figure 5. Source: (Google Maps).

32

C. INTERSECTION OF EUCLID AND MARKET

Figure 6: Facing east towards Euclid Ave.

D. MARKET AVE. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 7: Facing west along Market Ave. Suburban order green infrastructure.

33

E. EUCLID AND MARKET INTERSECTION RE-DESIGNED (BIRD’S EYE VIEW)

Figure 8. Euclid Ave. (vertical corridor) & Market St. (horizontal corridor).

F. EUCLID AND MARKET INTERSECTION RE-DESIGNED

Figure 9. Pedestrian perspective of crossing Euclid Ave. with middle island refuge.

34

Bibliography

Appleyard, Donald, M. Sue Gerson, and Mark Lintell. 1981. Livable Streets, Protected Neighborhoods. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1043165.

Bronner, Michael Eric. 1997. “The Mother of Battles: Confronting the Implications of Automobile Dependence in the United States.” Population and Environment 18 (5): 489–507.

Cervero, Robert. 2003. “Growing Smart by Linking Transportation and Land Use: Perspectives from California.” Built Environment (1978-): 66–78.

Ewing, Reid, and Susan Handy. 2009. “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 65–84. doi:10.1080/13574800802451155.

Glasmeier, Amy K., and Tracey L. Farrigan. 2003. “Poverty, Sustainability, and the Culture of Despair: Can Sustainable Development Strategies Support Poverty Alleviation in America’s Most Environmentally Challenged Communities?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 590 (1): 131–49. doi:10.1177/0002716203257072.

Haase, Jessica, ASLA Kristin Nelson, Amanda Taylor, and Barbara McCann. 2009. “Planning Complete Streets For an Aging America.” http://refresh.share-ws6-ca.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/learn/transportation/planning-complete-streets-for-an-aging-america-aarp.pdf.

Keates, Nancy. 2007. “Building a Better Bike Lane.” Wall Street Journal, May 4: 2007.

Kenworthy, Jeffrey R., and Felix B. Laube. 1996. “Automobile Dependence in Cities: An International Comparison of Urban Transport and Land Use Patterns with Implications for Sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (4): 279–308.

Koglin, Till. 2011. “Planning for Cycling = Planning for Equity: A Response to Cupples and Ridley ‘Towards a Heterogeneous Environmental Responsibility: Sustainability and Cycling Fundamentalism’ (2008): Commentary.” Area 43 (2): 225–27. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010.00977.x.

LaGro, James. 2013. Site Analysis: Informing Context-Sensitive and Sustainable Site Planning and Design. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

MacDonald, John M., Robert J. Stokes, Deborah A. Cohen, Aaron Kofner, and Greg K. Ridgeway. 2010. “The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass Index and Physical Activity.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2): 105–12.

McIntyre, Douglas. 2010. “The 10 Cities With the World’s Worst Air.” http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/29/10-cities-with-worlds-worst-air/.

Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 2006. “Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence.”

35

Opolis 2 (1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2b76f089.pdf.

Newman, Peter, Jeffrey Kenworthy, and Peter Vintila. 1995. “Can We Overcome Automobile Dependence?: Physical Planning in an Age of Urban Cynicism.” Cities 12 (1): 53–65.

Pelzer, Peter. 2010. “Bicycling as a Way of Life: A Comparative Case Study of Bicycle Culture in Portland, OR and Amsterdam.” In 7th Cycling and Society Symposium. http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/events/100906/css-pelzer-paper.pdf.

Quinn, Brian. 2006. “Transit-Oriented Development: Lessons from California.” Built Environment (1978-): 311–22.

Silberberg, Susan. 2013. “Places in the Making: How Placemaking Builds Places and Communities.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://dusp.mit.edu/cdd/project/placemaking.

Smith, Robin, Sharlene Reed, Shauna Baker. 2010. “Street Design Part 1—Complete Streets - Vol. 74 · No. 1 - Public Roads.” Public Roads: Featuring developments in Federal highway policies, programs, and research and technology. 74 (1): 1—13.

Southworth, Michael. 2003. “Measuring the Liveable City.” Built Environment (1978-): 343–54.

Sperling, Daniel, and Eileen Clausen. 2003. “The Developing World’s Motorization Challenge.” http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nq3q6pd.pdf.

36