Urban Design Strategies for the Built Environment:
A Case Study Analysis
Exploring strategies to encourage walkability and reduce automobile dependence
Dustin Khuu
February 6, 2014
Senior Research Project
Submitted in partial satisfaction of a BA in
Urban Studies and Planning
University 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,
transportation, sustainability, Southeastern San Diego
walkability,
bicycling,
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 microprojects 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 deemphasizes 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 contextsensitive 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 lowincome 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 automobileoriented 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-ofway 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 bulbouts, 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 pedestrianoriented 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-ofservice (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-ws6ca.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/learn/transportation/planning-completestreets-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.14754762.2010.00977.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