In Southern California we suffer greatly from suburbia myopia. This affliction prevents us from understanding what makes urban environments succeed. We all too often attempt to recreate what we value in our suburban neighborhoods without the understanding of what it takes establish and sustain these ideas, designs and initiatives in a dynamic urban setting. We have idealized visions of tranquil urban neighborhoods where we live, work and pursue artistic/academic endeavors that will transform the cultural wasteland post-industrialized American cities.

This brings me to the recently released draft of the Downtown San Diego Mobility Plan (www.downtownsdmobility.com). I support comprehensive design programs when it looks to integrate current urban infrastructure with innovative thinking and inspired vision. Besides, who cannot be excited when you read in the Introduction on the first page:

DOWNTOWN MOBILITY VISION

“An integrated transportation network of greenways, sidewalks, bikeways, transit services, roadways and freeways that provides for the safety of all travelers – including the elderly, youth and disabled – both within downtown and surrounding communities. It is a transportation network that provides convenient access to valuable community resources such as employment centers, parks and the waterfront, cultural and entertainment attractions, and civic uses. It is a transportation network that supports community health and well-being, promotes a strong economy, and also builds social capital.”

Put me in Coach! This sounds great, when do we start!

Unfortunately the vision statement is the only comprehensive element within this plan. There are several times within the draft that they attempt to create relationships and synergies, but it soon falls into basic generalities and vanilla concepts. This mobility plan seems to be wrapped around creating a downtown bicycling network and turning streetscapes into green spaces (Complete Streets, Chapter 3, page 17 of the plan). Don’t get me wrong, both of these are wonderful goals once you get past the economic commitment to create and maintain them. The problem lies in the lack of any other substantial recommendations to tie all of the plan together. Pedestrians, Private Vehicles and Public Transit get basic and cursory treatment in the plan. Areas like commercial deliveries, event impacts and neighborhood identity are essentially non-existent or given brief mention within this draft of the plan.

It wasn’t that long ago that we graduated from the one-size fits all governmental design process of the 70’s and 80’s to seek out community input and the help of established experts with experience in place-making. We no longer try to manipulate human activity through ridged rules and structured environments. No one will deny that Civic San Diego and their contractor Chen-Ryan did their outreach. Chapter 1 and 2 document that effort in fabulous fashion. I am positive that many great ideas were collected in this process, but because of cost, confusion or difficulty they didn’t work for the final goals of the mobility plan. The plan clearly illustrates that they listened to the cycling community in San Diego and incorporated cycling safety ideas from around the country. They are championing more green in our urban street diet, consistent with the downtown community plan and the desire of many groups interested in downtown. 

The Devil is in the Details!

Like most plans for public spaces that I have read and or participated in over the last decade and a half, this plan is full of generalities posing as specific solutions. Complete Streets is a great concept, but their application needs to be carefully cultivated based on the needs and long term use of the block on which it is being installed. It also has to have a well thought out relationship with the adjacent street environments to not just be relocating a challenge over installing a solution. All of the diagrams and written depictions of the suggested street treatments have no specific consideration for the storefront make-up of the street as well as character of the neighborhood (current or desired).

Further, key recommendations are missing in the plan to address the long term sidewalk use. Under the current Municipal Code, we could lose the new sidewalk space to back flow devices, utility boxes, news-racks (yes, they still do exist), etc. Of course the greater urban impact for the complete street program is two-fold:

• Public Space Usage:
  • A straight line of travel in front of the storefronts, at all hours, increases pedestrian usage. It also creates an enhanced sidewalk retail environment by allowing window displays and building architecture to directly interact with pedestrians at their pace and scale.
    • Sidewalk Cafes: The plan has a tremendous opportunity to create public/private partnerships with recommendation on the updating of the Municipal Code to permit sidewalk café’s in the proposed center public space versus the directly adjacent area in front of the restaurant. Most of the public does not realize that sidewalk cafes are a granting of the public space (for a fee) to a business that can, in some cases, increase their business capacity by more than 30 to 40%. This is not a bad thing, should we put place the conditions of such use. Some of which could include:
      • Maintenance and management of the area plus the adjacent planters and structures.
      • Not allowing any additional structures to be added to the right-of-way, to include permanent railing, signage or permanent change of the sidewalk surface.
    • Create flexibility in the road design to serve a more utilitarian purpose, especially in off-peak hours for deliveries and peak hour passenger drop-off/pick-up.
  • Maintenance of Structures and Foliage:
    • The plan needs to be clear that the installation of a complete street is not the end of the program. Without a clear and defined maintenance program urban enhancements move to decay at an accelerated pace. The Downtown Maintenance District is limited in its capacity to assume new responsibilities, because state and local laws that restrict the usage of maintenance district fees. It should also be noted that these special assessment districts are coming under increased legal scrutiny as to their scope of service and legality.
    • It would be prudent for the plan or a subsequent study to include the maintenance/replacement costs for the first seven years of the program. It would also be responsible to offer some inspired design concepts that will utilize structure and robust landscaping to keep maintenance/replacement costs at a minimum.

Stop Building Freeways

The things that strikes me in this plan is the overall need to install “freeways” in the urban environment. Whether for cars, public transportation and bikes we have this obsession with moving quickly and at great volume through areas. There are so many examples of our tendencies to prioritize vehicle moment and cutting communities in half. I don’t need to explain what happens to communities when an interstate freeway is cut through established neighborhoods and related open public space. The interesting thing to me is that people don’t notice this in urban environments. We have done this throughout downtown San Diego to give priority to automobiles and the institutions/attractions they serve. Now, in the Downtown Mobility plan we stop short of addressing these and create another overlay of prioritized vehicle “freeway” for bikes.

By creating dedicated lanes through established business and residential districts we are once again dissecting communities for the sake of perceived efficiency. These structured lanes, in many cases will effectively limit retail through inefficient or unsafe delivery access, disengagement of customers from sidewalk environment. They will also inhibit residential access to older buildings and adversely affect the public space adjacent to these residential buildings.

Maybe Some things to Consider

There are many good concepts in the Mobility Plan and I hope that with greater discussion, responsible input and open leadership, a more robust and holistic plan will have the opportunity to be implemented. To assist in that effort I have some things that I think are missing in the plan and some of these could be implemented at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion.

• Truly embrace the first sentence of Chapter 4 Pedestrian Movement (page 29) “Every trip begins and ends with walking”. Every element in the plan should be judged on one simple evaluation – “Does this enhance the sidewalk environment by encouraging pedestrian access and use?”

• Drop the vehicle speed throughout Downtown to 25 MPH. With the number of blocks and street lights, we cannot justify any speed over 25 in our retail, entertainment, and residential neighborhoods.
  • This will solve many of the pedestrian and bike issues without much expense.
  • It will encourage public transportation use.
  • It will not change peak demand, but it will reduce the number cars flying through crowds of 20 to 30,000 in the evening in Gaslamp, East Village (Petco Park) and Little Italy.

• Have the dedicated bike lanes end two blocks prior to dining, retail and defined residential districts. The goal should not be to move through an area, but rather to engage an area. This can only be done at a pedestrian level.
  • It creates a safer experience for bikes, autos and pedestrians.
  • Enhances the sidewalk environment by prioritizing pedestrian inaction in these importance public spaces.
  • Supports small business through delivery access, but more importantly direct storefront interaction with customers. (Zipping past on a bike is the same as a car)
  • Builds community when you slow down transit (all transit) through residential districts.

• Revisit the Fifth Avenue Trolley Plan. The installation of a modified “historic” trolley that can accommodate bikes from K Street to Laurel, will provide a valued transportation link, a regional attraction and workable connection to uptown and Balboa Park. Working with MTS, this will have a better expectation of success over a shuttle system because;
  • Integrated with overall trolley network
  • The right theme and scale for downtown San Diego
  • Easier for the Trolley to maintain reasonable headways

Public Comment and Review

The public review period is open until March 11, 2016. Comments may be submitted at the mobility plan website (www.downtownsdmobility.com). A public workshop is scheduled for February 23^rd at the Downtown San Diego Central Library. Presentations are also planned a t various neighborhood community meetings, and at the Downtown Community Planning Council and Civic San Diego meetings.

——————————-

Images from Downtown San Diego Draft Mobility Plan (January 2016) under Fair Use Doctrine.  Cover image altered to fit.