Sonal Aggarwal Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning

San José State University Spring 2015

 

Diridon Station Area Pedestrian Street Design Guidelines: Studying the Pedestrian Environment

Around the Station Area

 

Cover page photo credits: City of San Mateo, Sustainable Cities: Final Plan, 2015. Footer photo credit: Ibid.

This  Page  was  left  blank  intentionally  

 

Diridon Station Area Pedestrian Street Design Guidelines: Studying the Pedestrian Environment Around the Station Area

A Planning Report

Presented to���

The Faculty of the Department of

Urban and Regional Planning

San José State University

In Partial Fulfillment���

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Urban Planning

By

Sonal Aggarwal

May 2015

This  Page  was  left  blank  intentionally  

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all the people who have helped me in putting this report together. I would specially

like to thank my advisors Prof. Asha Agrawal and Prof. Rick Kos for guiding me in this research.

Also, I would like to offer my regards to my interviewees for providing their valuable inputs and

suggestions for this report.

1. Terry Bottomley, Principal, Bottomley and Associates

2. Ginette Wessel, Professor, San José State University

3. Heidi Sokolowsky, Urban Designer, Urban Field Studio

4. Jessica Zenk, Manager, Transportations Operations, City of San José

5. Jennifer Donlon-Watt, Urban Planner, Alta Planning + Design

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my husband Rahul and my friend Surabhi for keeping my

moral high and being there for me whenever I needed their help.

 

  i  

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2 - FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES ......................... 4

2.1 PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 SAFETY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 ELEMENTS OF VISUAL INTEREST .................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 3 - UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT STREET ELEMENTS ................................. 12

3.1 DIFFERENT ZONES OF STREETS ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1 Curb Zone .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1.2 Pedestrian Zone .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1.3 Building Zone ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1.4 Building Setback Zone ................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.2 IMPRESSIONS OF OTHER CITIES DESIGN GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 4 - DIRIDON STATION AREA PLAN ..................................................................... 16

4.1 LAND USE DIAGRAM ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 STREETS FOCUSING ON VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS .................................................................................... 20

4.3 STREETS FOCUSING ON PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CONNECTIONS ............................................................. 21

4.3 OTHER TYPE OF STREET CLASSIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 22

4.3.1 Proposed New Street Connections ........................................................................................................................ 22

4.3.2 Proposed Improvements in Pedestrian Networks .............................................................................................. 24

4.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 5- SITE VISIT ............................................................................................................... 26

5.1 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR CONDUCTING THE SITE VISIT ............................................................... 26

5.2 STREETS GRADING CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................... 27

5.2.1 Safety .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.2 Elements of Visual Interest ........................................................................................................................................ 27

5.2.3 Street Elements ............................................................................................................................................................ 28

5.3 CURRENT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 30

5.3.1 Cahill Street ................................................................................................................................................................. 30

5.3.2 Montgomery Street ..................................................................................................................................................... 32

  ii  

5.3.3 Autumn Street .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

5.3.4 W San Fernando ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.3.5 Park Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................. 38

5.3.6 W San Carlos .............................................................................................................................................................. 40

5.3.7 Auzerais Avenue .......................................................................................................................................................... 42

5.3.8 Delmas Ave ................................................................................................................................................................... 44

5.3.9 The Alameda ................................................................................................................................................................. 46

5.3.10 W Santa Clara ............................................................................................................................................................ 48

5.3.11 W Julian Street .......................................................................................................................................................... 50

5.3.12 Bird Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................ 52

5.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES ........................................................................................ 54

CHAPTER 6 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 55

6.1 CURB ZONE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 55

6.2 PEDESTRIAN ZONE .......................................................................................................................................................... 57

6.3 BUILDING FRONTAGE ZONE ...................................................................................................................................... 58

6.4 SPECIFIC DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 59

6.4.1 Cahill Street .................................................................................................................................................................. 59

6.4.2 Montgomery Street ..................................................................................................................................................... 60

6.4.3 Autumn Street .............................................................................................................................................................. 61

6.4.4 W. San Fernando ......................................................................................................................................................... 62

6.4.5 Park Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................. 63

6.4.6 W. San Carlos .............................................................................................................................................................. 64

6.4.7 Auzerais Avenue .......................................................................................................................................................... 65

6.4.8 Delmas Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................ 66

6.4.9 The Alameda ................................................................................................................................................................. 67

6.4.10 Santa Clara .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

6.4.11 W Julian ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69

6.4.12 Bird Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................ 70

6.5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 71

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 72

APPENDIX A: STREET DESIGN ELEMENTS DISCUSSED IN OTHER GUIDELINES ........ 75

APPENDIX B: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES .................................................................................... 79

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 80

Interview questions for practicing Planners and Urban Designers ............................................................................ 80

Interview questions for San José's Staff Members ......................................................................................................... 81

  iii  

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure  1:  Diridon  Station  

Figure  2:  Roads  under  consideration  in  the  study  area  

Figure  3:  Seating  areas  that  are  well  incorporated  with  the  surroundings  

Figure  4:  Benches  with  backrest  

Figure  5:  Innovatively  designed  bench  

Figure  6:  Example  of  innovative  seating  area  

Figure  7:  Ways  of  installing  safety  signs  

Figure  8:  Street  with  visually  interesting  elements  

Figure  9:  Different  Zones  of  Street  

Figure  10:  Realms  of  the  Street  

Figure  11:  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan-­‐  Final  Land  Use  Plan    

Figure  12:  Primary  Zones  in  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan  

Figure  13:  Existing  east  west  Connections-­‐Vehicular  Emphasis  

Figure  14:  Existing  east  west  Connections-­‐Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Emphasis  

Figure  15:  Proposed  new  Street  connections  

Figure  16:  Walking  connections  

Figure  17:  Types  of  crosswalks  

Figure  18:  Map  showing  key  characteristics  of  each  road  and  observation  points  

Figure  19:  Observation  point  on  Cahill  Street    

Figure  20:  West  sidewalk  of  Cahill  Street  

Figure  21:  East  sidewalk  of  Cahill  Street  

Figure  22:  Observation  point  on  Montgomery  Street  

Figure  23:  West  sidewalk  of  Montgomery  Street  

Figure  24:  East  sidewalk  of  Montgomery  Street  

Figure  25:  Observation  point  on  Autumn  Street  

Figure  26:  West  sidewalk  of  Autumn  Street  

Figure  27:  East  sidewalk  of  Autumn  Street  

Figure  28:  Observation  point  on  W  San  Fernando  Street  

Figure  29:  Street  view  of  W  San  Fernando  

Figure  30:  South  sidewalk  of  W  San  Fernando  Street  

Figure  31:  Observation  point  on  Park  Avenue  

Figure  32:  South  sidewalk  of  Park  Avenue  

  iv  

Figure  33:  Street  view  of  Park  Avenue  

Figure  34:  Observation  point  on  W  San  Carlos  

Figure  35:  South  sidewalk  of  W  San  Carlos  

Figure  36:  Well-­‐maintained  condition  of  south  sidewalk  

Figure  37:  Observation  point  on  Auzerais  Avenue  

Figure  38:  Condition  of  south  sidewalk  

Figure  39:  Broken  condition  of  north  sidewalk  

Figure  40:  Observation  point  on  Delmas  Avenue  

Figure  41:  Street  view  of  Delmas  Avenue  

Figure  42:  Southwestern  sidewalk    

Figure  43:  Observation  point  on  The  Alameda  

Figure  44:  Condition  of  The  Alameda  in  July  2014,  photo  taken  facing  I-­‐880  

Figure  45:  Observation  point  on  W  Santa  Clara  

Figure  46:  Current  condition  of  south  Sidewalk,  photo  taken  facing  Autumn  Street  

Figure  47:  Crosswalk  in  front  of  SAP  Center  

Figure  48:  Observation  point  on  Julian  Street  

Figure  49:  Current  condition  of  W  Julian  Street,  photo  taken  facing  The  Alameda  

Figure  50:  Current  condition  of  northwestern  sidewalk  

Figure  51:  Observation  point  on  Bird  Avenue  

Figure  52:  Buildings  on  the  intersection  

Figure  53:  Current  condition  of  sidewalk  

Figure  54:  Curb  extension  on  sidewalks  

Figure  55:  Pinch  point  on  sidewalks  

Figure  56:  Bus  bulbs  on  sidewalks  

Figure  57:  Pervious  strips  on  sidewalks  

Figure  58:  Parklets  

Figure  59:  Flow-­‐through  planters  

Figure  60:  Pervious  pavements  used  on  sidewalks  

Figure  61:  Awnings  on  buildings  

Figure  62:  Picture  of  Overhead  supported  Canopies  

Figure  63:  Current  condition  of  Cahill  Street  

Figure  64:  Design  solution  for  Cahill  Street  provided  by  author  using  Google  map  image  

Figure  65:  Current  condition  of  Montgomery  Street  

Figure  66:  Design  solution  for  Montgomery  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  67:  Current  condition  of  Autumn  Street  

  v  

Figure  68:  Design  solution  for  Autumn  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  69:  Current  condition  of  W  San  Fernando  Street  

Figure  70:  Design  solution  for  W  San  Fernando  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  71:  Current  condition  of  Park  Avenue  

Figure  72:  Design  solution  for  Park  Avenue  provided  by  author  

Figure  73:  Current  condition  for  W  San  Carlos  

Figure  74:  Design  solution  for  W  San  Carlos  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  75:  Current  condition  of  Auzerais  Avenue  

Figure  76:  Design  solution  for  Auzerais  Avenue  provided  by  author  

Figure  77:  Current  condition  of  Delmas  Street  

Figure  78:  Design  solution  for  Delmas  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  79:  Condition  of  The  Alameda  in  July  2014  

Figure  80:  Condition  of  The  Alameda  in  November  2014  

Figure  81:  Current  condition  of  W  Santa  Clara  Street  

Figure  82:  Design  solution  for  W  Santa  Clara  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  83:  Current  condition  of  W  Julian  Street  

Figure  84:  Design  solution  for  W  Julian  Street  provided  by  author  

Figure  85:  Current  condition  of  Bird  Avenue  

Figure  86:  Design  solution  for  Bird  Avenue  provided  by  author  

   

 

  vi  

LIST OF TABLES  

Table  1:  Summary  of  Literature  Review……………………………………………………………………………………………………………11  

Table  2:  Grading  checklist………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28  

Table  3:  Observation  at  point  A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31  

Table  4:  Observation  at  point  B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33  

Table  5:  Observation  at  point  C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35  

Table  6:  Observation  at  point  D……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37  

Table  7:  Observation  at  point  E……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39  

Table  8:  Observation  at  point  F……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41  

Table  9:  Observation  at  point  G……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….43  

Table  10:  Observation  at  point  H……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45  

Table  11:  Observation  at  point  I………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………47  

Table  12:  Observation  at  point  J………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49  

Table  13:  Observation  at  point  K……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..51  

Table  14:  Observation  at  point  L………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53  

  1  

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH  

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT  This study is focused around Diridon Station, which is a major transit station in San José, California. Many transit services like Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak and VTA operate from this station. Due to the strategic location of the station, it will be accommodating transit services like High Speed Rail (HSR) in the next fifteen years.1 There are many changes planned for the area around this station, and to incorporate all of those changes the City has completed various studies and prepared several plans. One such plan is the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) that talks about potential growth patterns in and around the station. In this plan many infrastructural and land use strategies are discussed, and the plan clearly discusses how this area will change into a major transit hub for California and will attract people from many other cities.2 However, the plan does not look into the design characteristics of each street present around the station, which could potentially help the plan in creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment. By studying the built environment and street design features for each major street, the City could potentially identify specific factors that affect peoples’ preference to walk. These factors could be broken sidewalks, lack of enclosure from buildings and lack of safety due to not having enough buffering on the sidewalks.

Therefore, this report will study all the major streets around Diridon Station and provide specific design recommendations for them in order to make them into pedestrian-friendly streets. It will provide answer to the research question - what street design guidelines should the City of San José adopt for the major streets around Diridon Station to make them into pedestrian-friendly streets?  According to the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP), there are a total of twelve major streets around Diridon Station. These streets connect Diridon Station with other parts of the City. Therefore, it is important to develop a pedestrian-friendly built environment on these streets to encourage more pedestrian activities.    

                                                                                                               1  http://www.sfcta.org/delivering-­‐transportation-­‐projects/california-­‐high-­‐speed-­‐rail-­‐project,  (Accessed  04/03/15).  2  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  6-­‐1.  

Figure  1  Diridon  Station  Source:http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakpix/travelogues/100313A/101413C.html  (Accessed  02/15/2015).  

 

  2  

 

                                                       

The description of the streets is as follows:

1. Santa Clara Street – Four-lane east-west street around the station 2. The Alameda –Four-lane arterial street (north-south direction) 3. Montgomery St. – Two-lane one-way arterial street (southbound) 4. Autumn St. – Three-lane, one way arterial street 5. W San Carlos St. – Four-lane east-west arterial 6. Park Ave. – Four lane local street 7. W San Fernando St. – Four-lane east-west arterial 8. Delmas Ave. – One-lane collector street 9. W Julian St. – Two-lane one-way street (westbound). 10. Auzerais Avenue – Two-lane collector street. 11. Cahill Street – Local street that connects the Diridon Station to The Alameda 12. Bird Ave – Four-lane north-south arterial street

Figure  2  Roads  under  consideration  in  the  study  area.  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

 

  3  

In order to analyze these streets, the author adopted the following methodology:

1. Literature Review: In the literature review of this report a total of thirty peer-reviewed and journal articles were reviewed to determine the components that are preferred by pedestrians.

2. Studied and analyzed Diridon Station Area Plans (DSAP): In order to fully understand current and proposed developments around Diridon Station, the author studied various documents that were prepared by the City for Diridon Station: 1. Final Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) 2. Diridon Station Area Plan: Existing Conditions Report 3. Diridon Station Area Plan: Final Environmental Impact Report

3. Studied other design guidelines: To fully gain understanding of various street elements, the author studied the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan prepared by the City of San José and seven different Pedestrian Street Design Guidelines prepared by various cities in the United States. A matrix of all the components included in these design guidelines was prepared, which is attached in Appendix A of this report.

4. Interviews: In order to better understand pedestrian planning, the author conducted five interviews with planners and designers who are currently working on various pedestrian related projects. The findings from these interviews are incorporated in various chapters of this report.

5. Field Assessment: To record existing conditions of the streets, the author conducted a walking

tour of all the twelve streets and recorded the observations using a checklist. These observations are discussed in chapter 5 of this report.

 

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Chapter 1 introduces the research and introduces the study area. Chapter 2 analyzes the elements that are valued by pedestrians and evaluates the previous literature on three themes: provision of pedestrian amenities, safety, and elements of visual interest. Moving further, Chapter 3 discusses different zones of the streets and builds the background for understanding different street elements in detail. Chapter 4 talks about the developments that are proposed in the DSAP and provides the City’s vision for this area. Chapter 5 describes the existing conditions of the roads and discusses the site visit conducted by the author. Chapters 6 provide design recommendations and conclude the research.

 

  4  

CHAPTER 2 – FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES  This chapter contains the literature review conducted by the author to identify the factors that encourage people to walk on streets. In order to do so, the three major objectives set down for literature review are to understand people’s perception towards walking, factors that improve physical activity amongst residents and the relationship between the built environment and active walking behavior in neighborhoods. A synthesis of findings will provide a basis for developing an analysis framework for the case study and recommendations in later chapters of this report.

A number of theories and research studies that relate to and address the mentioned factors are reviewed to identify the key factors that determine people’s preference for walking. A critical review of literature points towards three major factors that determine a typical pedestrian’s preference for walking: (i) Pedestrian amenities; (ii) Safety, and; (iii) Presence of visually aesthetic elements. Each of these factors will be discussed in detail and supported by the theories developed through previously conducted research work.

2.1 PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Literature that focuses on the provision of pedestrian amenities reveals various amenities that are valued by pedestrians (such as trash cans, street signage, etc.), but two elements that emerge as the most highly valued pedestrian amenities are: (i) Presence of benches, and; (ii) Street lighting. In all of the research studies that were selected for this literature review, it was found that researchers specifically focused on both of these elements. Therefore these elements have been included to understand peoples’ preferences and perceptions.

a. Presence of benches

In one of the studies conducted by Cauwenberg et al. where they showed several photographs and asked people about their first and second preferences, it was found that presence of benches was highly noticed by the participants, and all photographs selected by the participants had benches in them.3 Another study in Bogota (Columbia), conducted to study the relationship of built environment and pedestrian activities around BRT stations, researchers found significance between the presence of benches and evidence of more walking on the streets.4 This conclusion is further strengthened by a study conducted by Rosenberg et al. in King County (Washington) where they interviewed thirty-five older adults and found through the analysis most participants preferred having benches to rest on while walking on the streets.5 However, this study was conducted in a hilly terrain, due to which benches could have been of more importance to pedestrians. Therefore results of this study could not be generalized. Figure 3, 4, 5 and 6 shows examples of innovative benches that are valued by pedestrians in a walking environment.

                                                                                                               3  Jelle   Cauwenberg   et   al.,   “Physical   Environmental   Factors   that   Invite   Older   Adults   to   Walk   for   Transportation,”   Journal   of   Environmental  Phycology  38,  no.0  (2014):  98.  4  Daniel   Rodriguez,   Elizabeth  M.   Brisson,   and  Niclolas   Estupian,   “The  Relationship  Between   Segment-­‐Level   Built   Environment  Attributes   and  Pedestrian  Activity  Around  Bogota’s  BRTS  Stations,”  Transportation  Research  Part  D  14,  no.7    (2009):  477.  5  Dori   Rosenberg   et   al.,   “Outdoor   Built   Environment   Barriers   and   Facilitators   to   Activity   among   Midlife   and   Older   Adults   with   Mobility  Disabilities,”  The  Gerontologist  53,  no.  2  (2012):  276.  

  5  

                   

     

                   

b. Presence of street lighting

Another street element that was valued by pedestrians was street lighting. In the study done by Addy et al. to find out those factors that affect residents’ preference to walk on the streets, it was found that streets that had good street lighting were chosen more by the residents to walk.6 Though, in this study response of only those residents who were already physically active was collected. Therefore, results of this study could not be generalized. A similar research was conducted in King County (Washington), to study outdoor built environment barriers and older adults’ preferences, and the results showed that older adults were seen raising concerns about the street lighting and preferred not to walk in those areas that had poor lighting.7 This observation could be supported by the study done by Kim et al. where they hired 2000 auditors and surveyed 1170 locations to analyze the surrounding built environment features, and found through their

                                                                                                               6  Cheryl   Addy   et   al.,   “Associations   of   Perceived   Social   and   Physical   Environmental   Supports   With   Physical   Activity   and   Walking   Behavior,”  American  Journal  of  Public  Health  94,  no.  3  (2004):  441.  7  Dori   Rosenberg   et   al.,   “Outdoor   Built   Environment   Barriers   and   Facilitators   to   Activity   among   Midlife   and   Older   Adults   with   Mobility  Disabilities,”  The  Gerontologist  53,  no.  2  (2012):  273.  

Figure  4  Benches  with  backrest  Source:  http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/street-­‐design/public-­‐benches-­‐contemporary-­‐granite-­‐wood-­‐52697-­‐424974.html,  (Accessed  02/15/15).  

Figure  5  Shows  innovatively  designed  bench  Source:  http://blog.oregonlive.com/oldtown/2009/06/retrograde.html,  (Accessed  02/15/15).  

Figure  6  Shows  example  of  innovative  seating  area  Source:  http://freshome.com/2010/10/04/15-­‐urban-­‐furniture-­‐designs-­‐you-­‐wish-­‐were-­‐on-­‐your-­‐street/  (Accessed  02/15/15).  

Figure  3  Seating  areas  that  are  well  incorporated  with  the  surroundings  Source:  http://www.street-­‐pc.gov.uk/gallery/,  (Accessed  02/15/15).  

  6  

study that satisfaction of recreational walkers had a significant and positive impact determined by the presence of street lamps on the streets.8  

2.2 SAFETY Many researchers have looked into factors that influence people’s decision to walk9 and found that people value safe walkable environments. When people are apprehensive about their environment or are fearful of vehicular traffic, they choose to walk less on streets. Amongst various factors of safety, people are concerned about safety from vehicular traffic, and safety from crime. These safeties are important and therefore warrant further discussion in order to understand people’s preference.    

a. Safety from Vehicular traffic

Several researchers have looked into factors that influence people’s route choice, and found that safety is the primary concern for pedestrians in choosing a route.10 In the auto-centric cities, pedestrians suffer many traffic injuries.11 It is because of this reason that they show less preference to walk in heavy traffic areas. This can be further understood from the study conducted by Dandan et al. where they asked pedestrians about their perceptions regarding walking on streets and found that 75 percent of pedestrians felt that traffic had influenced their decision to walk.12 Similar observations were made by two different studies, the first of which examined the walking patterns of the elder population in Bogota (Columbia), and another one explored pedestrians’ perception of walkability with respect to built environment in Cali (Columbia). Both of these studies concluded  that

                                                                                                               8  Saehoon  Kim,  Sungjin  Park,  and  Seung  Lee,  “Meso-­‐or-­‐Micro–Scale?  Environmental  Factors  Influencing  Pedestrian  Satisfaction,”  Transportation  Research  Part  D  30,  (2014):  16.  9  C.  E.  Kelly  et  al.,  “A  Comparison  of  Three  Methods  for  Accessing  the  Walkability  of  the  Pedestrian  Environment,”  Journal  of  Transport  Geography  19,  no.  41  (2011):  1500-­‐1508;  Yvonne  Michael,  Mandy  K.  Green,  and  Stephanie  A.  Farquhar,  “Neighborhood  Design  and  Active  Aging,”  Health  &  Place  12,  no.0  (2006):  734-­‐740;  Kelli  Cain  et  al.,  “Contribution  of  Streetscape  audits  to  Explanation  of  Physical  Activity  in  Four  Age  Groups  Based  on   the   Microscale   Audits   of   Pedestrian   Streetscapes   (MAPS),”   Social   Science   and   Medicine   116   (2014):   82-­‐92;   Luis   Gomez   et   al.,   “   Built  Environment   Attributes   and  Walking   Patterns   Among   the   Elderly   Population   in   Bogotá,”   American   Journal   of   Preventive   Medicine   38,   no.   6  (2010):   592-­‐599;   Noor   Bahari,   Ahmad   Kamil   Arshad,   and   Zahryllaili   Yahya,   “Assessing   the   Pedestrians’   Perception   of   the   Sidewalk   Facilities  Based  on  Pedestrian  Travel  Purpose,”  IEEE  9th  International  Colloquium  on  Signal  Processing  and  its  Applications,  (2013):  27-­‐32.  10  Noor   Bahari,   Ahmad   Kamil   Arshad,   and   Zahryllaili   Yahya,   “Assessing   the   Pedestrians’   Perception   of   the   Sidewalk   Facilities   Based   on  Pedestrian  Travel  Purpose,”  IEEE  9th  International  Colloquium  on  Signal  Processing  and  its  Applications,  (2013):  27-­‐32;  Yvonne  Michael,  Mandy  K.  Green,   and   Stephanie   A.   Farquhar,   “Neighborhood   Design   and   Active   Aging,”  Health   &   Place   12,   no.0   (2006):   734-­‐740;   C.   E.   Kelly   et   al.,   “A  Comparison  of  Three  Methods  for  Accessing  the  Walkability  of  the  Pedestrian  Environment,”  Journal  of  Transport  Geography  19,  no.  41  (2011):  1500-­‐1508.  11  Andres  Villaveces   et   al.,   “Pedestrians’  Perceptions  of  Walkability   and  Safety   in  Relation   to   the  Built  Environment   in  Cali,   Columbia,”   Injury  Prevention  18,  (2012):  291.  12  Tan   Dandan   et   al.,   “Research   on   Methods   of   Accessing   Pedestrian   Level   of   Service   for   Sidewalks,”   Journal   of   Transportation   Systems  Engineering  and  Information  Technology  7,  no.5  (2007):  76.  

Figure  7  Ways  of  installing  safety  signs  Source:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/75698896@N00/7966249572/,    (Accessed  02/15/15).  

  7  

pedestrians were afraid to walk in heavy traffic zones.13 In Bogota, 1966 adults were surveyed to find their perceptions about road environment and it was found that 64 percent responded that perception of traffic on streets had hindered their preference to walk and they chose not to walk in high traffic areas.14 Similarly, in Cali 13.3 percent pedestrians responded that they are afraid to walk, because of the traffic injuries they have had in the last five years.15 However, both of these research studies were conducted in Latin American cities, where traffic volumes and densities substantially differ from North America. Hence, these results could not be generalized for North American cities. A set of parallel studies examined similar aspects and arrived to contrasting conclusions.16 These studies revealed that people were not primarily concerned about the safety issues but rather preferred routes that were short and easily accessible. Agrawal et al. studied the distances that people would walk to access transit stations and found that safety was the second most important concern for pedestrians. This conclusion is further supported by the study done by Mehta where he found safety to be fourth most important concern for pedestrians, through a survey rating.17 The reason why these research studies have come to very different conclusion than the research study of Bogota and Cali could be understood from their study area. Both of these studies were conducted around transit stations where traffic-calming techniques are already well   executed and designed and therefore, pedestrians did not find traffic safety issues as their major concern. This leads us to the conclusion that in spite of heavy traffic on roads pedestrians could be encouraged to walk using proper design techniques. To substantiate, a study conducted by Kang et al. measured Level of Service of sidewalks and found that people preferred walking on those streets that had proper segregation between vehicular and non-vehicular paths.18 Kaparias et al. made similar observations about buffer zones and found that people’s perceptions about safety improved as segregation increased.19 However, study done by Hammond and Musselwhite provided contradictory results, and they determined that people could even be satisfied with the shared spaces.20 In this study they interviewed residents of the same community after the street upgrades and found that after necessary design upgrades residents were  found satisfied using the same space.21

                                                                                                               13  Luis   Gomez   et   al.,   “Built   Environment   Attributes   and   Walking   Patterns   Among   the   Elderly   Population   in   Bogotá,”   American   Journal   of  Preventive  Medicine  38,  no.  6   (2010):  592-­‐599;  Andres  Villaveces  et  al.,   “Pedestrians’  Perceptions  of  Walkability  and  Safety   in  Relation   to   the  Built  Environment  in  Cali,  Columbia,”  Injury  Prevention  18,  (2012):  291-­‐297.  14  Luis   Gomez   et   al.,   “Built   Environment   Attributes   and   Walking   Patterns   Among   the   Elderly   Population   in   Bogotá,”   American   Journal   of  Preventive  Medicine  38,  no.  6  (2010):  596.  15  Andres  Villaveces   et   al.,   “Pedestrians’  Perceptions  of  Walkability   and  Safety   in  Relation   to   the  Built  Environment   in  Cali,   Columbia,”   Injury  Prevention  18,  (2012):  292.  16  Vikas  Mehta,  “Walkable  Streets:  Pedestrians  Behavior,  Perceptions  and  Attitudes,”  Journal  of  Urbanism:  International  Research  on  Placemaking  and  Urban  Sustainability,  1:3,  (2008):  217-­‐245;  Asha  Agrawal,  Marc  Schlossberg,  and  Katja  Irvin,  “How  Far,  by  Which  Route  and  Why?  A  Spatial  Analysis  of  Pedestrian  Preference,”  Journal  of  Urban  Design  13,  no.  1  (2008):  81-­‐98.  17  Vikas  Mehta,  “Walkable  Streets:  Pedestrians  Behavior,  Perceptions  and  Attitudes,”  Journal  of  Urbanism:  International  Research  on  Placemaking  and  Urban  Sustainability,  1:3,  (2008):  241.  18  Lei  Kang,  Yingge  Xiong,  and  Fred  L.  Mannering,  “Statistical  Analysis  of  Pedestrian  Perceptions  of  Sidewalk  Level  of  Service  in  the  Presence  of  Bicycles,”  Transportation  Research  Part  A  53,  no.0  (2013):  19.  19  Ionnis  Kaparias  et  al.,  “Analysing  the  Perceptions  of  Pedestrians  and  Drivers  to  Shared  Space,”  Transportation  Research  Part  F  15,  no.3  (2012):  309.  20  Victoria  Hammond,  and  Charles  Musselwhite,  “The  Attitudes,  Perceptions,  and  Concerns  of  Pedestrians  and  Vulnerable  Road  Users  to  Shared  Space:  A  Case  Study  from  the  UK,”  Journal  of  Urban  Design  18,  no.  1  (2003):  79.  21  Ibid,  pg.  94.  

  8  

This shows that people’s perception about traffic safety could be improved by adopting proper urban design solutions such as wide sidewalks and vegetation buffers. This assumption is supported by the study done by Michael et al. where all these researchers found that vegetation buffers between sidewalk and road enhanced safety perceptions of the pedestrians.22

b. Safety from crime

Safety from crime is another major concern for pedestrians before choosing a route. In a study done by Brown et al., where they analyzed two routes on the basis of their walkability, they found that higher walkable routes received fewer comments on crime issues in the survey. 23 Safety from crime was considered important in another study conducted by Arrifin and Zahari where they conducted 126 surveys in three Malaysian neighborhoods and found that second highest rating was given to crime safety.24 Additionally, 54.8 percent of people reported that they would start walking more if crime concerns are reduced.25 This finding was further strengthened through a qualitative research done by Alfanzo, where he found safety to be third most important factor for streets, after feasibility and accessibility.26 Another study analyzed the relation of street lighting and perception of crime issues and found that people avoided those roads that had poor lighting conditions, being skeptical about their safety issue.27 Two other studies looked into factors that encourage older adults to walk, and found that older adults  preferred to walk on those streets where they could see other people on the sidewalks,28 or where they could found surveillance cameras.29 This could be because of their limited walking abilities. As older adults walk slowly, they prefer to walk in those areas where they could find help easily. 30 Crime issues could also be perceived because of the physical conditions of the surroundings. The study conducted by Alfanzo found that streets that were poorly maintained, or had graffiti issues, were perceived as unsafe.31 This study is supported by the findings of Alfanzo et al., where they studied eleven California cities on the basis of their design features, and found that areas that had design elements such as windows facing the roads, more street lighting, fewer abandoned buildings and fewer vacant lots, had more adults

                                                                                                               22  Yvonne  Michael,  Mandy  K.  Green,  and  Stephanie  A.  Farquhar,  “Neighborhood  Design  and  Active  Aging,”  Health  &  Place  12,  no.0  (2006):  734-­‐740;   Tan   Dandan   et   al.,   “Research   on   Methods   of   Accessing   Pedestrian   Level   of   Service   for   Sidewalks,”   Journal   of   Transportation   Systems  Engineering  and  Information  Technology  7,  no.5  (2007):  74-­‐79.  23  Barbara   Brown   et   al.,   “Walkable   Route   Perceptions   and   Physical   Features:   Converging   Evidence   for   En   Route   Walking   Experiences,”  Environment  and  Behavior  39,  no.1  (2006):  36.  24  Raja  Ariffin,  and  Rustam  khairi  Zahari,  “Perceptions  of  the  Urban  Walking  Environments,”  Procedia-­‐  Social  and  Behavioral  Sciences  105,  no.0  (2013):  593.  25  Ibid,  pg.  593.  26  Mariela  Alfonzo,  “To  Walk  or  Not  to  Walk?  The  Hierarchy  of  Walking  Needs,”  Environment  and  Behavior  37,  no.6  (2005):  825.  27  Antal  Haans,  and  Yvonne  A.W.  de  Kort,  “Light  Distribution  in  Dynamic  Street  Lighting:  Two  Experimental  Studies  on  its  Effects  on  Perceived  Safety,  Prospect,  Concealment  and  Escape,”  Journal  of  Environmental  Psychology  32,  (2012):  346.  28  Jelle   Cauwenberg   et   al.,   “Relationships   Between   the   Perceived   Neighborhood   Social   Environment   and  Walking   for   Transportation   Among  Older  Adults,”  Social  Science  and  Medicine  104,  no.0    (2014):  28.  29  Jelle   Cauwenberg   et   al.,   “Physical   Environmental   Factors   that   Invite   Older   Adults   to   Walk   for   Transportation,”   Journal   of   Environmental  Phycology  38,  (2014):  100.  30  Jelle   Cauwenberg   et   al.,   “Relationships   Between   the   Perceived   Neighborhood   Social   Environment   and  Walking   for   Transportation   Among  Older  Adults,”  Social  Science  and  Medicine  104,  no.0    (2014):  26.  31  Mariela  Alfonzo,  “To  Walk  or  Not  to  Walk?  The  Hierarchy  of  Walking  Needs,”  Environment  and  Behavior  37,  no.6  (2005):  828.  

  9  

walking on them than those where these were absent.32 To strengthen this observation, Ewing et al. used experts rating on forty-eight video clips, and found that the use of glass windows on ground floor could increase transparency, and thereby reduce safety concerns.33 This shows that presence of blank walls, fewer windows, and less streetlight could raise crime safety issues on the roads, and therefore these features should be avoided. Streets should be designed with more glass windows and openings to provide safer walking environment.  

2.3 ELEMENTS OF VISUAL INTEREST Pedestrians move at slow speeds as compared to automobiles, and hence they require more complexity in terms of scenes and elements to hold their interest.34 As stated by Ewing et al. streets that are high in complexity and have presence of many elements such as building details, signs, different surfaces, changing light patterns, and movements are considered interesting.35 This belief is supported by Alfanzo, who also studied elements that provide pleasure while walking, and found that pleasurable environment include street trees, mixed uses, attractive and interesting architecture, historic and unique buildings, among others.36 Figure 8 shows an example of such a street.

Ewing et al. also states “an interesting network will have physiological effect of making network ‘shorter’, by the virtue that the trips is ‘divided naturally into manageable stages’.”37 This assumption could be supported by a study done in Rio de Janerio were participants reported that their travel distances seemed reduced to them due to the presence of trees, landscaping, and shrubs along their route.38

A few other studies support this fact and state that pedestrians enjoy walking on attractive-looking routes.39 Three studies came up with similar findings and claimed that the pedestrians preferred routes that

                                                                                                               32  Mariela  Alfonzo  et  al.,   “The  Relationship  of  Neighborhood  Built  Environment  Features  and  Adult  Parents’  Walking,”   Journal  of  Urban  Design  13,  no.  1  (2008):  44.  33  Reid   Ewing   et   al.,   “Measuring   the   Unmeasurable:   Urban   Design   Qualities   Related   to   Walkability:   Urban   Design   Qualities   Related   to  Walkability,”  Journal  of  Urban  Design  14:1,  (2009):  78.  34  Reid  Ewing  et  al.,  “Measuring  the  Unmeasurable:  Urban  Design  Qualities  Related  to  Walkability:  Urban  Design  Qualities  Related  to  Walkability,”  Journal  of  Urban  Design  14:1,  (2009):  80  35  Ibid,  pg.  80.  36  Mariela  Alfonzo,  “To  Walk  or  Not  to  Walk?  The  Hierarchy  of  Walking  Needs,”  Environment  and  Behavior  37,  no.6  (2005):  829.  37  Reid   Ewing   et   al.,   “Measuring   the   Unmeasurable:   Urban   Design   Qualities   Related   to   Walkability:   Urban   Design   Qualities   Related   to  Walkability,”  Journal  of  Urban  Design  14:1,  (2009):  80.  38  Fernanda  Monteiro  et  al.,   “A  Proposal  of   Indicators   for  Evaluation  of   the  Urban  Pedestrians  and  Cyclists   in  Access  to  Mass  Transit  Station,”  Procedia-­‐  Social  and  Behavioral  Sciences  54,  no.0  (2012):  640.  39  Barbara   Brown   et   al.,   “Walkable   Route   Perceptions   and   Physical   Features:   Converging   Evidence   for   En   Route   Walking   Experiences,”  Environment  and  Behavior  39,  no.1  (2006):  34-­‐61;  Dori  Rosenberg  et  al.,  “Outdoor  Built  Environment  Barriers  and  Facilitators  to  Activity  among  Midlife  and  Older  Adults  with  Mobility  Disabilities,”  The  Gerontologist  53,  no.  2  (2012):  268-­‐279;  Yvonne  Michael,  Mandy  K.  Green,  and  Stephanie  A.  Farquhar,  “Neighborhood  Design  and  Active  Aging,”  Health  &  Place  12,  no.0  (2006):  734-­‐740.  

Figure  8  Street  with  visually  interesting  elements  Source:  http://nyexp-­‐elabarbera.blogspot.com/2011/06/battery-­‐park-­‐and-­‐chelsea-­‐thursday-­‐june.html,  (Accessed  02/15/15).  

  10  

had trees, shrubs, natural features, historic elements, etc.40 Hosseini et al. looked into before-and-after street improvement perceptions and found that people who perceived their neighborhood to be beautiful were more likely to walk for recreational purposes.41

In order to create an attractive walking environment, having proper proportions of street elements is essential. Two other studies conducted in-depth analysis of attractive walking environments by showing photographs to participants and found that an ideal proportion of greenery in any photo frame should be at least 40 percent, in order to be considered as attractive. Additionally, the percentage of sky in any photo frame should be  anywhere in between 10 to 20 percent.42

Therefore, from the above discussion it can be ascertained that pedestrians enjoy walking on those streets where they could see multiple interesting elements together. Street trees, shrubs, and natural features are a few key elements that are valued by pedestrians, amongst many others. These elements help pedestrians to feel that their route is short and not boring. Therefore, planners should pay careful attention while providing these elements on the sidewalks. Moreover, they should carefully design the surroundings to build an attractive-looking walkable environment.

2.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES This literature review has come to a general agreement that pedestrians value various aspects of the built environment, but they remain particularly concerned about on-street safety and pedestrian amenities. Unlike safety, the third requirement, elements of visual interest are also considered desirable, but they do not restrict pedestrians from using the streets. Therefore, if provided, they only enhance pedestrian’s experience. Based on this literature review it can be concluded that the major elements that are useful in creating a safe walking environment for pedestrians are: (i) Presence of trees between sidewalk and street; (ii) Presence of buffered sidewalks using parking, bike lane or by providing bike stations, and; (iii) Presence of marked crosswalks. Having more window openings on the street could help in improving safety from crime, and having more shrubs and plants could help in retaining pedestrians’ interest. It is to be noted here that this literature review was only able to find relevant articles on street lighting and benches. Therefore, more research could be conducted for other street elements that are considered desirable by pedestrians.

                                                                                                               40  Sayed  Bagher  Hosseini,   Saeid  Norouzian  Maleki,   and  Amirreza  Karimi  Azari,   “The   Influences   of  Access   Improvements   in   Pedestrian   Street  Use,”   Procedia-­‐   Social   Behavioral   Sciences   35,   (2012):   645-­‐651;   Barbara   Brown   et   al.,   “Walkable   Route   Perceptions   and   Physical   Features:  Converging  Evidence   for  En  Route  Walking  Experiences,”  Environment  and  Behavior  39,  no.1  (2006):  34-­‐61;   Jelle  Cauwenberg   et   al.,   “Physical  Environmental  Factors  that  Invite  Older  Adults  to  Walk  for  Transportation,”  Journal  of  Environmental  Phycology  38,  no.0  (2014):  94-­‐103.  41  Sayed  Bagher  Hosseini,   Saeid  Norouzian  Maleki,   and  Amirreza  Karimi  Azari,   “The   Influences   of  Access   Improvements   in   Pedestrian   Street  Use,”  Procedia-­‐  Social  Behavioral  Sciences  35,  (2012):  648.  42  Byung   Lee   et   al.,   “Design   Criteria   for   an   Urban   Sidewalk   Landscape   Considering   Emotional   Perception,”   Journal   of   Urban   Planning   and  Development  135,  no.4  (2009):  139;  Weijie  Wang,  Byungjoo  Lee,  and  Moon  Namgung,   “Extracting  Features  of  Sidewalk  Space  Using   the  Rough  Sets  Approach,”  Environment  and  Planning  B:  Planning  and  Design  35,  (2008):  933.    

  11  

Table  1  Summary  of  the  Literature  Review  

Pedestrian Scale Elements

Pedestrians prefer streets that are well illuminated during the night hours, compared to those that are dark Provision of benches should be encouraged on the streets

Safety Safety from vehicular traffic could be improved by: • Buffering the sidewalk using parking, bike lane or by providing bike

stations • Presence of marked crosswalks improves the vehicular safety • Presence of trees between sidewalk and street improves pedestrian safety

Safety from crime could be improved by:

• Maintaining the sidewalks and keeping them in a good condition, as condition of sidewalks are associated with the characteristics of the neighborhood

• Designing buildings that have windows facing the roads

Elements of visual interest

Building elements such as awnings, roadside plantings, use of innovative building materials on sidewalks creates visual interest for pedestrians and encourages them to walk.

 According to this literature review, the above elements have a positive impact on pedestrians and therefore these design elements should be carefully considered while designing streets for pedestrians around Diridon Station. This chapter helped in identifying the street elements that are preferred by pedestrians and the following chapter will provide details of each street zone and their elements.  

  12  

CHAPTER 3 - UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT STREET ELEMENTS  This chapter will establish general understanding of the different street zones. It will discuss pedestrian zone s idewalk in detail. It will also discuss the street zones that are considered by other cities while writing their design guidelines.

3.1 DIFFERENT ZONES OF STREETS There are mainly two zones on streets – vehicular and pedestrian. In certain cases, streets only possess vehicular zone and do not contain the other. Since this study is focused on pedestrians, it will be only discussing pedestrian zone sidewalk in detail. Sidewalks are an important part of streets. They not only provide space for pedestrians to travel but also space for installing city amenities, such as street lamps, benches, bike racks etc. The use of sidewalks changes according to their land use type. In residential neighborhoods sidewalks could be used to enhance pubic health, whereas in commercial areas they could be used to provide access to shops and developments.43 There are primarily three zones in sidewalks: Curb Zone, Pedestrian Zone and Building Zone. To understand these zones and their elements, it is necessary to study these in detail. The Downtown Streetscape Master Plan prepared by the City of San José in 2003 has explained these zones and their characteristics in detail. The City should develop similar guidelines for the Diridon Station Area Plan to create a stronger linkage between the DSAP and the adjacent downtown area. Doing this could help the City in creating a uniform vision for this area and adopt the best practices from the existing documents of the City. To achieve this, the following discussion will provide a general understanding of the zones and highlight some of the elements that were recommended in the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan for these zones.

                                                                                                               43  http://nacto.org/usdg/street-­‐design-­‐elements/sidewalks/,  (Accessed  04/16/15).  

Figure  9  Different  zones  of  Streets,  Source:  Urban  Street  Design  Guidelines,  NATCO.  

Building  Zone  Pedestrian  Zone     Curb  Zone      

Curb  Zone  Extension  

Building  setback  Zone  

  13  

3.1.1 Curb Zone It is the zone that is next to the road. It is the area where most street furniture and utility boxes are installed. Different curb zones may contain different elements depending upon their location. For a street located in the downtown area, curb zone may consist of many amenities or landscaping, whereas for other areas they could be left only paved without any extra treatments.44 Following is the list of elements that lie in the curb zone:

1. Benches 2. Bike racks 3. Café seating directional signage 4. Bus shelters 5. Fire hydrants 6. Planters 7. Regulatory signage 8. Street lights 9. Trash Receptacles/Recycle containers 10. Trees well grates and guards 11. Traffic signals 12. Historic markers

13. Kiosks 14. News racks 15. Parking meters 16. Pay Phones 17. Pedestrian lighting 18. Postal boxes 19. Traffic signal poles 20. Street trees 21. Tree lawn 22. Utility Boxes/Vaults 23. Wayfinding signage 45

According to Downtown Streetscape Master Plan streets in downtown should be four feet wide from back to curb, residential streets should be five feet from back to curb, and for urban streets should be at least five feet wide for placing the street furniture.46

3.1.2 Pedestrian Zone It is the zone of sidewalk that is specifically dedicated for pedestrian movement and it should be kept clear at all times for uninterrupted pedestrian circulation. This zone should always be well maintained for encouraging more pedestrian activities. It should also be free from tree grates, light poles and other elements.47

Regardless of the location of sidewalks, this zone should be always at least five feet wide to allow comfortable pedestrian movement. It should be around eight feet wide for Paseos (plazas meant for walking).48

3.1.3 Building Zone It is the zone that is next to the pedestrian zone. Any pedestrian element that was not accommodated in the curb zone could be placed in this zone. Streets that have narrow sidewalks often lack this zone.

                                                                                                               44  City  of  San  José,  San  José  Downtown  Streetscape  Master  Plan,  2003,  pg.  21.    45  Ibid,  pg.  21.  46  Ibid,  pg.  21.  47  Ibid,  pg.  21.  48  Ibid,  pg.  22.  

  14  

Elements that could be located in the building zone includes the following:

1. Awnings 2. Benches 3. Building-mounted lights 4. Café seating and railings 5. Planters

6. Signs projecting out of buildings 7. Seating areas 8. Trash cans 9. Building utilities49

3.1.4 Building Setback Zone This is the private zone of the building. The dimensions of the building setback zone vary from city-to-city and each city has different requirements for their setback zone. Following are a few examples of the elements that could be installed in this zone:

1. ATMs 2. Awnings and canopies 3. Benches 4. Café seating 5. Building mounted signs

6. Planters/ trees 7. Seating walls/ Stairs/ Ramps, etc. 8. Parapet wall 9. Windows 10. Utility cabinets50

Elements that are encouraged in bui lding se tback zone

1. Pedestrian-oriented lighting 2. Facade articulation 3. Balconies/ French doors 4. Transparent glass 5. Decorative details 6. Elements that encourage sitting spaces51

Elements discouraged in bui lding se tback zone

1. Blank walls 2. Ground floor parking 3. Surface parking lots 4. Smoked, mirror, or artificial windows 5. Closed blinds on windows52

Elements that should be prohibi ted on s idewalks at al l t imes

1. Dumpsters 2. Sewer lines coming out from buildings 3. Building exhaust or HVAC system 4. Utility boxes 5. Building fire control53

                                                                                                               49  Ibid,  pg.  23.  50  Ibid,  pg.  24.  51  Ibid,  pg.  24.  52  Ibid,  pg.  24.  53  Ibid,  pg.  24.  

  15  

3.2 IMPRESSIONS OF OTHER CITIES DESIGN GUIDELINES

Figure  10  Realms  of  the  Street,  Source:  City  of  San  Mateo,  Sustainable  Streets:  Final  Plan,  2015.  

In order to further understand the elements that should be included in the design guidelines for Diridon Station, the pedestrian street design guidelines proposed by seven cities were studied. After analyzing all these guidelines it was found that different cities have considered different elements for writing their design guidelines. While some have provided policies to encourage pedestrian-friendly environments, others have provided design-based recommendations.54 Out of the set of seven design guidelines that were studied, it was found that only three cities classified streets according to different zones and provided recommendations based on them.55 Design recommendations for crosswalks were included by four cities,56 while design recommendations for corner curb radii were included by three cities57(Refer to Appendix A for the complete list). From this analysis two key themes emerged: guidelines for sidewalks and guidelines for crosswalks. Since guidelines for crosswalks could be a full research in itself, this report will only focus on sidewalks, and will include design recommendations for the three zones of the sidewalks.

The list of the elements that emerged from this analysis is:

1. Curb Zone a) Curb extensions b) Pinch point or chokers c) Bus bulbs d) Pervious strips e) Parklets

                                                                                                               54  City  of  Alameda  Public  Works  Department,  Pedestrian  Design  Guidelines,  January  2011;  City  of  San  Francisco,  Better  Streets  Plan,  2010;  City  of  Oregon,  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  2011;  City  of  Portland,  Portland  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  1998;  City  of  San  José,  North  San  José  Design  Guidelines,  2010;  City  of  Minneapolis,  Minneapolis  Street  and  Sidewalk  Design  Guidelines,  2008;  Kane  County,  Kane  County  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan,  2011.  55  City  of  Oregon,  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  2011;  City  of  Portland,  Portland  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  1998;  City  of  Minneapolis,  Minneapolis  Street  and  Sidewalk  Design  Guidelines,  2008.  56  City  of  San  Francisco,  Better  Streets  Plan,  2010;  City  of  Alameda  Public  Works  Department,  Pedestrian  Design  Guidelines,  January  2011;  City  of  Oregon,  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  2011;  Kane  County  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan,  2011.  57  City  of  San  Francisco,  Better  Streets  Plan,  2010;  City  of  Alameda  Public  Works  Department,  Pedestrian  Design  Guidelines,  January  2011;  City  of  Portland,  Portland  Pedestrian  Design  Guide,  1998.  

  16  

f) Flow-through planters 2. Pedestrian Zone

a) Pervious pavements 3. Building Frontage Zone

a) Building canopies b) Awnings

These elements were finalized after studying different street design guidelines of other cities, conducting interviews and studying National Association for City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) recommendations for converting streets into pedestrian-friendly streets. It is to be noted here that NACTO’s design standard has become the industry standard and is consulted by many cities while writing their design guidelines.58

This chapter provided a comprehensive list of all the street elements that should be included in the design guidelines for Diridon Station and the next chapter will discuss the vision of the City for the Diridon Station Area Plan.

   

 

         

     

                                                                                                               58  Interview  with  Terry  Bottomley,  Principal  at  Bottomley  and  Associates,  Oakland,  CA,  February  15th  2015.  

  17  

CHAPTER 4 - DIRIDON STATION AREA PLAN (DSAP)  In this chapter, the City’s vision for Diridon Station will be discussed. It will discuss the different zones planned by the City for this area. This chapter will also provide details of the streets, and the ways in which they will cater the upcoming traffic. The findings from this chapter will be used to strengthen the proposed Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP), and provide specific design recommendations to help the City in achieving its vision for the DSAP.

4.1 LAND USE DIAGRAM In the year 2008, the City of San José received grant funding from MTC as a part of their program to promote station area planning around BART stations.59 Soon after in November 2008, California voters approved proposition 1A for the initial funding of High Speed Rail (HSR).60 These events provided momentum for the City to develop the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP). In the DSAP the City has made a very robust plan for intensifying the land use of this area. For this purpose a new Ball Park Stadium, many hotels and commercial complexes are planned. The City also envisions developing more commercial development and shops on the ground floor to support pedestrian-friendly environments. To achieve these goals, City has divided DSAP into three zones, namely:

1. North Zone – Innovative Zone This will be the zone where all new developments will be promoted and many hotels and commercial centers will be encouraged for development. The City has proposed to develop Julian Street as the freeway access and business street of this zone. This street will connect people coming from north to Diridon Station.61

2. Central Zone – Destination Zone This is the zone where Diridon Station is located, and hence, the City wants to develop this area into a destination place where people can hang out and spend some quality time together. The City aims to develop The Alameda and Santa Clara Street as the access streets to downtown and will be locating major retail stores on these streets.

3. South Zone – Residential Zone In this zone all the new residential developments are planned, and this zone will serve as the transit adjacent housing supply for Diridon Station. San Carlos Street, which is the major street situated in this zone is envisioned to be developed as the street connecting to various neighborhoods and retail stores.

                                                                                                               59  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014,  pg.  1-­‐3.  60  Ibid,  pg.  1-­‐3.  61  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014,  pg.  1-­‐3.  

  18  

Figure  11  Diridon  Station  Area-­‐  Final  Land  Use  Plan  

Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.  

 

  19  

Figure 12 shows the vision of the City for Diridon Station Area Plan. In this plan North Zone will be developed as the Innovation or Transit Employment Zone. In this zone the majority of the jobs will be located. Tech and various other companies will be encouraged to open their offices here. This zone will also have an Urban Village, which will be the center of growth and opportunities. The Central Zone will have more commercial and downtown-type character. The City wants to encourage more street fronting shops and establishments in this zone. There is also a proposal of Ball Park Stadium in this zone. But, as of February 2015, due to the reluctance of Oakland A’s team to come down to San José, this plan is still uncertain, and the City might consider some other developmental proposal for that parcel.62 The South Zone will have residential character, and there are proposals for many residential developments in this zone.

                                                                                                               62  Interview  with  Jessica  Zenk,  Planner  at  City  of  San  José,  February  20th  2015.  

Figure  12  Primary  Zones  in  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan  Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.  

  20  

4.2 STREETS FOCUSING ON VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS As shown in Figure 13, DSAP has identified Julian/St. James, The Alameda/West Santa Clara, Park Avenue, and West San Carlos as the major streets for serving the east-west connections for the Diridon Station. These streets will primarily carry the vehicular traffic coming from downtown to the station, and also connect the station with east-west corridors of the City.

Figure  13  Existing  East  West  Connections-­‐  Vehicular  Emphasis,    Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.    

  21  

4.3 STREETS FOCUSING ON PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CONNECTIONS Figure 14 shows the streets that will focus on pedestrian and bicycle connections. These streets will give priority to pedestrians and bicyclists over vehicles. Three major streets that will serve this purpose are: St. John Street, San Fernando Street and Auzerais Avenue.

Figure  14  Existing  East  West  Connections-­‐  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Emphasis,    Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.  

 

  22  

4.3 OTHER TYPE OF STREET CLASSIFICATIONS

Apart from identifying primary mode focus for each street, the DSAP also classified each street according to its use patterns. These classifications are as follows:

1. Cahill - Bicycle Boulevard 2. Montgomery - Bicycle boulevard 3. Autumn - City Connector 4. W San Fernando - On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility 5. Park Avenue - On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility 6. W San Carlos - Grand Boulevard 7. Auzerais Avenue - Local Connector Street 8. Delmas Avenue - Main Street 9. The Alameda - Grand Boulevard 10. E Santa Clara - Grand Boulevard 11. W Julian Street - Local Connector/ City Connector Street 12. Bird Avenue - City Connector Street

4.3.1 Proposed New Street Connections  The DSAP has already identified those street networks that need to be well connected in order to create better street connections. These new connections will be developed between Cahill Street and Autumn Street, The Alameda and Julian Street, and between the streets located towards the north of Julian. Figure 15 shows all the new linkages that have been planned by the City for this area.

  23  

 

Figure  15  Proposed  new  street  connections,  Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.  

  24  

4.3.2 Proposed Improvements in Pedestrian Networks  The City has also identified intersections that need improvements around the station. These intersections include intersection of Cahill and Santa Clara, intersection of Autumn and Santa Clara, and intersections that lead to the parking lots of the Diridon Station. These intersections are shown in Figure 16.

Figure  16  Walking  connections,  Source:  City  of  San  José,  Final  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan,  2014.  

  25  

4.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES The Diridon Station Area Plan has done a good job in identifying pedestrian connections and strengthening those connections. The plan has also identified three zones and defined their purpose. Now, in order to further make these zones fully functional, it is necessary to develop separate design characteristics for each zone. Currently, parking lots around Diridon Station do not provide an inviting environment for people to stay in this area. Also, buildings around this area are mostly vacant or are under utilized which creates an unwelcoming environment for the visitors. It is only because of adjacent SAP Center that people come to this area for fulfilling their recreational interests. In order to provide a character to this area and convert it into pedestrian-friendly space, it is really important to wisely design the surrounding streets, and build spaces where people can spend quality time together. This can be done by building an open plaza in front of the Diridon Station and intensifying this area with more commercial and retail establishments. By doing so, we can create more opportunities for people to stay in this area. Looking into the design characteristics of each street and building a strong pedestrian-centric environment is important to encourage more pedestrian activities. Therefore, in the next chapter strengths and weaknesses of each street will be discussed to find out what works nicely on these streets and what needs to be changed, in order to build a strong pedestrian-centric environment. To study these factors the next chapter will discuss the site visit conducted by the author to find out the potential for improvements in each street. The observation elements included in the site visit were developed using the findings from Chapter 2 and 3 of this report.

  26  

CHAPTER 5 - SITE VISIT  This chapter includes the observations made by the author during the site visit. Here current conditions of each street were recorded using a checklist of ten elements. This checklist was developed containing only those street elements that came out from the findings of author’s literature review, such as presence of buffer lanes, presence of trees, condition of sidewalks, etc. These elements are important to study to find out pedestrians’ walking experiences on the streets. Through this process the author seeks to gain deeper understanding of the study area and this understanding will be useful in developing specific design recommendations for each street in the later chapters of the report.

5.1 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR CONDUCTING THE SITE VISIT From the literature review it was found that presence of safety, elements of visual interest and presence of pedestrian scale elements helps in encouraging more pedestrian activities on the streets. Therefore, while conducting the site visit street elements that increase safety, that are aesthetically pleasing, and that are designed according to pedestrian scale were recorded. Following is the detailed list of those elements: Safety- For providing safety from vehicular traffic having buffering between the sidewalks and the roadways is essential. This could be achieved by having either bike lanes, or street trees that act as a buffer between them. Having more street fronting windows, and absence of blank walls facing sidewalks, could also be helpful in increasing more eyes on the sidewalks, and in turn help in reducing crime issues in the community. Few other elements such as marked crosswalks also helps in improving pedestrian safety, as it helps in delineating the territory of the pedestrians and reducing vehicular and pedestrian clashes. Elements of visual interest- Green spaces, small shrubs and surrounding building elements could also help in increasing the visual interest of the streets, and in turn encourage more people to walk on the streets. Therefore these elements were recorded during the site visit. Presence of street elements- Having street elements such as seating spaces helps in providing temporary rest spaces to the pedestrians and supports more pedestrian activities. In order to study these streets, the author conducted a walking tour and used a checklist to understand different street characteristics. On all the twelve streets studied for this research, the author picked up a point and recorded some general observations at that point (shown in Figure 18). The author randomly picked these observation points. These observations were done on two days, one on a weekday, and another on a weekend. This whole process took the author a total of eight hours in completing all the components of the checklist.

  27  

5.2 STREETS GRADING CRITERIA In order to observe the streets, a checklist containing ten categories was prepared. These categories were based on the three themes and their description is as follows:

5.2.1 Safety 1. Number of travel lanes: Here number of travel lanes was recorded. The grading category included

single, double or multiple lane. This category is useful in analyzing traffic condition of the streets and in turn helpful in studying the safety concerns for pedestrians.

2. Presence of bike lanes/bike racks: Presence of bike lanes or bike racks was noted under this

category. The bike lanes and racks act as a safety buffer for pedestrians and therefore they were recorded in the site visit.

3. Presence of on-street parking: Presence of on-street parking works similar as bike lanes in providing

buffer to pedestrians.

4. Sidewalk: Here presence of sidewalks, their condition, width and continuity was recorded. These criteria help in analyzing various factors, such as ease of travelling on the sidewalks and upkeep of the neighborhood. Since sidewalks are important to consider from the perspective of crime and vehicular safety, therefore it was included in the observation list.

5. Crosswalk with or without treatment: There

are several kinds of treatments that could be done to any crosswalk. Using the categories shown in Figure 17, the author observed the kind of treatments that were done on the streets: whether the streets had crosswalks with or without treatment. For this category, the author recorded general impressions of the street in the checklist.

5.2.2 Elements of Visual Interest

6. Presence of opening and window: For analyzing safety issues of streets having more windows and openings overlooking the streets is essential. Therefore, under this category presence of openings and windows was observed. It was also observed whether the streets had any window in 0.2-mile distance or not.

7. Trees: Presence of trees around sidewalks was observed under this category, and their visual canopy on the sidewalks was also noted.

Figure  17  Types  of  Crosswalks,    Source:  Sfbetterstreets.org,  (Accessed  12/05/14).  

  28  

8. Shrubs: Here the author observed whether sidewalks had any shrubs or not. If yes, their height was measured and recorded.

9. Other visually interesting elements: If the streets had any interesting elements then those were

recorded in the list. Observations such as presence of art pieces and shadows from surrounding buildings and trees were noted in this category.

5.2.3 Street Elements 10. Seating Areas: Here the author observed whether the sidewalks had any benches or not. Since it was

hard to observe this observation for a single location, general observation based on walking tour of the street was recorded.

Table  2  Grading  checklist  

Safety

1. Number of lanes Single or double lane One-way traffic or two-way traffic

2. Presence of bike lane Yes or no 3. Presence of on-street parking Yes or no 4. Sidewalk

- Width Average width

- Condition Whether maintained or not Whether broken or not

- Buffered or not Yes or no

5. Crosswalk with or without treatment With or without treatment 6. Presence of windows and openings Yes or no

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees Average distance between trees 8. Shrubs Average height 9. Other visually interesting elements Yes or no, list if there are any

Street Elements

10. Seating areas Yes or no

  29  Figure  18  Map  showing  key  characteristics  of  each  road  and  observation  points,  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

  30  

5.3 CURRENT CONDITIONS

5.3.1 Cahill Street (0.2 mile stretch from W Santa Clara to W San Fernando St.) Cahill Street is a local street in front of Diridon Station that connects station to other roads. It is a two-way collector street that can be accessed by bikes, cars and transit. On both sides of the street 10 to 12 feet wide sidewalks are present, which are shaded by tall trees. Being the immediate street to the station, it is one of the most heavily used streets of this area. For the purpose of this study, 0.2-mile stretch of the streets from W Santa Clara to W San Fernando is selected. Few observations were made on this street by standing on point A (shown in Figure 19). These observations and some general observations are presented in Table 3 of this report.

                       

Strengths - Wide sidewalks - Tree canopy providing shade on

the sidewalks Weaknesses

- No central gathering space - Not enough seating or resting

space - Unmarked street crossing on three

intersections of the street

Figure  19  Observation  point  on  Cahill  Street,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  21  East  sidewalk  of  Cahill  Street,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  20  West  sidewalk  of  Cahill  Street,  Source:  Author.  

  31  

Table  3  Observations  at  Point  A  

Sr. no Elements West side East side

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Single lane Single lane Single lane in both direction

2. Presence of bike lane Yes Yes Presence of class II bike lane, which ends on the intersection of Cahill and Crandall St.

3. Presence of on-street parking

No No There are no on-street parking spaces on this road, as this street only provides entrance to many parking lots

4. Sidewalk Width of sidewalks on both sides are wide enough to accommodate two or more people walking together

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 10’-12’ 10’-12’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Standard treatments on all crosswalks

6. Presence of windows and openings

No No There are no windows or openings on this street

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees Trees canopies are wide enough to provide shade on both sidewalks - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees Yes Yes - Spacing between 2 trees

In between 10’-20’

Approx. 20’

8. Shrubs Plantation spaces are present along the sidewalks, but nothing has been planted there yet

- Presence No No

- Height NA NA

9. Other visual elements present in the surroundings

No Yes, small green open space

There is only a small green open space present in front of the Diridon Station which is aesthetically pleasing to observe

Street Elements

10. Seating areas Near bus stop only

None Only a few benches could be seen around the station which are mostly present around the bus stop (located on the west side of the street)

  32  

5.3.2 Montgomery Street (0.5 mile stretch from W Santa Clara to W San Carlos) Montgomery is two-lane, one-way Arterial Street connecting Diridon with the rest of the city. It is running in north-south direction parallel to the station. For the purpose of this study 0.5-mile stretch of the street from W Santa Clara to W San Carlos is selected. In order to study this street, observations were made on point B of the road (Shown in Figure 22). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 4 of this report. In general, there are ample of parking spaces on both sides of the street. There are also many commercial and industrial buildings on both sides, few or which are either closed or are in non-working condition. The width of the sidewalks varies throughout the road, but for the most part they are wider on western side of the street (facing E Santa Clara street). The sidewalk on the eastern side is narrow and feels uncomfortable while walking. It also lacks shade from the trees.

 

Strengths - Tree canopy on west sidewalk is

visually stimulating Weaknesses

- Lack of sense of place - Under maintained buildings - Narrow sidewalk on the east

side - Sidewalk shrubs are poorly

maintained

Figure  22  Observation  point  on  Montgomery  Street,  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  23  West  sidewalk  of  Montgomery  Street,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  24  East  sidewalk  of  Montgomery  Street,  Source:  Author.  

  33  

Table  4  Observations  at  Point  B  

Sr. no Elements West side East side Description Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane, one-way street This is a one-way street running from

north to south 2. Presence of bike lane None None There are no bike lanes on this street, due

to which people have to bike on the sidewalks

3. Presence of on-street parking

Yes Yes On street parking with solar operated parking meters are present on both side of the road

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are in good condition for the most part, but variations could be seen in between west and east side of the street. Sidewalk on west side is much wider than the east side. At certain places, east side sidewalk appears non-walkable due to presence of many cracks in it. There are also many utility boxes on this side, which leaves very little space to maneuver on the sidewalk

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 9’ 6’

- Continuous Continuous Interrupted walking experience

- Condition Maintained Cracked sidewalks

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

With treatment Stripped crosswalks are present on all intersections of the road

6. Presence of windows and openings

No Yes Only a few buildings are present at the intersection of San Fernando and Montgomery that has street fronting openings

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees Trees on the western sidewalk are wide enough to provide shade, but they get sparse as one moves away from the station. Also, only a few trees are present on eastern side of the street

- Presence Yes Yes - Shade providing trees Yes No - Spacing between 2 trees

10’-15’ Very apart, hard to count

8. Shrubs Some shrubs could be found around the parking lots, but there aren’t many shrubs on rest of the street

- Presence Yes None

- Height 1’ N/A

9. Other visual elements present in the surroundings

Visual effects of the tree canopy

None The trees on the west sidewalk creates a visual enclosure which seems interesting to look at while walking

Street Elements 10. Seating areas None None No seating spaces could be found from

the observation point

  34  

5.3.3 Autumn Street (0.4 mile stretch from Park Avenue to W Santa Clara)

“Autumn Street completes a one-way couplet with Montgomery Street. It is a three-lane, one-way arterial street running northbound from Bird Avenue to Santa Clara Street. North of Santa Clara Street, Autumn Street is a two-way street (one lane in each direction). Autumn Street currently ends just north of Julian Street, but is planned to extend to Coleman Avenue in the San José 2040 general Plan.”63 The land use around this street is mainly industrial, and only a few other developments are present on this street. At the intersection of W San Fernando and Autumn there is a vacant lot present that could potentially be used for some type of mixed-use development. Due to lack of activities on the street, the walking experience was not pleasurable. At the time when this walking tour was conducted there was no other person present on this street apart from the author. The condition of the sidewalks was found broken at various places. For the purpose of this study 0.4-mile stretch of the road from Park Avenue to W Santa Clara is selected. In order to study the street observations were made on point C of the road (shown in Figure 25). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 5 of this report.

                                                                                                               63  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Presence of shrubs and green

spaces on eastern sidewalk Weaknesses

- Broken and unmaintained western sidewalk

- Many cuts in the sidewalks due to entrances to many parking lots

Figure   25   Observation   point   on  Autumn  Street,  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  26  West  sidewalk  of  Autumn  Street,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  27  East  sidewalk  of  Autumn  Street,  Source:  Author.  

  35  

Table  5  Observations  at  Point  C  

Sr. no Elements East side West side Description Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Three lane, one-way street Three lane, one-way Street running from

south to north 2. Presence of bike lane None None There are no bike lane on both sides of

the street 3. Presence of on-street

parking Yes Yes On-street parking is provided on both

sides, which is operated with solar paneled parking meters

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are present on both sides, although sidewalk on east side is in good condition compared to the west side. At certain instances, sidewalk was found broken due to the roots of the overgrown trees

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 6’ 6’

- Continuous Yes No, broken at many instances

- Condition Maintained Not maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without All crosswalks have standard treatment

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes No Windows could be found on the east side which were found closed when this site visit was conducted

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees Trees are present on both sides, though

they are present in more number on the east side compared to the west. None of the trees provide shading canopy

- Presence Yes Yes - Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

20’-25’ 20’-25’

8. Shrubs There are few green shrubs present on the east side, but none are present on the west side

- Presence Yes No

- Height 1’-1. 5’ tall NA

9. Other visual elements present in the surroundings

Yes No East side of the street had many small shrubs which were aesthetically pleasing to look at

Street Elements 10. Seating areas None None There are no seating spaces throughout

this street

  36  

5.3.4 W San Fernando (0.3 mile stretch from Cahill Street to Highway 87) “San Fernando Street is a four-lane east-west arterial that runs from 17th Street to Montgomery Street. Outside of the downtown area, specifically west of Almaden Boulevard and east of 10th Street, San Fernando Street is a two-lane roadway. It provides access between downtown San José and the Diridon Station, where it ends.” 64 This street has a light rail station, which is located on the northeastern side of the street. There are few resting areas present on the street that are located around the light rail station. For the purpose of this study 0.3-mile stretch of the road from Cahill Street to Highway 87 is selected. In order to study the street observations were made on point D of the road (shown in Figure 28). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 6 of this report

                                                                                                               64  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Numerous pedestrian signage present - Pockets for planting shrubs are

present in the sidewalks Weaknesses

- There is no feeling of enclosure on this street due to the surrounding vacant plots

Figure  28  Observation  point  on  W  San  Fernando  Street,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  29  Street  view  of  W  San  Fernando,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  30  South  sidewalk  of  W  San  Fernando  Street,  Source:  Author.  

  37  

Table  6  Observations  at  point  D  

Sr. no Elements Northwestern

Southeastern

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Single lane Single lane Single lane on each side

2. Presence of bike lane Yes Yes Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of the street

3. Presence of on-street parking

Yes Yes On-street parking is present in front of light rail station, which is mainly provided for the homes around the station

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks becomes wider as we move away from Diridon Station, towards the station they are narrow but they are wider towards the Light Rail Station. Plantation spaces are provided in the sidewalks, but nothing is planted there yet, due of which wild plants were found growing from the sidewalks

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 6’ 6’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Not

maintained Not maintained

Buffered or not? With bike lane With bike lane

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

With treatment

With treatment

Crosswalks are treated with stripped pattern on all the intersections

6. Presence of windows and openings

No Yes There are few homes present on southeastern side of the street which have windows overlooking the street

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees Only a few trees are present along the street, and most of them are planted around the light rail station. These trees do not have wide canopies, and are planted away from the sidewalks

- Presence Yes Yes - Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

Nearly 20’ or above

Nearly 20’ or above

8. Shrubs No shrubs were found on both sides of the sidewalks

- Presence No No

- Height NA NA

9. Other visual elements Yes, few art pieces and statues

Yes, old houses and their architectural character

There are some art pieces and statues installed around the light rail station which are interesting to look at

Street Elements 10. Seating areas Yes No There are few benches present around

the light rail station

  38  

5.3.5 Park Avenue (0.6 mile from Sunol St. to Highway 87)

“Park Avenue is a four-lane local street in the downtown area and then transitions to a two-lane designated arterial to the west.”65 Towards the west of the street there are only vacant properties present and an underpass bridge connects the street to Sunol Street. There isn’t much to look at on both sides of the street. Few vacant lots are present on northern side of the street are considered for development in the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP).66 For the purpose of this study 0.3-mile stretch from Montgomery to Sunol Street is selected. In order to study the street observations were made on point E of the road (shown in Figure 31). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 7 of this report.

 

                                                                                                               65  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  66  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Final  Report,  2014,  pg.  2-­‐1.  

Strengths - Small trees that are planted along the

sidewalks are visually interesting to look at

- Sidewalks are buffered with traditional bike lanes

Weaknesses - Surrounding buildings are in

dilapidated condition - There are no interesting elements or

developments to look at in the surroundings

Figure  31  Observation  point  on  Park  Avenue,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  32  South  sidewalk  of  Park  Avenue,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  33  Street  view  of  Park  Avenue,  Source:  Author.    

  39  

Table  7  Observations  at  point  E  

Sr. no Elements South side North side Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane Two-lane There are two-lanes running parallel to

each other in opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lane Yes Yes Traditional separated bike lane is present on both sides of the street

3. Presence of on-street parking

No No There is no street parking on this street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are narrow to walk but they are in good condition.

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 6’ 6’

-Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Standard crosswalks without painted strips could be seen at the intersections

6. Presence of windows and openings

No No There are mainly vacant lots present on the northwestern side of the street, therefore at times it feels unsafe to walk on this street

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees Small trees approx. 7 to 8 feet tall could be seen on the southern side of the street, but there aren’t many trees present on the northern side

- Presence Yes No - Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

Approx.5’-7’ Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

8. Shrubs There are no shrubs present on both sides of this street - Presence No No

- Height NA NA

9. Other visual elements Yes Yes There are few trees planted in the center which are aesthetically appealing to look at and provides visual complexity to this street

Street Elements 10. Seating areas None None There is no seating area throughout the

street

  40  

5.3.6 W San Carlos (0.7 mile stretch from Sunol St. to Guadalupe Flyway and Interstate 280 interchange)

W San Carlos is one of the major east-west streets of this area. It is a four-lane east-west arterial running from 4th Street to Bascom Avenue. There are many automobile dealerships present on both sides of the street, with only a few restaurant and commercial establishments. Due to the presence of many driveways on both side of the sidewalk, walking experience on the street remains interrupted, with sidewalk cuts at various places. The street is also very wide to cross from one end to other, and one has to wait for long time for the pedestrian signal to activate. The sidewalks on both

sides are wide, but there aren’t many plantations on both sides of the street.

For the purpose of this study, 0.7-mile stretch of road from Sunol St. to intersection of I-280 is selected. In order to study the street observations were made on point F of the road (shown in Figure 34). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 8 of this report.

Strengths - Sidewalks are maintained and

are in good condition - Few overlooking windows are

present on the street Weaknesses

- Many driveway entrances - There are no mid-block

crossing which makes the walking trip extended to cross the street

Figure  34  Observation  point  on  W  San  Carlos,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  35  South  sidewalk  of  W  San  Carlos,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  36  Well-­‐maintained  condition  of  south  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

  41  

Table  8  Observations  at  point  F  

Sr. no Elements North side South side Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane Two-lane Two-lanes running in opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lanes No No There are no bike lanes on this street

3. Presence of on-street parking

No No On-street parking is prohibited at many areas of this street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are wide and well maintained.

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 9’ 9’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? No No

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Standard crosswalks are present on all intersections of this street

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes Yes Few windows overlooking the street could be found near the intersections, though their number reduces as we move away from the intersections

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees Only a few trees are present on both sides

of the street - Presence Yes Yes - Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

8. Shrubs Shrubs could only be found near the intersections - Presence Yes Yes

- Height Approx. 1’ Approx. 1’

9. Other visual elements No Yes The tall building at the intersection of W San Carlos and Autumn St. is the only visually stimulating building of this street

Street Elements 10. Seating areas Yes Yes Benches are present on both sides of the

street, but they are mainly found around the bus stops

     

  42  

5.3.7 Auzerais Avenue (0.3 mile stretch from Delmas to Bird Avenue)

Auzerais Avenue is two-lane two-way residential street. Many single-family homes with few commercial stores are present on this street. The condition of sidewalks on this street varies from place-to-place. At certain places sidewalks are wide and well landscaped, but on others they are often broken or unavailable.

For the purpose of this study, 0.3-mile stretch of road from Delmas Avenue to Bird Avenue is selected. Few observations were made on point G of the road (shown in Figure 37). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 9 of this report.

Strengths - Architectural style of the

surrounding houses is aesthetically appealing

Weaknesses - Broken sidewalks in front of

few single family homes - Evidence of lack of

maintenance could be seen throughout this street

Figure  37  Observation  point  on  Auzerais  Avenue,  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  38  Condition  of  south  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  39  Broken  condition  of  north  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

  43  

Table  9  Observations  at  point  G  

Sr. no

Elements Northwestern side

Southeastern side

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Single lane Single lane Two single lanes running parallel to each

other in opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lanes No No There are no bike lanes at this street

3. Presence of on-street parking

Yes Yes On-street parking is present on both sides of the street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalk are mostly broken and not maintained at this street. The only exception where the sidewalk was in proper condition was near a commercial center, which is located on the northeastern side of the street. But for most part due to the broken condition of the sidewalks it was difficult to walk on this street

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 6’ 6’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Not

maintained Not maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Standard crosswalks without any treatment could be seen on all intersections of this street

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes Yes As this street had many single-family homes there are many windows and openings present on both sides of the street

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees Few trees are present, which were found

at a distance from one another - Presence Yes Yes - Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

8. Shrubs Few shrubs could be found in front of the residential plots on the north side of the street

- Presence Only at some places

Only at some places

- Height Between 1’-1’6”

Between 1’-1’6”

9. Other visual elements Yes Yes The front laws of the single-family homes were the only visual attractive element of this street

Street Elements 10. Seating areas None None There are no benches or seating spaces

found on the street

  44  

5.3.8 Delmas Ave (0.5 mile stretch from W San Fernando to Auzerais Avenue) Delmas Avenue is an internal residential street running in north-south direction. It is a one-way street that ends on Auzerais Avenue. Towards the north of the street there are two massive parking lots present, one of which is not under use. There is no reason for a person to use this part of the street apart from coming or going back to the parking lots. The southern portion of the street has many single-family homes and condos, and there is clearly a disconnect between the both ends of the street.

For the purpose of this study, 0.5-mile stretch of road from W San Fernando to Auzerais Avenue is selected. Few observations were made on point H of the road (shown in Figure 40). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 10 of this report.

Strengths - Sidewalks are mostly

maintained - Many beautiful trees and

shrubs could be found along the sidewalks

Weaknesses - Northern and southern

portion of the street have distinct feel and character

Figure  40  Observation  point  of  Delmas  Avenue,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  41  Street  view  of  Delmas  Ave,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  42  Southwestern  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

  45  

Table  10  Observations  at  point  H  

Sr. no

Elements Northeastern side

Southwestern side

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane one-way street Two-lane one-way Street running from

north to south 2. Presence of bike lanes None None There are no bike lanes on this street

3. Presence of on-street parking

Yes Yes On-street parking is present on both sides of the street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are mostly in good condition, but at certain places walking is interrupted due to the presence of many utility boxes on the sidewalks

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 6’ 6’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

With treatment

Stripped crosswalks are present on all the intersections of the street

Elements of Visual Interest 6. Presence of windows

and openings Yes Yes Many windows overall looking the

sidewalks were seen on both sides of the street

7. Trees There are few tall trees towards the end of the street, which are mainly present towards Park Avenue - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees Yes Yes - Spacing between 2 trees

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

8. Shrubs Shrubs are only present in front of the residential plots and at rest of the places they were not present in more number

- Presence Yes Yes

- Height Approx. 1’ Approx. 1’

9. Other visual elements Yes Yes The architectural style of the condo and single-family homes are interesting to observe while walking on the street

Street Elements 10. Seating areas None None There are no seating areas present on

this street

  46  

5.3.9 The Alameda (0.5 mile stretch from Julian to Stockton Ave.) The Alameda or State Route 87 is a four-lane north-south arterial road running from Santa Clara University to the Diridon Station. Before the station this street crosses an underpass and converts into W Santa Clara Street.67 After the walking tour it was found that this street is the most pedestrian-friendly street among all the streets studied for this research. There are few mixed-use developments present, which provide a good walking experience due to their scale and building materials. Over the past one-year this street has undergone modest changes and have upgraded the sidewalk facilities, due

to which it already provides a pedestrian-friendly environment.

For the purpose of this study, 0.5-mile stretch of road from Julian to Stockton Avenue is selected. Few observations were made on point I of the road (shown in Figure 43). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 11 of this report.

 

   

                                                                                                               67  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Sidewalks are

well buffered by the trees

- Sidewalks are in good condition

Weaknesses - Vehicles were

found speeding at the intersections

I  

Figure  43  Observation  point  on  The  Alameda,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  44  Condition  of  The  Alameda  in  July  2014,  photo  taken  facing  I-­‐880,    Source:  Google  Maps.  

  47  

Table  11  Observations  at  point  I  

Sr. no Elements North side South side Description Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane Two-lane Two-lanes running parallel to each

other in the opposite direction 2. Presence of bike lanes No No There are no bike lanes present on this

street 3. Presence of on-street

parking Yes Yes At certain places on-street parking is

allowed 4. Sidewalk Sidewalks on both sides are in good

condition and they are also well-maintained

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 9’ 9’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? No No

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Stripped crosswalks are provided on all the intersections

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes Yes The doors and windows of the commercial shops have their windows facing towards the sidewalks

Elements of Visual Interest

7. Trees There are many trees planted on the sidewalks which provides shade to both sides of the street - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees Yes Yes - Spacing between 2 trees

Approx. 10’-15’

Approx. 10’-15’

8. Shrubs Small shrubs are present on both sides of the street - Presence Yes Yes

- Height Approx. 1’-1’6” Approx. 1’-1’6”

9. Other visual elements Yes Yes The building facades, canopies of the commercial stores are interesting to look at while walking

Street Elements 10. Seating areas Yes Yes Few seating areas were found in front

of restaurants and commercial centers

  48  

5.3.10 W Santa Clara (0.4-mile stretch from Bush Street to Highway 87) “Santa Clara Street is a four-lane east-west roadway that provides access from the east and west of the station area. East of US 101, Santa Clara Street becomes Alum Rock Avenue and west of the Caltrain bridge it becomes The Alameda.”68 This is the most heavily used street of this area because to the presence of adjacent SAP Center. People who come to SAP Center for watching the games and other events heavily use this street. The sidewalks of this street are 20 to 25 feet wide and are planted with tall palm trees. At certain places the sidewalks lack shrubs and seating areas, due to which the street could not be considered as a complete pedestrian-friendly street.

For the purpose of this study, 0.4-mile stretch of road from Bush Street to Highway 87 is selected. Few observations were made on point J of the road (shown in Figure 45). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 12 of this report.

                                                                                                               68  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Tall pine trees planted on both

sidewalks - Marked crosswalks which clearly defines

the pedestrian zone Weaknesses

- There are no restaurants or engaging spaces present around the SAP Center which makes people to drive to other places for food and entertainment

Figure  45  Observation  point  on  W  Santa  Clara  Street,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  46  Current  condition  of  south  sidewalk,  photo  taken  facing  Autumn  Street,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  47  Intersection  in  front  of  SAP  Center,    Source:  Author.  

  49  

Table  12  Observations  at  point  J  

Sr. no Elements North side South side Description Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Two-lane Two-lane Two-lane running parallel to each other in

opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lanes No No There are no bike lanes present on this street

3. Presence of on-street parking

No No Parking is prohibited in most of the areas of this street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are 20 to 25 feet wide on both sides of the street and are in good condition

- Presence Yes Yes - Width In between

20’-25’ In between 20’-25’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? No No

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

With treatment

With treatment

Stripped crosswalks are present on all intersections

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes Yes Few windows were found around the SAP Center

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees Many tall trees are planted on both sides

of the sidewalk. These trees are also wide enough to provide shade on the sidewalks - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees Yes Yes - Spacing between 2 trees

Approx. 10’-15’

Approx. 10’-15’

8. Shrubs There are no shrubs planted along the sidewalks - Presence No No

- Height NA NA

9. Other visual elements Yes Yes The palm trees planted on the sidewalks creates a visually stimulating experience for pedestrians

Street Elements 10. Seating areas No Yes Few benches are present, which are

present only around the bus stops

       

  50  

5.3.11 W Julian Street (0.9 mile stretch from East Santa Clara to Highway 87) “Julian Street is an east-west arterial that traverses the north edge of downtown San José. It provides access to the station area via an interchange with SR-87. East of SR-87 Julian is generally a two-lane one-way street (westbound). The portion of Julian Street between SR-87 and Market Street has been approved for realignment from a curved design to a part of the downtown grid. West of SR-87, Julian Street is a two-lane, two-way street.”69 Through out this street the land use is mostly residential with single-family homes and condominiums.

For the purpose of this study, 0.9-mile stretch of road from E Santa Clara to Highway 87 is selected. Few observations were made on point K of the road (shown in Figure 48). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 13 of this report.

                                                                                                               69  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Presence of visual enclosure

created from the surrounding trees and buildings

Weaknesses - Sidewalks are narrow to

accommodate utility boxes and other street elements such as benches

Figure  48  Observation  point  on  W  Julian  Street,    Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  49  Current  conditions  of  W  Julian  Street,  photo  taken  facing  The  Alameda,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  50  Current  condition  of  Northwestern  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

  51  

Table  13  Observations  at  point  K  

Sr. no Elements Northwestern side

Southeastern side

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel

lanes Single lane Single lane Two single-lanes running parallel to each

other in opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lanes

No No There are no bike lanes on this street

3. Presence of on-street parking

Yes Yes On street parking is allowed on both sides of the street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are in good condition and are wide enough for walking a dog, or walking along with a stroller

- Presence Yes Yes - Width Approx. 8’ Approx. 8’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Maintained Maintained

Buffered or not? Yes Yes

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without All the crosswalks of this street have standard treatment

6. Presence of windows and openings

Yes Yes The windows of the town homes are facing towards the sidewalks and are helpful in increasing the safety of street

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees There are many trees planted along the

sidewalks which provides shade on both sides of the street - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees

Yes Yes

- Spacing between 2 trees

Approx. 10’-15’

Approx. 10’-15’

8. Shrubs Only a few shrubs were seen on this street, which were mostly present in front of apartment buildings located on the southeastern side of the street

- Presence Yes

Yes

- Height In between 1’-1’to 6”

In between 1’ to 1’6”

9. Other visual elements

Yes Yes The architectural style of the town homes were interesting to look at while walking on the street

Street Elements 10. Seating areas No No There are no seating areas on this street

  52  

5.3.12 Bird Avenue (0.2 mile stretch from W San Carlos to I 280) “Bird Avenue is a four-lane north-south arterial that provides access to I-280 and the Diridon Station area. Bird Avenue runs from the willow glen Area of San José to Park Avenue, where it transitions into the one-way couplet of Autumn and Montgomery Streets.” 70 This street has mostly small commercial complexes located on both sides of the street. Throughout the street height of the buildings remain low and they are situated away from the sidewalks.

For the purpose of this study, 0.2-mile stretch from W San Carlos to I-280 is selected. Few observations were made on point L of the road (as shown in Figure 51). These observations and some general observations are shown in Table 14 of this report.

                                                                                                               70  City  of  San  José,  Diridon  Station  Area  Plan:  Existing  Conditions  Report,  2010,  pg.  5-­‐3.  

Strengths - Presence of wide tree canopy

providing shade on the sidewalks

Weaknesses - Broken sidewalks - Buildings with tall boundary

walls - There are not many buildings

present on this street, which raises safety concerns for pedestrians

Figure  51  Observation  point  on  Bird  Avenue,  Source:  Created  by  Author  using  Esri’s  OpenStreetMap  base  map.  

Figure  52  Buildings  on  the  intersection,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  53  Current  condition  of  sidewalk,  Source:  Author.  

  53  

Table  14  Observations  at  point  L  

Sr. no

Elements Northeastern side

Southwestern side

Description

Safety 1. Number of travel lanes Three lanes Three lanes Three lanes running parallel to each

other in opposite direction

2. Presence of bike lane Yes Yes Bike lanes on this street start after W Virginia Street and before that there are no bike lanes on this street.

3. Presence of on-street parking

No No Street parking is prohibited on most part of this street

4. Sidewalk Sidewalks are wide enough for walking with a stroller, but they are not well maintained. They are also broken at certain places

- Presence Yes Yes - Width 8’ 8’

- Continuous Yes Yes - Condition Not maintained Not maintained

Buffered or not? No No

5. Crosswalks with or without treatments

Without Without Standard crosswalks without any treatment could be found on the intersections

6. Presence of windows and openings

No No Only towards the intersections few buildings are present. Apart from that throughout the street there were no windows found

Elements of Visual Interest 7. Trees Few trees are planted on both sides

of the street but they are not preset in close proximity - Presence Yes Yes

- Shade providing trees No No - Spacing between 2 trees

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

Wide, difficult to gauge while walking

8. Shrubs There were no shrubs found on this street - Presence No No

- Height NA NA

9. Other visual elements No No The buildings that are located along the sidewalks are either situated far from the sidewalks or have tall boundary walls

Street Elements

10. Seating areas No No There are no seating areas present on this street

  54  

5.4 TAKE AWAY FOR PROPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES In this chapter all twelve major streets around Diridon Station were analyzed using a list of ten pre-defined elements. It was found that all the streets possessed some weaknesses and strengths when evaluated for their pedestrian environment. Some streets had immediate concerns like broken sidewalks and presence of multiple sidewalk cuts that needs to be addressed on priority for creating pedestrian-friendly streets.

Among all the streets that were studied it was found that Bird Avenue, W San Carlos, W Julian, The Alameda and W Santa Clara Street provided much better walking experience. It was also seen that W Julian and The Alameda possessed many beautiful trees and buildings that supported their walking environment. The surrounding buildings and trees on these streets created a feeling of enclosure by their height and scale, and made pedestrian’s feel safe while walking. Therefore, elements such as trees and heights of the building should be given special consideration while designing streets for pedestrians.

This chapter has summarized the strengths and weaknesses of each street and the next chapter will provide design recommendations for each street based on the observations made in this chapter.

  55  

CHAPTER 6 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS  After conducting the literature review, studying the various design guidelines and conducting interviews with planners and urban designers it was found that the City of San José should adopt such design recommendations that strengthens the pedestrian realm around Diridon Station. This will include design recommendations for the three zones of the sidewalk – Curb Zone, Pedestrian Zone and Building Frontage Zone. By properly designing these three zones the City could achieve its goal of making Diridon Station Area into a pedestrian-friendly area. Therefore, this chapter will use the design elements identified in Chapter 2 of the report and provide specific design recommendations for each street around the study area. Along with these, some specific recommendations will also be provided for the streets based on the findings of the literature review. These recommendations will be provided to enhance the safety, visual appeal and improve the pedestrian amenities around Diridon Station.

From the walking tour of the streets it was found that each street possessed some strengths and weaknesses. Addressing the special concerns of each street and providing a vision could improve these weaknesses. Therefore, with the help of rendering of each street the author recommends the design changes that the City should consider for developing a strong pedestrian environment on these streets. Along with these recommendations the author also highlights the best practices that should be adopted to reduce vehicular speeds on these roads and improve visibility of the pedestrians. These best practices have emerged from the systematic approach adopted by the author after studying various literature and reviewing design guidelines of other cities. Using this analysis the author has identified the design elements that should be included in Diridon Station Area Design Guidelines. Following are the elements that are recommended for each zone:

6.1 CURB ZONE

1. Curb extensions:

Curb extensions are a way of reducing vehicular speed at the corners and it greatly helps in improving the visibility of the pedestrians, thereby providing a safe walkable environment to them. Therefore these should be adopted at Montgomery Street, Autumn Street., Bird Avenue, The Alameda and Santa Clara Street to reduce the crossing distance on these streets and also increase space to provide more pedestrian amenities.

Figure  54  Curb  extensions  on  sidewalks,    Source:  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.  

  56  

2. Pinch point or chokers:

Similar to curb extensions chokers should be provided on those streets where vehicular speed is high. Such a case was found at Autumn Street, which is a one-way street parallel to the Diridon Station. Providing chokers on this street could greatly reduce the vehicular speed on this street and provide safe walkable environment.

3. Bus bulbs:

A bus bulb provides spaces for buses to dock within the parking lane. These help the traffic to run smoothly and also buses to move in-and-out of traffic easily. 71 Transit shelters and bike racks can also be provided in this space. These should be adopted on the major transit streets of this area - W San Carlos and W Santa Clara Street.

4. Pervious strips:

Pervious strips are the strips that could be provided in the curb extensions. These strips help in recharging the ground water table and also provide buffer from the traffic. These strips could also help in providing the much needed buffers to certain streets of the Diridon Station Area Plan. Width of these strips should lie between one-two feet, depending upon the amount of available space.72

                                                                                                               71  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  Island  Press,  2013.  72  Ibid.  

Figure  55  Pinch  point  on  sidewalks,    Source:  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.  

Figure  56  Bus  bulbs  on  sidewalks,    Source:  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.  

Figure  57  Pervious  strips  on  sidewalks,    Source:  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.  

  57  

5. Parklets:

Parklets are small social spaces that are built in the curb-extensions. These have the potential of energizing and activating any sidewalk. By providing these, the City could add more visual elements on the street and create a people-centric environment, which could also improve the safety concerns for people.

6. Flow-through planters At places where there is less space available on the curb for pervious strips, flow-through planters could be provided. This works similar to the pervious strips and helps in recharging the ground water table. Since these are flushed within the sidewalks they have an aesthetic appeal, and when added these synchronize with the sidewalks very easily. These could be provided on San Fernando and Bird Avenue where pockets for plantation are already present.

6.2 PEDESTRIAN ZONE  1. Pervious pavements

During the site visit it was seen that at lot of places sidewalks were broken and not properly maintained. Such issues are directly related to the upkeep of the neighborhood and should be addressed as early as possible. Therefore, the City should not only address these issues, but also adopt green techniques by adopting pervious pavements for the sidewalks. This will not only help in providing a character to the sidewalks but also make the DSAP more sustainable.

Figure  58  Parklets,    Source:  NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.  

Figure  59  Flow-­‐through  planters,    Source:    NACTO,  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  2013.    

Figure  60  Pervious  pavements  used  on  Sidewalks,    Source:  Urban  Street  Design  Guide,  NACTO.    

  58  

6.3 BUILDING FRONTAGE ZONE  1. Building awnings

Awnings provide design characteristics to the streets and also provide a sense of enclosure. Therefore, these could be used on The Alameda and Bird Avenue to create a pedestrian-friendly environment.  

2. Overhead supported canopies

Overhead canopies work equally well as awnings in creating a sense of enclosure and providing shade on the streets. These could be adopted for the shops at The Alameda, W San Carlos and Bird Avenue, as these streets have many commercial developments along the roadside.

                       

Figure  61  Awnings  on  buildings,    Source:  http://www.yorktentandawning.com/,  (Accessed  03/03/15).  

Figure  62  Picture  of  Overhead  supported  canopies,    Source:  http://www.aecinfo.com/1/company/27/51/02/product748645_1.html,  (Accessed  03/03/15).  

  59  

6.4 SPECIFIC DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.4.1 Cahill Street

From the site visit it was found that this street lacked a central inviting space and seating areas to provide a pedestrian-friendly environment. It was also seen that there was only one marked crosswalk on the street, and at other places pedestrians yielded to oncoming bicyclists and vehicles. To solve this problem marked crosswalks should be provided on all the crosswalks. Additionally, a central open plaza should be built to create an inviting atmosphere. By converting the existing parking lots into green open spaces and providing innovative seating areas this street could enhance its pedestrian atmosphere and become more pedestrian-friendly.

                                 

 

Strengths - Wide sidewalks - Tree canopy providing

shade on the sidewalks Weaknesses

- No central gathering space

- Not enough seating or resting areas

- Unmarked street crossing on three intersections of the street

Figure  63  Current  condition  of  Cahill  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  64  Design  solution  for  Cahill  Street  provided  by  author  using  Google  map  image,    Source:  Author’s  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Build  central  plaza  in  front  of  station  

Provide  mid-­‐block  crossing    

Provide  more  street  signage  

  60  

6.4.2 Montgomery Street

By bringing more mixed-use developments to this street a pedestrian-friendly environment could be created. Along with this, trees that have wide shading canopies could be planted on the eastern side of sidewalk for enhancing its walking experience. Additionally, sidewalks should be properly maintained and their material could be changed from concrete to pervious tiles. This would greatly help the City in enhancing the urban character of this street.

                                   

       

         

Strengths - Tree canopy on west

sidewalk is visually stimulating

Weaknesses - Lack of sense of place - Under maintained

buildings - Narrow sidewalk on

the east side - Sidewalk shrubs are

poorly maintained

Figure  65  Current  condition  of  Montgomery  Street,  Source:  Author.  

Figure  66  Design  solution  for  Montgomery  Street  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.    

Build  mix-­‐use  area  with  residential  on  top  and  commercial  below  

Use  pervious  materials  on  sidewalk  

  61  

6.4.3 Autumn Street Currently, the southern portion of Autumn Street serves as entrances to various parking lots. Although, the width of sidewalks on both sides is sufficient enough for walking, but there wasn’t any pedestrian observed on this street during the site visit. Therefore, in order to encourage more pedestrians on this street buildings with strong architectural style should be encouraged, and they should be complimented with public gathering spaces. These buildings should also possess overhead canopies, planters and shrubs to create a pleasant pedestrian environment. By doing this visual complexity of this street could be enhanced, thereby creating an inviting pedestrian environment. The City could also adopt measures to improve the condition of the sidewalks and retrofit it with new tiles and building materials. Proper maintenance of sidewalks is very essential in creating a pleasant walking environment. In addition, City could also install chokers (shown in Figure 55) on this street to reduce the speed of vehicular traffic.  

                                             

         

Strengths - Presence of shrubs

and green spaces on eastern sidewalk

Weaknesses - Broken and

unmaintained western sidewalk

- Many sidewalk cuts

Figure  67  Current  condition  of  Autumn  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  68  Design  solution  for  Autumn  Street  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.    

Encourage  open  seating  areas    

  62  

6.4.4 W San Fernando  W San Fernando Street provides the connectivity between downtown and Diridon Station via bikes. It has great potential for serving as the major pedestrian connection. Currently, there are few unplanted spots left in the sidewalks for shrubs and plants. The City should plan on planting small shrubs and trees on those spots. To further enhance the pedestrian experience, corners of the street should also be strengthened, by encouraging open and mixed-use developments.

   

                                                         

     

Strengths - Numerous pedestrian

signage present - Pockets for planting shrubs

are present in the sidewalks Weaknesses

- There is no feeling of enclosure on the street due to the surrounding vacant plots

Figure  69  Current  condition  of  W  San  Fernando  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  70  Design  solution  for  W  San  Fernando  Street  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Encourage  intermediate  open  spaces    

  63  

6.4.5 Park Avenue  In the current condition, Park Avenue cannot be considered as a pedestrian-friendly street due to the adjacent land uses and dilapidated buildings. In order to convert it into a pedestrian-friendly street, more developments should be built, and open interactive spaces like parklets should be encouraged to create an inviting atmosphere for pedestrians. Also, the bike lane of the street could be painted in green color to increase its visibility.    

                                                     

     

Strengths - Small trees that are planted

along the sidewalks creates an interesting pattern

- Sidewalks are buffered with traditional bike lane

Weaknesses - Surrounding buildings are in

dilapidated condition - There are no interesting

elements or developments to look at in the surroundings

Figure  71  Current  condition  of  Park  Avenue,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  72  Design  solution  for  Park  Ave  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Activate  sidewalks  with  Parklets  

  64  

6.4.6 W San Carlos  W San Carlos Street is one of the major east-west connector streets of the Diridon Station Area Plan. In order to improve pedestrian walking experience of this street sidewalk buffering could be enhanced on this street by planting small shrubs. To achieve this some of the on-street parking spots could be converted into bus bulbs, which could also help in improving the vehicular safety of this street. Additionally, the bus bulbs could also increase the efficiency of VTA buses, as currently they have to pulls in-and-out of sidewalks several times for loading and unloading passengers. These extended bus bulbs could also provide opportunity to install benches and trashcans on the street, thereby strengthening the pedestrian atmosphere of the street.  

                                                     

     

Strengths - Sidewalks are maintained

and are in good condition - Few overlooking windows

are present on the street Weaknesses

- Many driveway entrances - There are no mid-block

crossing which makes the walking trip extended to cross the street

Figure  73  Current  condition  of  W  San  Carlos  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  74  Design  solution  for  W  San  Carlos  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Mid-­‐way  crossing    

  65  

6.4.7 Auzerais Avenue  Auzerais Avenue is planned as one of the major pedestrian street of the Diridon Station Area Plan. During the site visit it was observed that at many places the sidewalks of this street were broken and not properly maintained. Therefore, as a first step to improve the pedestrian environment, the City should repair the sidewalks of this street. Secondly, by highlighting the crosswalks with marked crossings and installing more pedestrian signage, the City could improve the physical walking environment of the Auzerais Avenue. Along with this, various types of tress such as palm trees could also be planted to enhance the visual complexity of the street.  

   

Strengths - Architectural style of the

surrounding houses Weaknesses

- Broken sidewalks in front of few single family homes

- Evidence of lack of maintenance seen throughout this street

Figure  75  current  condition  of  Auzerais  Avenue,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  76  Design  solution  for  Auzerais  Avenue  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Marked  crosswalks  

  66  

6.4.8 Delmas Avenue  To enhance the pedestrian environment of the Delmas Avenue, connections should be strengthened between the northern and the southern portions of the street. Promoting community activities that encourage residents to move towards the northern portion of the street can help achieve this. One such activity can be farmers market on the vacant parking lots of this street. Apart from this, the existing parking lots could be converted into parking garages to enhance the parking supply of the station. Strong pedestrian connections from these parking lots to the Diridon Station should be developed. These newly developed routes should contain more pedestrian-friendly features such as benches and pedestrian-scale street lightings.

Strengths - Sidewalks are mostly

maintained - Many beautiful trees and

shrubs could be found along the sidewalks

Weaknesses - Northern and southern

portion of the street have distinct feel and character

Figure  77  Current  condition  of  Delmas  Avenue,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  78  Design  solution  for  Delmas  Avenue  provided  by  author,  Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Encourage  intermediate  green  spaces  

  67  

6.4.9 The Alameda  This street has undergone many upgrades in the last two to three months because of which it provides a much better pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. The buildings on this street provide enclosure and visual complexity to the pedestrians through their scale and height, which makes it more appealing to walk on this street. The only challenge that the street faces is high vehicular traffic. In order to address this issue and provide safe walking environment to the pedestrians, proper traffic calming measures such as corner bulb-outs should be adopted.    

Strengths - Sidewalks are well

buffered by trees - Sidewalks are in

good condition -

Weaknesses - Speeding vehicles at

the intersections

Figure  79  Condition  of  The  Alameda  in  July  2014,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  80  Condition  of  Alameda  in  November  2014,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

  68  

6.4.10 W Santa Clara  Santa Clara Street is the major thoroughfare of this area, and therefore should be designed with great caution in order to create a pedestrian-centric environment. The sidewalks of the street already contain many pedestrian-friendly features, but in order to further enhance the pedestrian atmosphere they should also provide some pedestrian-friendly spaces such as outdoor seating. Doing this could create a people-friendly atmosphere, and in turn attract more walkers on this road. The sidewalk in front of SAP Center is an ideal place to enhance the pedestrian atmosphere of this street. The adjacent parking lots should be converted into mixed-use developments and open seating areas should be provided in front of them to create a people-friendly atmosphere. Small shrubs and planters could also be planted along the sidewalks, and corer bulb-out could be installed on the intersection of Autumn Avenue and W Santa Clara Street to create a safer walking environment.

Strengths

- Tall pine trees planted on both sides

- Marked crosswalks which clearly defines the pedestrian zone

Weaknesses - There are no restaurants or

engaging spaces present around the SAP Center, which makes people drive to other areas for food and entertainment

Figure  81  Current  condition  of  W  Santa  Clara  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  82  Design  solution  for  W  Santa  Clara  Street  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

Encourage  recreational  spaces  on  sidewalks  

  69  

6.4.11 W Julian  In the Diridon Station Area Plan, the W Julian Street is selected for the realignment with the downtown grid. Once this will be done the traffic of this street is expected to increase. Pinch point or chokers could be provided on this street to control the speed of the future traffic. In addition, this will also provide space for installing more street amenities.  

         

     

 

 

   

 

   

   

Strengths - Presence of visual enclosure

created from surrounding trees and buildings

Weaknesses - Sidewalks are narrow to

accommodate utility boxes and other street elements such as benches

Build  chokers  on  sidewalks  

Figure  83  Current  condition  of  W  Julian  Street,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  84  Design  solution  for  W  Julian  Street  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  to  Google  Map  image.  

  70  

6.4.12 Bird Avenue  During the walking tour it was found that this street has many broken sidewalks and blank walls. In order to improve this situation, first the condition of the sidewalks should be improved, and then the boundary wall of shops and commercial establishments should be made transparent by providing more windows overlooking the sidewalks. More street fronting buildings should also be built on this street, and their parking lots should be shifted to the backside of the lots. After doing this, the crosswalks should be improved by markings and providing refuge islands.    

Strengths - Presence of wide tree canopy on

the sidewalks Weaknesses

- Broken sidewalk - Buildings with tall boundary

walls - There are not many buildings

present on this street, which raises safety concerns for pedestrians

Figure  85  Current  condition  of  Bird  Avenue,  Source:  Google  Maps.  

Figure  86  Design  solution  for  Bird  Avenue  provided  by  author,    Source:  Author's  modification  of  Google  Map  image.  

Strengthen  corners  

  71  

6.5 CONCLUSION This study explored the ways by which streets around a transit station could be made pedestrian-friendly. Here the case study selected was of San José, California. The study’s findings reveal that the presence of pedestrian amenities, presence of safety on streets, and elements of visual interest play an important role in encouraging more pedestrian activities on the streets. These elements could be incorporated into streets by properly designing all the three zones of sidewalks. Therefore, the City of San José should develop design guidelines based on these three zones for the Diridon Station Area Plan.

The first set of conclusions refers to the elements that are required to be included for the three major zones. With reference to the guidelines for Curb Zone, the city should include guidelines for corner curb radii, bus bulbs, chokers, parklets and plantation strips to reduce vehicular speeds and to provide more opportunities for installing pedestrian amenities. The guidelines for Pedestrian Zone should incorporate recommendations for the use of green and sustainable materials such as pervious strips. Moreover, the guidelines for Building Zone should possess elements that provide visual enclosure and complexity on the streets, such as canopies and awnings.

The second set of conclusions is drawn upon after an analysis of the built environment at the existing streets. After analyzing all the streets selected for this research, the study arrives at a mix results. It can be concluded that all the streets possess few strengths and weaknesses in their built environment. For the most part, the sidewalks of the streets were well maintained, with the exception of Autumn and Delmas Avenue. Although the sidewalks of other streets were well maintained, very few pedestrians were observed on those streets. This could be mainly due to the surrounding land use type existing on those streets. Most of the streets had vacant plots because of which they were found not conducive for walking. Therefore, the City of San José should conduct more analysis on these streets and develop ways by which enclosure through surrounding building and developments could be achieved on these streets.

Finally, the last set of conclusions pertains to the addition of character to the existing space. In order to do so it is recommended that the City should also convert the parking lots in front of Diridon Station into people-friendly spaces, such as open plaza and green space. The existing parking lots can be shifted to Delmas Ave, which is at a distance of 0.3 mile from Cahill Street. By doing this City would be able to provide a central green space in front of Diridon Station. More importantly, this would provide the much-needed character to this area, which currently it lacks due to the massive parking lots. This is anticipated to bring a significant difference to the surroundings of Diridon Station and would contribute in encouraging more pedestrian activities in this area.

                 

  72  

BIBLIOGRAPHY   Adkins, Arlie, et al. “Unpacking Walkability: Testing the influence of Urban Design Features on

Perceptions of Walking Environment Attractiveness.” Journal of Urban Design 17, no. 4 (2012): 499-510.

Addy, Cheryl, et al. “Associations of Perceived Social and Physical Environmental Supports With Physical

Activity and Walking Behavior.” American Journal of Public Health 94, no. 3 (2004): 440-443. Agrawal, Asha, Marc Schlossberg and Katja Irvin. “How Far, by Which Route and Why? A Spatial

Analysis of Pedestrian Preference.” Journal of Urban Design 13, no. 1 (2008): 81-98. Alfonzo, Mariela. “To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs.” Environment and Behavior

37, no.6 (2005): 808-836. Alfonzo, Mariela, et al. “The Relationship of Neighborhood Built Environment Features and Adult

Parents’ Walking.” Journal of Urban Design 13, no. 1 (2008): 29-51. Ariffin, Raja, and Rustam khairi Zahari. “Perceptions of the Urban Walking Environments.” Procedia- Social

and Behavioral Sciences 105, no. 0 (2013): 589-597. Bahari, Noor, Ahmad Kamil Arshad and Zahrullaili Yahya. “Assessing the Pedestrians’ Perception of the

Sidewalk Facilities Based on Pedestrian Travel Purpose.” IEEE 9th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications (2013): 27-32.

Borst, Hieronymus, et al. “Relationships Between Street Characteristics and Perceived Attractiveness for

Walking Reported by Elderly People.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28, no.0 (2008): 353-361. Brown, Barbara, et al. “Walkable Route Perceptions and Physical Features: Converging Evidence for En

Route Walking Experiences.” Environment and Behavior 39, no.1 (2006): 34-61. Cain, Kelli, et al. “Contribution of Streetscape audits to Explanation of Physical Activity in Four Age

Groups Based on the Microscale Audits of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS).” Social Science and Medicine 116, no.0 (2014): 82-92.

Cauwenberg, Jelle, et al. “Relationships Between the Perceived Neighborhood Social Environment and

Walking for Transportation Among Older Adults.” Social Science and Medicine 104, no.0 (2014): 23-30.

Cauwenberg, Jelle, et al. “Physical Environmental Factors that Invite Older Adults to Walk for

Transportation.” Journal of Environmental Phycology 38, (2014): 94-103. City of Alameda. Pedestrian Design Guidelines, Alameda, California, 2011. City of San Francisco. Better Streets Plan, San Francisco, California, 2010. City of San José. Diridon Station Area Plan: Final Plan Report, San José, California, 2014.

  73  

City of San José. Diridon Station Area Plan: Existing Conditions Report, San José, California, 2010. City of San José. San José Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, San José, California, 2003. City of San José. North San José Urban Design Guidelines, San José, California, 2010. City of Minneapolis. Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2009. City of Portland. Portland Pedestrian Street Design Guide. Office of Transportation Engineering and

Development, Portland, Oregon, 1998. Dandan, Tan, et al. “Research on Methods of Accessing Pedestrian Level of Service for Sidewalks.” Journal

of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology 7, no.5 (2007): 74-79. Ewing, Reid, and Susan Handy. “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to

Walkability: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Urban Design 14:1, (2009): 65-84.

Gomez, Luis, et al. “Built Environment Attributes and Walking Patterns Among the Elderly Population in

Bogotá.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 38, no. 6 (2010): 592-599. Haans, Antal, and Yvonne A.W. de Kort. “Light Distribution in Dynamic Street Lighting: Two

Experimental Studies on its Effects on Perceived Safety, Prospect, Concealment and Escape.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 32, (2012): 342-352.

Hammond, Victoria and Charles Musselwhite. “The Attitudes, Perceptions, and Concerns of Pedestrians

and Vulnerable Road Users to Shared Space: A Case Study from the UK.” Journal of Urban Design 18, no. 1 (2003): 78-97.

Hosseini, Sayed, Saeid Norouzian Maleki and Amirreza Karimi Azari. “The Influences of Access

Improvements in Pedestrian Street Use.” Procedia- Social Behavioral Sciences 35, (2012): 645-651. Kaparias, Ionnis, et al. “Analysing the Perceptions of Pedestrians and Drivers to Shared Space.”

Transportation Research Part F 15, no. 3 (2012): 297-310. Kang, Lei, Yingge Xiong, and Fred L. Mannering. “Statistical Analysis of Pedestrian Perceptions of

Sidewalk Level of Service in the Presence of Bicycles.” Transportation Research Part A 53, no.0 (2013): 10-21.

Kelly, et al. “A Comparison of Three Methods for Accessing the Walkability of the Pedestrian

Environment.” Journal of Transport Geography 19, no. 41 (2011): 1500-1508. Kim, Saehoon, Sungjin Park and Jae Seung Lee. “Meso-or-Micro–Scale? Environmental Factors

Influencing Pedestrian Satisfaction.” Transportation Research Part D 30, (2014): 10-20. Lee, Byung, et al. “Design Criteria for an Urban Sidewalk Landscape Considering Emotional Perception.”

Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135, no.4 (2009): 133-140. Mehta, Vikas. “Walkable Streets: Pedestrians Behavior, Perceptions and Attitudes.” Journal of Urbanism:

International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1:3, (2008): 217-245.

  74  

Michael, Yvonne, Mandy K. Green, and Stephanie A. Farquhar. “Neighborhood Design and Active

Aging.” Health & Place 12, no. 0 (2006): 734-740. Monteiro, Fernanda, et al. “A Proposal of Indicators for Evaluation of the Urban Pedestrians and Cyclists

in Access to Mass Transit Station.” Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 54, no.0 (2012): 637-645. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide, Island Press, 2013. Oregon Department of Transportation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide 3rd Edition, Oregon, 2011. Rosenberg, Dori, et al. “Outdoor Built Environment Barriers and Facilitators to Activity among Midlife

and Older Adults with Mobility Disabilities.” The Gerontologist 53, no. 2 (2012): 268-279. Rodriguez, Daniel, Elizabeth M. Brisson and Nicolas Estupinan. “The Relationship Between Segment-

Level Built Environment Attributes and Pedestrian Activity Around Bogota’s BRTS Stations.” Transportation Research Part D 14, no.7 (2009): 470-478.

Sisiopiku, V. P. and D. Akin. “Pedestrian Behaviors at and Perceptions Towards Various Pedestrian

Facilities: An Examination Based on Observation and Survey Data.” Transportation Research Part F 6, no. 4 (2003): 249-274.

Villaveces, Andres, et al. “Pedestrians’ Perceptions of Walkability and Safety in Relation to the Built

Environment in Cali, Columbia.” Injury Prevention 18, (2012): 291-297. Wang, Weijie, Byungjoo Lee and Moon Namgung. “Extracting Features of Sidewalk Space Using the

Rough Sets Approach.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35, no.5 (2008): 920-934.

  75  

APPENDIX A: STREET DESIGN ELEMENTS DISCUSSED IN OTHER GUIDELINES Sr.no City Street Components discussed 1. San Francisco, CA

1. Crosswalks 2. Corner curb radii 3. Curb extensions 4. Medians and islands 5. Transit-supportive streets 6. Parking lane treatment 7. Traffic calming and roundabouts 8. Pedestrian-priority designs

2. Alameda, CA

Streets 1. Bus stops 2. Lighting 3. Sidewalk access at driveways 4. Walkways 5. Sidewalks

Intersections 1. Crosswalks 2. Curb extensions or curb bulb-outs 3. Curb Radii 4. In Pavement crosswalk lights 5. Mid-block crossing 6. Pedestrian refuge islands 7. Pedestrian signs- regulatory, warning, and guide 8. In-street pedestrian crossing signs 9. Pedestrian signals - Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) 10. Pedestrian Countdown signals 11. Pedestrian signal phasing 12. Pedestrian Signal Timing 13. Roundabouts

  76  

3. State of Oregon

Walkways 1. Walkways types 2. Sidewalks

- Curb zone - Furniture zone - Pedestrian zone - Frontage zone

3. Sidewalks without curb and gutter - Sidewalks behind the ditch

4. Other Pedestrian Facilities - Benches - Awnings - Shelters - Landscaping - Drinking water fountains and public restrooms

5. Other Considerations - Driveways - Alleys - Signs - Directional/Wayfinding signs - Street signs

5. Practices to be avoided 6. Meandering sidewalks Street Crossings 1. Crossing Solutions

- Crosswalks - Crosswalks stripping - Advance stop lines - Signs - Textured and colored crosswalks - Illumination - Raised medians and refuge islands - Curb extensions - Pedestrian signals - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) - Two-step pedestrian signal - Overcrossing and undercrossing

2. Other Innovative Designs - Raised crosswalks - Pedestrian beacon

  77  

4. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, Portland, Oregon

1. Guidelines for Sidewalk corridor - Attributes of good sidewalk corridors - Legal aspect of the sidewalk corridors - Sidewalk corridors and the Code of the City of

Portland - Sidewalk corridors and the Americans with Disabilities

Act 2. Required Sidewalk Improvements

- Construction of new streets in new rights-of-way - Street improvements to existing rights-of-way - Frontage improvements on existing streets

3. Design and Implementing Sidewalk Corridor Improvements 4. Zones in Sidewalk Corridors

- Constraints in the sidewalk corridor - Widening the sidewalk corridor - Vehicle parking in the sidewalk corridor - Planting in the sidewalk corridor

5. The Curb Zone 6. The Furnishing Zone

- Grates - Hatch covers

7. The Through Pedestrian Zone - Surfaces - Running grade - Cross slope

8. The Frontage Zone - Encroachments - Adjacent parking lots

9. Driveways - Driveway aprons - Preferred driveway condition in sidewalk corridors - Constrained conditions for driveways in sidewalk

corridors - No pedestrian signals on sidewalks

5. Kane County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Illinois

1. Walkway types 2. Recommended sidewalk design 3. Sidewalks in rural and developing areas 4. Accessibility 5. Crosswalks and pedestrian crossing enhancements 6. Sidewalk prioritization criteria 7. Safety education and enforcement 8. Sample pedestrian facility installation ordinances 9. Pedestrian & bicycle facility design resources

  78  

6. North San José Design Guidelines, San José, CA

1. Guidelines for Site Planning - Block size and layout - Mix of uses - Site Access and circulation - Mid-block connections

2. Site Layout: - Building orientation and sitting - Building heights - Private plazas in the core area - Private pocket parks and plazas

3. Street Frontage - Retail - Transitions

4. Guidelines for Buildings - Building massing - Building articulation - Building frontages and entries - Building design and materials

5. Guidelines for the Streetscape - Street hierarchy and typologies - Typical street sections - Paseos - Parkways

6. Streetscape Design 7. Minneapolis, Street and

Sidewalk Design Guidelines, Minnesota

1. Pedestrian network 2. Pedestrian zone design 3. Street corners 4. Bus stops 5. Street crossing 6. Other pedestrian networks 7. Wayfinding 8. Site planning 9. Closures, safety and accessibility in work zones

   

  79  

APPENDIX B: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES  

1. Terry Bottomley, Principal, Bottomley and Associates

2. Ginette Wessel, Professor, San José State University

3. Heidi Sokolowsky, Urban Designer, Urban Field Studio

4. Jessica Zenk, Manager, Transportations Operations, City of San José

5. Jennifer Donlon-Watt, Urban Planner, Alta Planning + Design

                                                             

  80  

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Interview questions for practicing Planners and Urban Designers  

1. What encouraged you to work in planning? And for how long you have been associated with this

field?

2. What kind of projects have you worked upon so far?

3. Can you share your experiences of working on these projects? Both positive and negative?

4. Could you tell me about a project, which according to you have done a great job in implementing

pedestrian related design?

5. How has the practice of preparing pedestrian/ bike plans changed over time? Do you think that

planners are approaching something differently now, than before?

6. What is the most important data required for the production of pedestrian design guidelines?

7. What are the most important design elements that should be kept in mind while designing street

design guidelines?

8. In your opinion, which street design element is most crucial for pedestrians - is it the landscaping,

the ramps, the corner bulb-outs, or the width of sidewalks, from the perspective of encouraging

pedestrians to use the sidewalks?

9. What could be an ideal design for plaza in front of Diridon Station- Central, linear or square?

10. What are the different considerations that should be taken for designing these different streets for

pedestrians?

1. Residential Streets

2. Grand Boulevard

3. Connector Street/ City Connector Street

4. Primary Bicycle Street

5. Bicycle Boulevard

 

  81  

Interview questions for San José’s Staff Members  

1. What are the different approaches that City of San José is taking to make Diridon a pedestrian-

friendly area?

2. According to you which roads should be more focused for developing a pedestrian-friendly

environment?

3. What are the major concerns for pedestrians in San José?

4. How is the City trying to adopt Pedestrian Master Plan of San José for Diridon Station?

5. What is the City’s plan for changing the land use of this area? Or how will City encourage

developments to locate around the station?

6. Is there a plan of changing all the one-way streets into two-way streets?

7. What measures have been adopted by the City to improve roads around the Diridon Station?

8. What specific measure is the City taking to improve pedestrian infrastructure around the station?

9. What is the average pedestrian count of this area?

10. What new street infrastructure improvements are planned for this area?