Masters Dissertation on Pedestrian Street Design Guidelines, May 2015, San Jose State University, CA, USA.

1. 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

2.
Cover page photo credits: City of San Mateo, Sustainable Cities: Final Plan, 2015.
Footer photo credit: Ibid.
This
Page
was
left
blank
intentionally

3.
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

4. This
Page
was
left
blank
intentionally

5.
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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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).

18. 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).

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 12
CHAPTER 3 - UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT STREET ELEMENTS
This chapter will establish general understanding of the different street zones. It will discuss pedestrian
zone sidewalk 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

25. 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.

26. 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 building setback 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 building setback 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 prohibited on sidewalks at all times
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.

27. 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.

28. 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
15
th
2015.

29. 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.

30. 18
Figure
11
Diridon
Station
Area-­‐
Final
Land
Use
Plan
Source:
City
of
San
José,
Final
Diridon
Station
Area
Plan,
2014.

31. 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
20
th
2015.
Figure
12
Primary
Zones
in
Diridon
Station
Area
Plan
Source:
City
of
San
José,
Final
Diridon
Station
Area
Plan,
2014.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 23
Figure
15
Proposed
new
street
connections,
Source:
City
of
San
José,
Final
Diridon
Station
Area
Plan,
2014.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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).

40. 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

41. 29
Figure
18
Map
showing
key
characteristics
of
each
road
and
observation
points,
Source:
Created
by
Author
using
Esri’s
OpenStreetMap
base
map.

42. 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.

43. 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)

44. 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.

45. 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