Appendix B: Pedestrian Priority Model Update, Pedestrian ... · City of San Diego5 Final Draft Pedestrian Master Plan 1 Alta Planning+Design Technical Memorandum for PPM Update, Study

App

endi

x B:

Ped

estr

ian

Prio

rity

Mod

el

Upd

ate,

Ped

estr

ian

Stud

y A

reas

and

Rou

tes

Alta Planning + Design2

CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Pedestrian Master Plan

Phases 2 & 3

Technical Memorandum for Pedestrian Priority Model Update, Study Areas and Route Types

April 23, 2010

Appendix B: Pedestrian Priority Model Update, Pedestrian Study Areas and Routes

City of San Diego 3

Final Draft Pedestrian Master Plan

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

II. Task 2.7 Update to the Pedestrian Priority Model...........................................................1

III. Task 3.2 Community Study Areas...................................................................................1

IV. Task 3.3 Pedestrian Route Types.................................................................................18

List of Tables

Table 1: Pedestrian Priority Model Inputs – Updated Model (2008) .......................................2

Table 2: Updated Community PPM Ranking ..........................................................................8

Table 3: PMP 2&3 Community Study Areas ...........................................................................9

Table 4: Pedestrian Route Type Definitions.........................................................................18

Table 5: Pedestrian Route Type Criteria..............................................................................19

List of Figures

Figure 1: Updated Attractor Model (2008)...............................................................................3

Figure 2: Updated Generator Model (2008) ............................................................................4

Figure 3: Updated Detractors Model (2008)............................................................................5

Figure 4: Updated Final Composite Model (2008) ..................................................................6

Figure 5: Updated Community Plan Area Ranking (2008)......................................................7

Figure 6: Barrio Logan Study Area........................................................................................11

Figure 7: City Heights Study Area.........................................................................................12

Figure 8: Greater Golden Hill Study Area .............................................................................13

Figure 9: Normal Heights Study Area ...................................................................................14

Figure 10: North Park Study Area .........................................................................................15

Figure 11: Southeastern San Diego Study Area ...................................................................16

Figure 12: Uptown Study Area ..............................................................................................17


4/23/2010 Alta Planning+Design ii Technical Memorandum for PPM Update, Study Areas and Route Types

Figure 13: Route Type Model................................................................................................21

Figure 14: Corridors and Connectors along Route Type Model Output................................23

Figure 15: Preliminary Route Types for Seven Study Communities Figure 16: Barrio Logan Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations...................................................................24

Figure 16: Barrio Logan Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations ............................25

Figure 17: City Heights Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations .............................26

Figure 18: Greater Golden Hill Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations..................27

Figure 19: Normal Heights Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations........................28

Figure 20: North Park Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations ...............................29

Figure 21: Southeastern San Diego Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations .........30

Figure 22: Uptown Study Area and Pedestrian Route Designations ....................................31


City of San Diego 5


1 Alta Planning+Design Technical Memorandum for PPM Update, Study Areas and Route Types

I. Introduction

This report summarizes methodologies and outcomes associated with the following three key

San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan Phases 2 & 3 (PMP 2&3) tasks:

Task 2.7 – Update the City of San Diego’s Pedestrian Priority Model (PPM),

Task 3.2 – Pedestrian Study Areas, and

Task 3.3 – Pedestrian Routes

II. Task 2.7 Update to the Pedestrian Priority Model

The PPM was updated as part of the PMP 2&3 project due to the fact that several of the data

inputs were out of date since the PMP Phase I project. In particular, the location of transit stops

and ridership levels, land uses, traffic counts, and pedestrian crashes have more recent data

available than was used during the PMP Phase 1 effort. Table 1 displays the source and date for

all inputs used in the attractor, generator and detractor submodels for the purposes of updating

the PPM. Figures 1 through 4 display the output from each of the updated submodels as well

as the final composite priority model. Table 2 shows the updated ranking of Community Plan

Areas based upon the updated PPM, while Figure 5 displays the updated Community Plan Area

rankings across the jurisdiction.

III. Task 3.2 Community Study Areas

The PMP 2&3 study areas are defined in part by high PPM locations and in part by pedestrian

route designations within the community. This section presents an overview of high PPM

locations for each community and summarizes these areas in terms of study area acreage and

percentage of the community represented in the study area.

Using the updated model, high PPM locations are defined as those areas of the community that

intersect PPM raster grids whose values fall within the top 50 percent of the range of PPM

values.


4/23/2

010

2

Alta

Plan

ning+

Desig

n

Te

chnic

al Me

mora

ndum

for T

asks

2.7,

3.2, 3

.3

Tabl

e 1:

Ped

estr

ian

Prio

rity

Mod

el In

puts

– U

pdat

ed M

odel

(200

8)

Mod

el I

nput

Fi

lena

mes

Fi

eldn

ames

/Cod

es

Sour

ce

Dat

e

Att

ract

or I

nput

s Pe

dest

rian

Inte

nsiv

e Bo

rder

Cro

ssin

gs

Ports

_of_

Ent

ry_M

ex.sh

p -

SanG

IS

2007

E

lemen

tary

Sch

ools

lu.sh

p lu

= 6

806

SAN

DA

G

2007

M

iddl

e Sc

hool

s lu

.shp

lu =

680

5 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Hig

h Sc

hool

s lu

.shp

lu =

680

5 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Uni

vers

ities

and

Col

leges

lu

.shp

lu =

680

1, 6

802,

680

3 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Civi

c Fa

ciliti

es

lu.sh

p lu

= 6

003,

610

3, 6

102,

6104

SA

ND

AG

20

07

Reta

il

lu.sh

p lu

= 5

002,

500

3, 5

004,

500

5, 5

007,

500

9 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Beac

hes

lu.sh

p lu

= 7

604

SAN

DA

G

2007

Pa

rks a

nd R

ecre

atio

n lu

.shp

lu =

720

1, 7

211,

760

1 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Gen

erat

or I

nput

s Ce

nsus

Mob

ility

: Peo

ple

Who

Walk

to

Wor

k Ce

nsus

_Blo

ckG

roup

s_In

com

e_E

du.sh

p CO

MM

UTE

_WA

Sa

nGIS

20

00

Popu

latio

n D

ensit

y Ce

nsus

_Blo

ckG

roup

s_Po

p_H

ousin

g.sh

p PO

P_A

GE

_AL

SanG

IS

2000

E

mpl

oym

ent D

ensit

y TA

Z_D

emog

raph

ics.sh

p E

MP2

004

SAN

DA

G

2004

A

ge D

ensit

y: Se

nior

Citi

zens

per

Acr

e Ce

nsus

_Blo

ckG

roup

s_Po

p_H

ousin

g.sh

p -

SanG

IS

2000

H

ouse

hold

Inco

me

Cens

us_B

lock

Gro

ups_

Inco

me_

Edu

.shp

- Sa

nGIS

20

00

Age

Den

sity:

Child

ren

per A

cre

Cens

us_B

lock

Gro

ups_

Pop_

Hou

sing.

shp

- Sa

nGIS

20

00

Disa

bilit

y D

ensit

y: Pe

ople

with

Disa

bilit

ies

per A

cre

Cens

us_B

lock

Gro

ups_

Inco

me_

Edu

.shp

POP_

DIS

ABL

Sa

nGIS

20

00

Hou

sing

Nea

r Em

ploy

men

t lu

.shp

lu =

100

0, 1

100,

111

0, 1

120,

119

0, 1

200,

128

0,

1290

, 130

0, 1

400

SAN

DA

G

2007

Hou

sing

Nea

r Com

mer

cial

lu.sh

p lu

= 1

000,

110

0, 1

110,

112

0, 1

190,

120

0, 1

280,

12

90, 1

300,

140

0 SA

ND

AG

20

07

Prop

osed

Mix

ed U

se

Mix

ed_u

se_p

olyg

on.sh

p -

City

of S

an

Dieg

o 20

08

Det

ract

or I

nput

s

Co

llisio

ns p

er Y

ear

Pede

stria

n_Co

llisio

ns_C

ITY

WID

E_1

998_

2007

.m

db

- Ci

ty o

f San

D

iego

2008

Ave

rage

Dail

y Tr

ips

Hw

ycov

2008

.shp

AD

TVL

SAN

DA

G

2008

Sp

eed

Road

s_A

ll SP

EE

D

SanG

IS

2008

La

ck o

f Stre

et L

ight

ing

Stre

et_L

ight

.shp

- Sa

nGIS

20

08

Railr

oad

Trac

ks

rr.sh

p -

SAN

DA

G

2008

Fr

eew

ays

Road

s_A

ll IF

C =

1, 8

, 9

SanG

IS

2008

Sl

opes

E

levgr

d30

- SA

ND

AG

19

70s

Sour

ce: A

lta P

lanni

ng +

Des

ign,

Feb

ruar

y 18

, 201

0


City of San Diego 7


Figure 1:Updated Attractor Model (2008)

Source: City of San Diego; Alta Planning + Design, 20080 52.5 Miles

Attractor Model

High

Low


Figure 2:Updated Generator Model (2008)

Generator ModelHigh

LowSource: City of San Diego; Alta Planning + Design, 2008

0 52.5 Miles


City of San Diego 9


Figure 3:Updated Detractor Model (2008)

Source: City of San Diego; Alta Planning + Design, 20080 52.5 Miles

Detractor ModelHigh

Low


Figure 4:Updated Final Composite Model (2008)

Final CompositeHigh

LowSource: City of San Diego; Alta Planning + Design, 2008

0 52.5 Miles


City of San Diego 11


NAVAJO

MIRA MESA

OTAY MESA

SAN PASQUAL

UNIVERSITY

LA JOLLA

TIERRASANTA

PENINSULA

CLAIREMONT MESAKEARNY MESA

UPTOWN

CARMEL VALLEY

OTAY MESA-NESTOR

LINDAVISTA

EAST ELLIOTT

MISSIONVALLEY

PACIFIC BEACHSERRAMESA

TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY

DEL MAR MESA

COLLEGEAREA

RESERVE

RANCHOBERNARDO

RANCHOPENASQUITOS

MISSION BAYPARK

BLACKMOUNTAIN

RANCH

TORREYPINES

SKYLINE-PARADISE HILLS

SCRIPPSMIRAMAR

RANCH

SANYSIDRO

RANCHOENCANTADA

CITY HEIGHTS EASTERNAREA

CENTRECITY

GREATERNORTHPARK

SABRESPRINGS

PACIFICHIGHLANDS

RANCH

BALBOAPARK

ENCANTONEIGHBORHOODS

MIRAMARRANCHNORTH

TORREYHIGHLANDS

SOUTHEASTERN

TORREYHILLS

CARMELMOUNTAIN

RANCHNCFUA

SUBAREA II

OCEAN BEACH

BARRIOLOGAN

MIDWAY-PACIFIC

HIGHWAY

KENSINGTON-TALMADGE

GREATERGOLDEN

HILL

NORMALHEIGHTS

LOS PENASQUITOSCANYON PRESERVE

FAIRBANKSCOUNTRY

CLUB

OLDSAN

DIEGO

MISSION BEACH

VIA DELA VALLE

Figure 5:Composite Model Community RankingDivided in Categories by Natural Breaks

CPA Rankings

Categories by Natural Breaks

1 (Highest)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 (Lowest)Source: Alta Planning + Design (May 13, 2009)


4/23/2010 Alta Planning+Design 8 Technical Memo for PPM Update, Study Areas and Route Types

Table 2 Updated Community PPM Points and Ranking

Updated Ranking Community Planning Area Average

PPM Points

Previous PMP

Phase I Rank

Change in

Ranking

Updated CPA Grouping

according to Natural Breaks

1 Centre City 230.0 1 0 2 Greater North Park 229.4 2 0 3 Mid-City: Normal Heights 226.6 6 +3 4 Mid-City: City Heights 222.1 8 +4 5 Southeastern San Diego 220.3 3 -2 6 Uptown 218.1 5 -1 7 Greater Golden Hill 212.3 4 -3 8 Ocean Beach 209.7 12 +4

1 (210-230 points)

9 San Ysidro 205.9 9 0 10 Pacific Beach 202.0 14 +4 11 College Area 199.1 13 +2 12 Midway-Pacific Highway 196.9 10 -2 13 Barrio Logan 193.5 7 -6 14 Mid-City: Kensington-Talmadge 191.4 15 +1 15 Old San Diego 188.7 11 -4 16 Linda Vista 187.9 19 +3 17 Mid-City: Eastern Area 185.7 18 +1

2 (186-206 points)

18 Mission Beach 179.8 17 -1 19 Southeastern: Encanto Neighborhooods 171.2 16 -3 20 Otay Mesa-Nestor 164.4 25 +5 21 Clairemont Mesa 160.4 21 0

3 (160-180 points)

22 Serra Mesa 144.4 20 -2 23 Mission Valley 140.6 22 -1 24 Skyline-Paradise Hills 138.9 24 0 25 University 135.9 28 +3 26 Carmel Mountain Ranch 132.8 31 +5 27 La Jolla 132.2 27 0 28 Navajo 131.2 30 +2 29 Kearny Mesa 127.7 29 0

4 (125-145 points)

30 Peninsula 122.6 23 -7 31 Rancho Bernardo 114.6 41 +10 32 Mira Mesa 113.6 32 0 33 Balboa Park 113.5 26 -7 34 Reserve 112.7 36 +2 35 Rancho Penasquitos 111.9 34 -1

5 (110-123)

36 Tierrasanta 98.6 35 -1 37 Scripps Miramar Ranch 94.3 33 -4 38 Mission Bay Park 94.2 38 0

6 (80-100 points)





Updated Ranking Community Planning Area Average

PPM Points

Previous PMP

Phase I Rank

Change in

Ranking

Updated CPA Grouping

according to Natural Breaks

39 Carmel Valley 93.9 43 +4 40 Torrey Pines 91.5 39 -1 41 Sabre Springs 83.4 44 +3 42 Miramar Ranch North 82.8 37 -5 43 Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 82.3 42 -1

6 (80-100 points)

44 Torrey Highlands 73.4 49 +5 45 Tijuana River Valley 73.1 46 +1 46 Via de la Valle 71.1 40 -6 47 Torrey Hills (Sorrento Hills) 67.5 50 +3 48 Otay Mesa 60.3 45 -3 49 NCFUA Subarea II 57.8 48 -1

7 (55-75 points)

50 Pacific Highlands Ranch 44.9 47 -3 51 San Pasqual 39.0 57 +6 52 Black Mountain Ranch 38.9 51 -1 53 Fairbanks Country Club 38.9 56 +3 54 East Elliott 38.9 54 0 55 Del Mar Mesa 37.6 53 -2 56 Rancho Encantada 37.6 55 -1

8 (35-45 points)

Source: Alta Planning + Design, February 18, 2010

Figures 6 through 12 display each communities’ study area. Table 3 displays the percentage of

each community’s total acreage included within the study area.

Table 3: PMP 2&3 Community Study Area Acreage

Community Total Acreage Study Area Acreage

Percent of Total

Barrio Logan 4,554 1,080 23.7%

City Heights 24,234 8,281 34.2%

Greater Golden Hill 6,141 1,681 27.4%

Normal Heights 6,911 2,402 34.7%

Greater North Park 18,623 6,114 32.8%

Southeastern San Diego 24,178 7,487 30.9% Uptown 22,168 4,675 21.1%




The ultimate definition of each community’s study area however is also dependent on the

pedestrian route types that traverse the community. Pedestrian route type definitions and

assignments to community roadways are discussed in the next section.




NATIONAL A

VENUE

CESAR E.

CHAVEZ PA

RKWAYHA

RBOR

DRIVE

MAIN

STRE

ET

MAIN

STRE

ET

28TH STREET

32ND STREET WABASH

BOULEVARD

NA

TIO

NA

L A

VEN

UE

VESTA

STREE

T

SIGSB

EE ST

REET

COM

MER

CIA

L ST

REET

15

755

San

Die

go B

ay

LOGAN A

VENUE

NEWTO

N AVE

NUE

Figu

re 6

:Ba

rrio

Log

an S

tudy

Are

a

Stud

y Fo

cus

Are

a

01,

900

950

Feet

02,

000

1,00

0Fe

et


0 3,1001,550 Feet

EL CAJON BOULEVARD

ORANGE AVENUE

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

WIGHTMAN STREET

FAIR

MO

UN

T A

VEN

UE

EUC

LID

AV

ENU

E

5 4TH

STR

EET

HOME

AVEN

UE

35TH

STR

EET

805 15

94

Figure 7:City Heights Study Area

Study Focus Area




BRO

AD

WA

Y

25TH STREET

30TH STREET

28TH STREET

FERN STREET

Figu

re 8

:G

reat

er G

olde

n H

illSt

udy

Are

a

5

94

19TH STREET

B ST

REE

T

C S

TREE

T

BALB

OA

PARK

15

29TH STREET

27TH STREET

26TH STREET

24TH STREET

23TH STREET

22ND STREET

21ST STREET

20TH STREET

D S

TREE

T

A S

TREE

T

Stud

y Fo

cus

Are

a

01,

000

500

Feet


Figu

re 9

:N

orm

al H

eigh

ts S

tudy

Are

a

AD

AM

S A

VEN

UE

ME A

DE

AV

ENU

E

EL C

AJO

N B

OU

LEVA

RD

35TH STREET

33RD STREETFELTON STREET

01,

900

950

Feet

805

15

8

Stud

y Fo

cus

Are

a




UNIVERSITY AVENUE

LINCOLN AVENUE

HOWARD AVENUE

EL CAJON BOULEVARD

MEADE AVENUE

ADAMS AVENUE

PAR

K B

OU

LEVA

RD

PAR

K B

OU

LEVA

RD

TEX

AS

STR

EET

UTA

H S

TREE

T

30TH

STR

EET

32N

D S

TREE

T

UPAS STREET

Figure 10:Greater North Park Study Area

ROBINSON AVENUE

FLO

RID

A S

TREE

T

15805

8

BALBOA PARK

Study Focus Area

0 1,400700 Feet


OC

EAN

VIE

W B

LVD

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

STR

EET

25TH STREET

30TH STREET

28TH STREET

NA

TIO

NA

L A

VEN

UE

IMPE

RIA

L A

VEN

UE

CESAR CHAVEZ

PYM

AR

KET

STR

EET

32ND STREET

805

94

15

43R

D S

TREE

T

LOGAN AVENUE

01,

500

750

Feet

5

Stud

y Fo

cus

Are

a

Figu

re 1

1:So

uthe

aste

rn S

an D

iego

Stu

dy A

rea




02,

500

1,25

0Fe

et

UN

IVER

SITY

AV

ENU

E

WA

SHIN

GTO

N S

TREE

T

4TH AVENUE

6TH AVENUE5TH AVENUE

PARK BOULEVARD

ROBI

NSO

N A

VEN

UE

1ST AVENUE

INDIA ST

REET

LAU

REL

STR

EET

LEW

IS S

TREE

T GOLDFINCH STREET

CLEVELAND AVENUE

ELM

STR

EET

GR

APE

STR

E ET

HA

WTH

ORN

E ST

REE

T

JUN

IPER

STR

EET

Stud

y Fo

cus

Are

a

Figu

re 1

2:U

ptow

n St

udy

Are

a



IV. Task 3.3 Pedestrian Route Types

Pedestrian route typologies were defined in the PMP Phase 1 effort and are employed here to

define those roadways within a particular community that will be inventoried and assessed for

the development of priority pedestrian improvements. Table 4 displays the route type

definitions and their relationship to the City’s Street Design Manual and the Strategic Framework

Element. The PMP 2&3 effort will only assess Districts, Corridors and Connectors for the

purposes of developing pedestrian improvement concepts.

Table 4: Pedestrian Route Type Definitions

Route Type

District Sidewalks Corridor Sidewalks Connector Sidewalks

Purpose

Sidewalks along roads that support heavy pedestrian levels in

mixed-use concentrated areas

Sidewalks along roads that support moderate density business and

shopping districts with moderate pedestrian

levels

Sidewalks along roads that support

institutional, industrial or business complexes

with limited lateral access and low

pedestrian levels Typical Adjacent “Street Design Manual” Classifications

All types of adjacent streets are possible

Commercial, Urban Collector, Urban Major

and Arterial

Commercial, Industrial, Urban Major, Rural

Collector and Arterial

Cross Reference to Related “Strategic Framework Plan” Definitions

Existing: Regional Centers, Urban Villages

and Neighborhood Villages

Existing: Sub-regional Districts and Transit

Corridors

Existing: Sub-regional Districts, Transit

Corridors and Suburban Residential along Major

Arterials

Typical Adjacent Land Uses

Mixed-use housing, commercial, office and

entertainment with urban densities

Multiple land uses but may be separated. Often

strip commercial or office complex

Open space, industrial uses, institutional uses

or other pedestrian restricted uses

Source: City of San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan City-Wide Implementation Framework, Page 4-1 (2006)

Table 5 summarizes the three basic criteria proposed by the PMP Phase 1 Final Pedestrian Master

Plan Report for use in defining pedestrian route types. These criteria include the City of San

Diego Street Design Manual roadway classifications, the Strategic Framework Element Village Types,

and existing land uses. Table 5 also shows how these criteria are operationalized for the

purposes of classifying pedestrian route types across the City of San Diego under the current

PMP 2&3 planning effort.





Table 5: Pedestrian Route Type Criteria

Phase I Pedestrian Route Type

Criteria

Phase 2 & 3 Operationalization of Route Type Criteria

Data Sources

Street Design Manual Classification

Circulation Element Roadway Classification

General_Plan_Road_Network.shp (City of San Diego, 2008)

Strategic Framework Element Village Type Village Propensity Model Villagepropensity_vpMay30.img

(City of San Diego, 2008)

Land Uses

Pedestrian Priority Attractor Model and existing adjacent land uses and intensities

Updated PPM 2008 (City of San Diego 2008) and 2007 lu.shp (SANDAG)


Each of the factors used to define pedestrian route types is available in a GIS format, allowing

for automated analyses to be utilized for classifying pedestrian route types.

There are three major steps in this Route Type identification process: 1) Defining Corridor,

Connector and District Routes Types, 2) Defining Neighborhood Route Types, and 3) Manual

Refinement to the Route Types. Each of these steps is described in following sections, along

with key justifications for the methods employed.

1. Defining Corridor, Connector and District Route Types

1a. Create a raster-based Route Type Model combining the highest 25% scoring Village

Propensity Model raster cells and the highest 40% scoring Pedestrian Priority

Attractor Model raster cells.

Step 1a justification: Combining these two raster models incorporates several important

aspects of the route type definitions: mixed land uses, multi-modal and pedestrian

suitability, and locations and intensities of pedestrian trip attracting land uses.

Figure 13 shows the outcome of this analysis for the seven PMP 2&3 study

communities.

1b. Identify linear clusterings of the Route Type Model output through visual inspection.



1c. Overlay the circulation element roadways on the Route Type Model output and

assess the relationship between the linear clusterings of the Route Type Model

output and the locations of the circulation element roadways. Corridors and

Connectors are primarily distinguished by the fact that Corridors are very directly

related to the linear clusterings of the Route Type Model, while Connectors are not.

Corridors are defined along circulation element roadways that run continuous along

linear clusterings of the Route Type Model output, ensuring adjacency to the types of

land uses and expected pedestrian activity associated with Corridor routes.

Connectors are defined along circulation element roadways that may touch or

traverse the Route Type Model output, but are not primarily correlated with the

linear clusterings.

1d. Preliminary District route type locations will be considered at locations where two

Corridor routes intersect, indicating high levels of land use types and pedestrian

activity associated with Districts. District locations will be finalized in the last step of

this process when manual refinements take place.

Steps 1b-1d justification: Output from the Route Type Model clearly shows linear

clusterings of pedestrian attracting land uses, mixed land uses and locations with high

levels of pedestrian suitability. The ability of the Route Type Model output for

distinguishing between Corridors and Connectors was confirmed by comparing

existing land uses located adjacent to the routes – especially open space, industrial,

and institutional land uses – which are a key distinguishing characteristic between

Corridors and Connectors. Connectors are mostly adjacent to open space,

residential, industrial or institutional land uses, while Corridors would typically be

adjacent to commercial land uses. Local knowledge about areas with moderate to

high levels of pedestrian activity was also used to confirm the Route Type Model

output capability to distinguish Corridors from Connectors. These assessments

supported the conclusion that the Route Type Model does successfully distinguish

between Corridors and Connectors.




Figu

re 1

3:Ro

ute

Type

Mod

el

805

15

5

94

816

3

Hig

h V

illag

e Pr

open

sity

(To

p 25

%)

Hig

h A

ttrac

tors

Mod

el S

core

(To

p 40

%)

Pede

stria

n Pl

an C

omm

uniti

es

Com

bine

d H

igh

Vill

age

Prop

ensi

ty /

Hig

h A

ttrac

tor



Figure 14 shows the results of a preliminary assessment of the relationship between

the Route Type Model output and the location of circulation element roadways. As

shown, Corridors are strongly associated with continuous linear clusterings of the

Route Type Model output. While Connectors sometimes coincide with the Route

Type Model output, they are not primarily correlated with the output.

2. Defining Neighborhood Route Types

2a. Sidewalks along non-circulation element roadways can be defined as Neighborhood

Route Types.

Step 2a justification: Circulation Element roadways represent transportation segments

vital to through-movement travel across the city. Roadways with low through-

movement potential tend to be in largely residential areas, which is a distinguishing

characteristics of the Neighborhood pedestrian route type.

3. Manual Adjustments to the Route Types

3a. Manual adjustments to the route type designations were made, as needed, to ensure

the correct relationship between the proposed route type and the adjacent land uses

and levels of pedestrian activity. A visual inspection was performed to check the

adjacent land uses and existing and potential mixed-use areas along every route.

Step 3a justification: Manual adjustments are necessary to fine-tune the outcomes

of the Route Type Model. Manual adjustments were used to finalize the locations

of District route types and to change a few of the route types from Corridor to

Connector or visa versa. Figure 15 shows the proposed pedestrian route types for

the seven study communities utilizing the techniques in the three steps described

above. Figures 16 through 22 display the designated pedestrian route types and land

uses by PMP 2&3 Community Planning Areas.




Figu

re 1

4:Co

rrid

ors

and

Con

nect

ors

alon

g Ro

ute

Type

Mod

el O

utpu

t

PREL

IMIN

ARY R

OUTE

TYPE

S

CORR

IDOR

CONN

ECTO

R

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD

ROUT

E TYP

E MOD

EL OU

TPUT

April

20, 2

010


Figu

re 1

5:Ro

ute

Type

s fo

r the

Pha

se 2

& 3

Pede

stria

n Pl

an C

omm

uniti

es

ROUT

E TYP

ES

DIST

RICT

CORR

IDOR

CONN

ECTO

R

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD

April

20, 2

010




15

75

5

098

049

0Fe

et

San

Dieg

o Ba

y

COMM

ERCI

AL ST

REET LOGA

N AVEN

UENAT

IONAL A

VENUE NEW

TON AVEN

UEMAIN ST

REET

HARBO

R DRIV

E

SIGSBEE S

TREET

16th STREET

BEARDSLEY STR

EET

CESAR E C

HAVEZ PARKWAY

EVANS ST

REET

SAMPSON STREET

SICARD STREET

BOST

ON AV

ENUE

NEWT

ON AV

ENUE

NATIO

NAL A

VENU

E

27th STREET

28th STREET

29th STREET

30th STREET

31st STREET

32nd STREET

MAIN

STRE

ET

26th STREET

RIGEL STREET

THOR STREET

UNA STREET

VESTA STR

EET WODEN STREET

DALBER

GIA STREE

TMAIN ST

REET

SIVA STR

EET

WABASH BOULEVARD

BAY FR

ONT STRE

ET

BELT S

TREET

HARB

OR D

RI VE

Chica

noPa

rk

Cros

byStr

eet

Park

Perk

insEle

m.Sch

ool

Source: Alta Planning + Design

RESID

ENTIA

L

COM

MERC

IAL A

ND O

FFICE

INDU

STRI

AL

TRAN

SPOR

TATIO

N, U

TILITI

ES &

MILI

TARY

PARK

S AND

RECR

EATIO

N

INST

ITUTIO

NS

EDUC

ATIO

N

LAND

USE

S

EXIST

ING

OR FU

TURE

MIX

ED-U

SE

Figu

re 1

6: B

arrio

Log

an R

oute

Typ

es a

nd L

and

Use

s

April

23, 2

010

ROUT

E TYP

ES

DIST

RICT

CORR

IDOR

CONN

ECTO

R

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD


15

805

94

15

805

Colinadel SolParkCentral

Elem.School

EdisonElem.School

EuclidElem.School

HamiltonElem.School

MarshallElem.School

RowanElem.School

RosaParksElem.School

City HeightsVillageCommunity Park

WilsonMiddleSchool

Monroe ClarkMiddleSchool

Parkde laCruz

AzaleaPark

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

EL CAJON BOULEVARD

POLK AVENUE

ORANGE AVENUE

WIGHTMAN STREET

LANDIS STREET

41st

STRE

ET

MARL

BORO

UGH

STRE

ET

42nd

STRE

ET

VAN

DYKE

AVEN

UE

DWIGHT STREET

MYRTLE AVENUE

THORN STREET

REDWOOD STREET

QUINCE STREET

43rd

STRE

ET

44th

STRE

ET

FAIR

MOUN

T AVE

NUE

HIGH

LAND

AVEN

UE

45th

STRE

ET

CHAM

OUNE

AVEN

UE

46th

STRE

ET

MENL

O AV

ENUE

47th

STRE

ET

EUCL

ID AV

ENUE

48th

STRE

ET

ESTR

ELLA

AVEN

UE

49th

STRE

ET

WINO

NA AV

ENUE

50th

STRE

ET

ALTA

DENA

AVEN

UE

51st

STRE

ET

52nd

STRE

ET

54th

STRE

ET

HOME AVEN

UE

FEDE RAL BOULEVARD

PARRO

T STRE

ET

39th

STRE

ET

MIDV

ALE D

RIVE

REXF

ORD

DRIV

E

CREN

SHAW

STRE

ET

TULIP

STRE

ET

GATEWAY DRIVE

EUCLID AVENUE

RIDGE

VIEW DR

IVE

FAI RM OUNT AVENUE

0 2,0001,000 Feet

33rd

STRE

ET

34th

STRE

ET

FELTO

N ST

REET

SWIFT

AVEN

UE

35th

STRE

ET

37th

STRE

ET

38th

STRE

ET

39th

STRE

ET

40th

STRE

ET

CENT

RAL A

VENU

E

CHER

OKEE

AVEN

UE

WILS

ON AV

ENUE

36th

STRE

ET

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE

INDUSTRIAL

TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES & MILITARY

PARKS AND RECREATION

INSTITUTIONS

EDUCATION

LAND USES

EXISTING OR FUTURE MIXED-USE

Figure 17: City Heights Route Types and Land Uses

April 23, 2010

ROUTE TYPES

DISTRICT

CORRIDOR

CONNECTOR

NEIGHBORHOODSo

urce

: Alta

Pla

nnin

g +

Des

ign




19th STREET

RUSS

BOUL

EVAR

D

A STR

EET

B STR

EET

C STR

EET

BROA

DWAY

E STR

EET

F STR

EET

20th STREET

21st STREET

22nd STREET

23rd STREET

24th STREET

25th STREET

26th STREET

27th STREET

28th STREET

GLENDALE AVENUE

29th STREET

30th STREET

31st STREET

EDGEMONT STREET

32nd STREET

33rd STREET

34th STREET

FERN STREET

30th STREET

ASH

STRE

ET

BEEC

H ST

REET

CEDA

R STR

EET

DATE

STRE

ET

ELM

STRE

ET

FIR ST

REET

GRAP

E STR

EET

HAWT

HORN

STRE

ET

IVY ST

REET

JUNI

PER S

TREE

T

BANCROFT STREET

33rd STREET

FELTON STREET

GREGORY STREET

15

5

94

BALB

OAPA

RK

Albe

rt Ein

stein

Acad

emies

Golde

n Hill

Eleme

ntar

ySch

ool

099

049

5Fe

et

RESID

ENTIA

L

COM

MERC

IAL A

ND O

FFICE

INDU

STRI

AL

TRAN

SPOR

TATIO

N, U

TILITI

ES &

MILI

TARY

PARK

S AND

RECR

EATIO

N

INST

ITUTIO

NS

EDUC

ATIO

N

LAND

USE

S

EXIST

ING

OR FU

TURE

MIX

ED-U

SE

Figu

re 1

8: G

olde

n H

ill R

oute

Typ

es a

nd L

and

Use

s

April

23, 2

010

ROUT

E TYP

ES

DIST

RICT

CORR

IDOR

CONN

ECTO

R

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD



AdamsAvenue

Park

39th StreetNeighborhood

Park

AdamsElementary

SchoolNormal Heights

ElementarySchool

ADAMS AVENUE

COLLIER AVENUE

COPLEY AVENUE

MADISON AVENUE

MONROE AVENUE

MEADE AVENUE

32nd

STRE

ET

33rd

STRE

ET

34th

STRE

ET

36th

STRE

ET

37th

STRE

ET

38th

STRE

ET

39th

STRE

ET

BANC

ROFT

STRE

ET

FELTO

N ST

REET

34th

STRE

ET

FELTO

N ST

REET

33rd

STRE

ET

33rd

PLAC

E

HAWL

EY BO

ULEV

ARD

SWIFT

AVEN

UE

35th

STRE

ET

WILS

ON AV

ENUE

38th

STRE

ET

39th

STRE

ET

McCL

INTO

CK ST

REET

CHER

OKEE

AVEN

UE

37th

STRE

ET

CHER

OKEE

AVEN

UE

36th

STRE

ET

WILS

ON AV

ENUE

EAST MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE

NORT

H MOU

NTAIN VIE

W DRIVE

EL CAJON BOULEVARD

35th

STRE

ET

HAWL

EY BO

ULEV

ARD

BENT

ON PL

ACE

EUGENE PLACE

LITCHFIELD ROADKENMORE TRAIL WE

ST M

OUNT

AIN V

IEW DRIV

E

Sour

ce: A

lta P

lann

ing

+ D

esig

n (O

ctob

er 2

008)

805

15

8

RESIDENTIAL


INDUSTRIAL



INSTITUTIONS

EDUCATION

LAND USES


Figure 19: Normal Heights Route Types and Land Uses

April 23, 2010

ROUTE TYPES

DISTRICT

CORRIDOR

CONNECTOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

Sour

ce: A

lta P

lann

ing

+ D

esig

n




ADAMS AVENUE

FLOR

IDA

STRE

ET

MADISON AVENUE

MONROE AVENUE

MEADE AVENUE

EL CAJON BOULEVARD

HOWARD AVENUE

POLK AVENUE

LINCOLN AVENUE

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

ALAB

AMA

STRE

ET

MISS

ISSIP

PI ST

REET

LOUI

SIANA

STRE

ET

TEXA

S STR

EET

ARIZ

ONA S

TREE

T

HAMI

LTON

STRE

ET

OREG

ON ST

REET

IDAH

O ST

REET

UTAH

STRE

ET

KANS

AS ST

REET

30th

STRE

ET

OHIO

STRE

ET

ILLIN

OIS S

TREE

T

ROBINSON AVENUE

MYRTLE AVENUE

UPAS STREET

WIGHTMAN STREET

LANDIS STREET

DWIGHT STREET

NORTH PARK WAY

GUNN STREET

LANDIS STREET

DWIGHT STREET

CAPPS STREET

MYRTLE AVENUE

RAY S

TREE

T

GRIM

AVEN

UE

31st

STRE

ET

HERM

AN AV

ENUE

32nd

STRE

ET

BANC

ROFT

STRE

ET

BOUNDARY STREETNILE STREET

VANCOUVER AVENUE

PALM STREET

THORN STREET

REDWOOD STREET

NUTMEG STREET

MAPLE STREET

LAUREL STREET

JUNIPER STREET

30th

STRE

ET

31st

STRE

ET

32nd

STRE

ET

BANC

ROFT

STRE

ET

33rd

STRE

ET

FELTO

N ST

REET

GREG

ORY S

TREE

T

34th

STRE

ET

QUINCE STREET

THORN STREET

REDWOOD STREET

QUINCE STREET

MAPLE STREET

MISSION AVENUE

MontclairPark

NorthPark

Comm-unityPark

Morley FieldSports Complex

St. AugustineHigh School

McKinleyElementary

School

Balboa ParkMunicipal

Golf Course

BALBOAPARK

0 975487.5 Feet

PARK

BOUL

EVAR

D

GEOR

GIA

STRE

ET

PARK

BOUL

EVAR

DIN

DIAN

A ST

REET

UPAS STREET

15

15

805

805

RESIDENTIAL


INDUSTRIAL



INSTITUTIONS

EDUCATION

LAND USES


Figure 20: North Park Route Types and Land Uses

ROUTE TYPES

DISTRICT

CORRIDOR

CONNECTOR

NEIGHBORHOOD

April 23, 2010

Sour

ce: A

lta P

lann

ing

+ D

esig

n


805

94

15

5

Memo

rial

Comm

unity

Park

Gran

t Hill

Park

Sout

hcre

stPa

rk

Willie

Hend

erso

nSp

orts

Comp

lex

Moun

tain

View

Park

Sher

man

Elem.

King

Elem.

Burb

ank

Elem.

Loga

nEle

m.

Memo

rial

Prep

.

Emer

son

Elem.

Bake

rEle

m.

Balbo

aEle

m.

MARK

ET ST

REET

ISLAN

D AV

ENUE

J STR

EET

K STR

EET

L STR

EET

IMPE

RIAL

AVEN

UE

COMM

ERCI

AL ST

REET

WEBS

TER A

VENU

E

CLAY

AVEN

UE

FRAN

KLIN

AVEN

UE

19th STREET

21th STREET

24th STREET

25th STREET

26th STREET

27th STREET

28th STREET

31st STREET

32nd STREET

CESAR CHAVEZ PARKWAY

OCEA

N VIE

W BO

ULEV

ARD

DEWEY STREET KEARN

Y AVEN

UE

JULIAN A

VENUEHA

RRISO

N AVEN

UE

OCEAN V

IEW BO

ULEVARD

VALL

E AVE

NUE

MART

IN AV

ENUE

GREE

LY AV

ENUE

OCEA

N VIE

W BO

ULEV

ARD

NATIO

NAL A

VENU

E

29th STREETIM

PERI

AL AV

ENUE

WEBS

TER A

VENU

E

FRAN

KLIN

AVEN

UE

OCEA

N VIE

W BO

ULEV

ARD

TEAK

STRE

ET

35th STREET

36th STREET

37th STREET

38th STREET

39th STREET

40th STREET

41st STREET

43rd STREET

T STR

EET

FLOR

ENCE

STRE

ET

LOGA

N AV

ENUE

C STR

EET

BROA

DWAY

HILL

TOP S

TREE

T

F STR

EET

39th STREET

RAVEN STREET

41st STREET

MORRISON STREET

42nd STREET

40th STREET

QUAIL STREET

MARK

ET ST

REET

45th STREET

46th STREET

NEWT

ONAV

ENUE

BOST

ON AV

ENUE

Z STR

EET

NATIO

NAL A

VENU

E

BETA

STRE

ET

GAMM

A ST

REET

DELTA

STRE

ET

EPSIL

ON ST

REET

ETA

STRE

ET

44th STREET


SAMPSON STREET

SICARD STREET

RESID

ENTIA

L

COM

MERC

IAL A

ND O

FFICE

INDU

STRI

AL

TRAN

SPOR

TATIO

N, U

TILITI

ES &

MILI

TARY

PARK

S AND

RECR

EATIO

N

INST

ITUTIO

NS

EDUC

ATIO

N

LAND

USE

S

EXIST

ING

OR FU

TURE

MIX

ED-U

SE

Figu

re 2

1: S

outh

east

ern

Rout

e Ty

pes

and

Land

Use

s

April

23, 2

010

ROUT

E TYP

ES

DIST

RICT

CORR

IDOR

CONN

ECTO

R

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD


City of San Diego AI


PALM

STR

EET

OLI

VE

STR

EET

NU

TMEG

STR

EET

MA

PLE

STR

EET

LAU

REL

STREE

T

KA

LMIA

STR

EET

JUN

IPER

STR

EET

IVY S

TREE

T

HAW

THO

RN

E S

TREE

T

GRA

PE

STREET

10/2

0/0

90

2,0

00

1,0

00

Fee

t

RES

IDE

NT

IAL

COM

ME

RC

IAL

AN

D O

FFIC

E

IND

US

TR

IAL

TRA

NS

PO

RTA

TIO

N, U

TILI

TIE

S &

MIL

ITA

RY

PAR

KS

AN

D R

ECR

EA

TIO

N

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S

EDU

CA

TIO

N

LA

ND

US

ES

EXIS

TIN

G O

R F

UT

UR

E M

IXED

-US

E

Fig

ure

22

: U

pto

wn R

oute

Ty

pes a

nd L

and

Uses

RO

UT

E T

YP

ES

DIS

TRIC

T

COR

RID

OR

CON

NE

CTO

R

NEI

GH

BO

RH

OO

D

Ap

ril

23

, 20

10


Appendix B: Pedestrian Priority Model Update, Pedestrian ... · City of San Diego5 Final Draft Pedestrian Master Plan 1 Alta Planning+Design Technical Memorandum for PPM Update, Study

Documents