GSSD on FaceBookThe controversial and divisive “Jacobs Plan” for Plaza de Panama and a bypass bridge has been ruled illegal by a judge. It will not be built. GSSD opposed the plan, so good riddance.
What’s next? We can still make a Cabrillo Bridge that serves everyone, and a Plaza de Panama for people, and complete construction by 2015. Here’s how:
- Make Cabrillo Bridge and El Prado Drive a “shared space”. (See picture and explanation below)
- Allow one way vehicular traffic moving east into the Park.
- Provide ADA drop-off, free ADA valet and paid valet for businesses.
- Create a pedestrian Plaza de Panama
Plan for Plaza de Panama by GSSD/3mph
Cars still need access to Cabrillo Bridge.
I have an 87 year old mother who is wheelchair bound. I understand the need to get her by car to the restaurants and museums in the heart of the Prado. Getting her on a trolley is extremely hard on her and me. Pushing her in a wheelchair from 6th Avenue isn’t going to cut it.
Twice as many pedestrians use Cabrillo Bridge than cars.*
So design it for pedestrians first. Duh! Only in America would we give a small number of cars an ample expanse of pavement, and then squeeze twice as many people onto narrow sidewalks. And bicycles? They were forgotten in the original design.
Shared Space street is designed for pedestrians but allows slow moving cars
Share the Space.
Cabrillo Bridge / El Prado Drive can become a Shared Space street. Not familiar with Shared Space streets? Take a look at this picture of a shared space street in England. it is exactly what it says it is … “shared” … by ALL users.
What makes a shared space street different? It has no curbs. The entire space is level and uses the same paving materials throughout. It’s designed for pedestrians first. Cars move slowly because they are sharing the space with people and bicycles. Drivers become less lazy, and more vigilant.
Won’t people be hit by cars?
When people are present, cars drive more slowly. Think parking lot — do you drive 30 mph in a parking lot? Of course not. Do you walk down the drive aisles? Of course you do. If you knew that people and bicyclist were walking down the street, wouldn’t you drive more slowly to avoid hitting them? Of course you would.
ADA drop off and free ADA valet.
We can still get mobility challenged people into the heart of the Prado. An ADA drop-off would allow those who have assistance to be dropped off. A free ADA valet would replace ADA parking on the plaza, freeing the space for people.
Paid valet
We are trying to attract people to the museums and restaurants – not keep them away. Some people want paid valet, and businesses benefit from it. It should be available.
That leaves a large majority of the Plaza for People!
Cafe tables, umbrellas, chairs and benches, watching your children run around the fountain … all of that will be possible on a new Plaza de Panama designed for pedestrians.
We can have it all … for a lot less money.
This plan requires very little time, and a lot less money than the 40 million Jacobs plan. It could easily be completed by the 2015 Centennial celebration
Let’s hear your plan!
San Diego is full of creative people. Let’s hear your plan! Maybe you have an idea no one had thought of yet. Send it to GSSD and we will publish the best ideas.
*Traffic studies showed 7,000 vehicles and 14,000 pedestrians used Cabrillo Bridge during peak hours.
Walter Chambers
GSSD
Unresolved by this plan is the concerns of the Institutions – who believe that 40% of the traffic in the park uses the Bridge. They are concerned that during the peak summer period (which I read as “When the zoo gets crowded” Park Blvd. will be a problem for their patrons and attendance will suffer.
http://www.balboapark.org/sites/default/files/memo_experimental_closures_of_cabrillo_bridge_and_plaza_de_panama.pdf
Also I would like you guys to opine about the viability of a shared space that requires that 90 degree right hand turn. It would seem a real liability issue for the city not to construct a physical barrier separating cars from pedestrians in a plaza where active use is encouraged.
The memos attached in your comment address closing the Cabrillo Bridge. That is not a part of the GSSD plan.
All due respect, I think that your idea of a shared street is both optimistic and misplaced. I think it will be a damn shame not get cars completely out of the Plaza de California (in front of the Museum of Man), which is actually the historic heart of the park, a fact which is widely ignored, and also completely out of the Plaza de Panama.
The photo from England which you offer as proof that a shared street can work, was taken in a dense, urban location. I suggest that the same set of planning standards don’t apply to a downtown thoroughfare and the middle of Balboa Park.
The plazas should belong to pedestrians, they should be completely car free, and handicapped folks should be served by drop off points near the El Prado restaurant, and by the lot behind Alcazar Gardens.
Why do cars still need access to Cabrillo Bridge? That route isn’t the only way to get by car to the heart of El Prado.
This is pretty much the same as the 1989 Balboa Park Master Plan/Central Mesa Precise Plan, with the added suggestion of free ADA valet service. Of course, one has to figure out how to pay for the free ADA valet service since the valets are not there to do community service. Perhaps the City could negotiate that into future contracts as a pay-back for their use of Balboa Park? [What is the current relationship? Is there a contract? Surely the valet service isn't profiting from our public park without paying some of that profit to the City for the privilege?]
Furthermore, there’s no reason 2-way traffic can’t use the existing roadway west of the Promenade, it’s wide enough. The master plan suggests one-way during hours that shuttle service is available, reverting to 2-way when the shuttles aren’t available.
The turn from the West Prado to the Plaza is not a right-angle turn today and I’m sure they would have to retain the same angle as exists today because of the “right triangle” in front of the Mingei created by the extension of the covered walkway. This would preserve a decent sized area for drop-off, pick-up and valet service to the right of the roadway (as is described in the master & precise plans except for the valet service which didn’t exist then). I don’t like having traffic circle the Promenade (between the Plaza and the Organ Pavilion) – that takes more Plaza away from pedestrian uses and also removes the east side of the Promenade from pedestrian use. [and the Nikki de Ste. Phalle statues could be moved into a pedestrian area of the Plaza]
I agree with Erik that there needs to be a physical separation of pedestrian & vehicle uses. This can easily be done with removable bollards like those at the west end of East El Prado (removable for events when the bridge is closed to traffic and the entire Plaza is to be for pedestrians and exhibits).
As for the institutions, this isn’t THEIR park. They are in the park and they benefit greatly from being in the park. Unquestionably, they are important elements of Balboa Park, gaining especially from their grouping in one location, but they do not and should not dictate how the park or the plaza is reconfigured.
BTW, the IJ consultants claimed that 70% (not 40%) of the traffic entered via the bridge but that doesn’t automatically translate to museum visitors – many are arriving for other reasons and some are just driving in and through for the experience and/or as commuters. The vast majority must drive through and down to the Organ Pavilion lot or beyond (did you know there are 500 spaces in the lot behind the Hall of Champions? in addition to the Pan-American Plaza (Palisades) lot of 300-some spaces, before you even get to Inspiration Point lot (over 1200 spaces).
Once people adjust to a new circulation pattern, they’ll quickly discover that it’s easier to approach from Park Blvd. After all, the Plaza parking and Alcazar lot fill up really fast so the odds are against most people finding a space there. I live in the OB-Pt Loma area and very rarely use Laurel St. (unless showing off the Cabrillo Bridge and entry to the historic core to visitors); my preference is Park Blvd. and it’s far easier to get to than using Laurel St. & driving through the historic core.
Overall, though, this is a good start to the discussion of ways to reclaim most of the Plaza and retain the ability to enter from the west through the archway at the Museum of Man. This time, though, it MUST occur through a true public-participation process, unlike the fake process run by Jacobs’ consultants. And we also MUST develop a much more ADS-accessible, frequent and convenient shuttle system running from the west side of Cabrillo Bridge to the Inspiration Point parking lot.
Institutional concerns for Park Boulevard congestion induced from Zoo operations may be addressed with stakeholder consensus plan for new multi-level below /at grade structure at existing zoo lot, especially if direct lower level access is included under Park / built from Florida as conceived. Charging for immediate access there doesn’t preclude free parking and shuttle/walk for zoo goers on budget and much of it would be supported by visitors. The 55 stakeholder representatives who worked through consensus on that in 2000 should make it politically possible as the priority structure if one will go forward. It yields additional benefits to link Zoo entry to Prado long overdue and gives Zoo fresh facade.
Nothing major to build in heart of Park makes it easy to like shared lane concept with appropriate bollards to protect pedestrians and bikes, though traffic engineers / US liability laws may require them not just in Plaza but also on bridge. Institutions concerns could be tested at Peak shared demand and new signage / bridge entry could help people find alternatives that foster faster arrival. Perhaps peak times would require handicapped or institution badge for access to shared lane so as to further restrict volume in Plaza. Special event hours might restrict access to emergency vehicles only. To address institution concerns, I wonder how something as simple as signal synchronization on Park could address throughput on high demand days?
As well, one must admit bridge vehicle traffic is now induced by yielding roadway to cars. Once a shared lane indicated community standards were preferring pedestrians, many would choose to experience bridge afoot.
Is there potential to run an experimental trial to prove out concept? Surely we can mend the torn consensus to take some positive action and allow approved park plans to move forward?
USA liability laws should not be a problem. I am aware of shared space streets already in use in Indianapolis, Cambridge MA, San Francisco, and right here in Escondido. We would not be the first.
Pingback: The Balboa Park Plaza de Panama Centennial Project is Dead: So Now What?
Pingback: Just Try It! | Great Streets San Diego