How to Design a Main Street for the 21st Century
The Future of Santa Barbara’s Main St.
This article, which is part threeof a three-part series, was originally published in the Montecito Journal, June 29–July 6, 2023. It, along with an added introduction from the author, is shared here with permission. Read part one here and part three here.
Santa Barbara, California, closed its main commercial corridor, State Street, to cars due to the pandemic in 2020. This opened its full width to pedestrians and cyclists. Since the closure, the city formed the State Street Advisory Committee to create a long-term plan for downtown, including the layout of State Street. One of the committee’s main concerns is if the street should remain closed to vehicles, and how or if bikes should be incorporated into the design. Below, I argue that bikes and pedestrians are an essential part of downtown culture and business growth and need to be put at the forefront of any design. — Sullivan Israel
Let me say this upfront: of the three State Street designs presented to the State Street Advisory Committee by MIG Design at their meeting on May 24th, the members of our local non-profit advocacy group, Strong Towns Santa Barbara (STSB), support the “Flat and Flexible” option; ie. the one most focused on the comfort and safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
As noted in my previous articles, the renderings presented on May 24th sparked noticeable controversy. Committee members and members of the public expressed many concerns, often centered around bicycles and their inclusion in all of the design options presented. For example, some committee members referred to the designs as “bike thoroughfares,” and others opposed the “massive percentage of space” given to cyclists. However, conspicuously absent from the discussion was any consideration of who bikers on State actually are. The committee members’ comments appeared to imply that they view most cyclists as either people rushing across town, or hapless children, but the STSB bicyclist intercept survey (results printed in last week’s article) found that bikers on State Street spanned a wide range of ages, that they often biked to State Street to spend money (either at retail stores or at restaurants), and that most were locals. If anything, the survey results appear to indicate that bikes are an integral part of the State St. promenade ecosystem, promoting both economic and community vitality while also serving as an emissions-free method of transport, a fun and immersive approach to sightseeing, and a means of achieving a vast array of other benefits (eg. exercise, mental wellness, etc.). Yet, in spite of all these aspects regarding bikes that would seem to make them an asset to State Street and to the city as a whole, State Street Advisory Committee members and public commenters continue to denounce their presence in the downtown corridor. In light of this, I would like to use the remainder of this article to address several commonly expressed bicycle-related concerns while also laying out a case in favor of the “Flat and Flexible” design:
The proposed MIG designs cater to the “bike lobby”; bicycle paths are in every design scenario even though cyclists don’t contribute to the economy and don’t spend as much as car drivers, as demonstrated by the decline of retail storefronts on State Street over the last several years.
First, there is no “bike lobby”; calling people who care about having spaces designed for people (instead of for car throughput) “bike lobbyists” reflects an inability (or an intentional refusal) to comprehend that anyone would want to travel by any method other than a car — a mindset which manages to ignore the multitude of obvious health, economic, safety, community-building, noise-reduction, emissions-reduction, and outdoor weather/local architecture enjoyment benefits of minimizing vehicle miles traveled. In the same way that folks who choose to drive are simply “people,” those who choose to bike are likewise, just people. The important thing is that we design our cities such that we are all free to choose our respective mode of transportation. One does not have to be part of some nonexistent single-minded “bike lobby” to want a space to bike safely downtown without having to worry about getting hit by a car. Similarly, one does not have to be a part of Big Oil’s car lobby (which is very real) to advocate for cars.
Second, the presence of cyclists has repeatedly been shown to generate significant economic benefits for local businesses. As one article on the national Strong Towns website puts it, “the numbers are in”; Studies from San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles all reached the same conclusion: cyclists go to more shops and spend more money overall than people who drive. Likewise, when bike infrastructure is added to an area, sales and revenue increase, and the number of car collisions fall. One study from New York found that the addition of protected bike lanes on two major streets resulted in a 50% increase in sales tax at local businesses, while another in Los Angeles found that a section of road with newly-installed bike lanes saw business almost double as a result. A brief survey of Strong Towns Santa Barbara members finds that many of us have biked to State St on many occasions, most often to patronize specific businesses or show off the beauty of State St. to visiting family and friends.
Further, with regards to “the decline of retail” on State Street, I highly recommend listening to Executive Director for Downtown Santa Barbara Robin Elander’s two-minute public comment from the June 27th City Council meeting on this topic. She provides compelling statistics which demonstrate that retail trends in Santa Barbara are directly correlated with ongoing national retail trends and are not the fault of the promenade being closed to cars.
One out of every five people who took our survey said they were biking on State Street because it was safer than the surrounding streets. By including designated bike lanes on State Street, the “Flat and Flexible” design option enables local businesses to benefit from cyclists looking to spend money downtown, while also maintaining a higher standard of safety for people of all ages seeking to enjoy Santa Barbara by bike.
We’re giving too much space to bikes.
State St is 80 feet wide. MIG’s Flat and Flexible design proposes creating a 12ft-wide bike path. That’s 15% of the total available width — an exceedingly reasonable value that seems even more so upon recollection of the fact that prior to the pandemic, cars dominated a majority of State Street’s width. Also keep in mind that California requires 20ft of clear space for fire/emergency access, meaning that no matter what design is chosen, there will always be space that contains no seating, planters, or other features. Why not use 12 of the mandated 20 to accommodate bikes (thereby leaving the remaining 85% for pedestrians)?
Of all three options, the “Flat and Flexible” design gives the least space to cars on the State Street promenade, leaving plenty of room to be split up between bicycles and pedestrians.
If cycling requires so much design, why bother at all? Save money by banning bikes (especially e-bikes) and making the promenade pedestrian-only.
Use is informed by design. That’s one of the most important things I learned while studying Transportation Engineering. If a road has few cross streets or stoplights and consists of wide lanes, people will drive on it at high speeds regardless of the posted speed limit. Conversely, if a road has features like speed bumps, turns, or short sight lines, drivers will slow down as the physical space demands they pay more attention. The same holds true for bikes: the existing 40ft-wide, unmarked asphalt space in the middle of State Street invites unruly cycling behavior simply because no barriers to speeding exist there. Narrow the bike path to 12ft — 6ft in each direction — with frequent crosswalks and turns, and cyclists will be forced to slow considerably, while the more speed-prone cyclists will avoid the space entirely. This form of designing for use is not burdensome, but empowering; if we construct the downtown corridor correctly, the users we’re targeting will appear. Cyclists and pedestrians coexist in common spaces across the world, and there are ample examples of successful implementation of this design methodology. One need not look far. At UCSB for example, 12ft wide cycling paths wind their way across the campus, paralleling and intersected by pedestrian walkways. Walk to the bottom of State St., and you’ll find the Cabrillo Beach Path, where bikes and people have been thrown together in the same exact space. Rather than reading of constant crashes and injuries as one might expect based on claims made about State St., people seem to coexist peacefully. That’s because the design informs the use: a narrow concrete path with plants/sand on either side keeps unruly/higher speed bikers away, while the constant need to pay attention to other users slows everyone down collectively. On my Mediumcom Site (where I publish more articles), I’ll be posting about more real-world examples.
Regarding e-bikes, I point again to our State St. bicycle counts survey, which showed that almost 50% of all bikes on State Street are e-bikes, with only a small handful of those being ridden by kids/teens. That said, banning e-bikes from State Street would effectively halve the number of cycling patrons currently traversing the State Street corridor. Also, as mentioned, if MIG’s “Flat and Flexible” design is adopted, all cyclists (regular bikers and e-bikers alike) will be forced to slow on State Street as noted above, and confining north and southbound bikers to designated 6ft lanes will minimize the chances of bicycle-pedestrian encounters (which many are rightly concerned by on the current, unmarked version of State St).
Additionally, when it comes to e-bikes, it is important that we consider the context surrounding State Street. While the main downtown corridor is relatively compact, Santa Barbara as a whole is large and spread out; biking to the promenade can be a long trip if traveling (as many do) from Goleta for example. Likewise, for some, walking the whole length of the promenade can be physically taxing. A trip which might deter some merely due to its length is made much more approachable (and much less sweaty) by e-bikes. As far as micro-mobility options go, e-bikes are an excellent choice for residents of Santa Barbara where the temperate weather enables biking year-round and where things are just far enough apart that e-bikes, which increase distance able to be traveled while also decreasing travel time without necessitating use of a car, are hugely beneficial. Their popularity on State Street is a clear indicator of e-bikes’ utility, and failing to account and provide safe spaces for the many e-bike users in Santa Barbara would be extremely shortsighted. Finally, the city’s highly successful BCycle e-bike program, which makes revenue while providing transportation to tourists and locals, would be for naught if bikes are banned.
Ultimately, the goal of the State Street design process is to create a lasting public space in the heart of our city that serves to promote local business, invite visitors from near and far to visit and spend time here, and which cultivates and enhances a unique local feel. I urge Santa Barbara to try and approach this process progressively; rather than look back at previous pedestrian promenade designs, some of which failed in the late 20th century, we should include cyclists and other small-wheeled users to ensure State Street’s lasting vitality.
We at STSB have been advocating for keeping parklets erected and keeping State Street open for pedestrians and bikers. Many of our members have attended and spoken at city-held meetings and outreach events, as well as sent letters and public comments to city council and others. We are always on the lookout to promote a safer, more comfortable, enjoyable, and fiscally resilient community and will continue to advocate for the “Flat and Flexible” option. Hopefully it can be improved upon even more with time.
As always, if you’d like to help, please reach out (and check out our website at strongtownssb.org, where you can read more about our stances, easily submit public comment, and view our upcoming events)!
Until next time,
Sully Israel
