Yesterday in Part Two, I included a quote from Pagosa Springs Community Development Director James Dickhoff, speaking to the Town Council on April 18 about a proposed pedestrian bridge connecting First Street to the ‘East End’ commercial district. Here it is again.
“I think this could be one of the most used bridges once it’s constructed, because we’ve got connectivity. It’s not only connecting along our River Walk, but it also provides connection for our sidewalk network, across the river. So we actually anticipate a little more traffic on this bridge than on some of our other pedestrian bridges. And I think what we see, a lot of times, is people just enjoying hanging out on the bridge, watching the the river users and what not. So we thought a 10-foot wide bridge would be a reasonable consideration…”
Mr. Dickhoff was recommending that the First Street pedestrian bridge be wider than the existing pedestrian bridges downtown, which are about 7 feet wide. Mr. Dickhoff would like the proposed First Street bridge to be 10 feet wide, to accommodate bicycles passing in opposite directions.
The job of a Community Development Director (as I understand it from writing about the Town government for 20 years) is to encourage development, but only the “right kind of development”. Sometimes I have the impression that “the right kind of development” was defined in 2004 by developer David Brown and his hand-picked Community Vision Council, as described and illustrated in the “Conceptual Master Plan for the Preservation, Renewal and Revitalization of Historic Downtown Pagosa Springs”.
During the last quarter of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century, the “right kind of development” in Pagosa Springs was basically “whatever the property owner wanted to build on their property, and could afford.” Amazingly, this ad hoc approach to development created a community so attractive to certain people that the Town formed a ‘Downtown Historical District’ to preserve what had been built, and to prevent the construction of more modern-looking structures.
The 46-page Conceptual Master Plan reflects a very different approach to development. We assemble some professionals and community leaders in a room, and they decide how they want the community to develop in the future, and then write a 200-page rule book (the Land Use and Development Code) to try and enforce that pattern on property owners.
The Conceptual Plan suggests literally hundreds of ‘improvements’ to Pagosa’s downtown presumed to enhance the local economy and cultural landscape.
Twenty years later, very few of those suggestions have materialized. But a few have.
- An extension of the River Walk to Cotton Hole, and a modest ‘park’ there.
- A large ‘welcome’ sign marking the east entrance to downtown.
- Wider sidewalks in the 400 block of Lewis Street.
- More residential homes converted to commercial businesses in the 100 and 200 blocks of Pagosa Street (Highway 160).
- A couple of new restaurants.
- The expansion of the Springs Resort.
- A pedestrian bridge at So. Sixth Street, and one at Town Park.
Of the changes (improvements?) noted above, some were funded by the taxpayers, partly through local sales taxes — the primary source of income for the Town government.
But what should we make of Director Dickhoff’s belief that a new pedestrian bridge at First Street will be “one of the most used bridges once it’s constructed…” ?
I live downtown and make regular use of the River Walk and pedestrian bridges, most often in the company of our family dog, Frida. I sometimes pass people on the Sixth Street pedestrian bridge… people also walking their dogs, or simply getting exercise. 99% of the time, they are not on a bicycle. I can’t say I have ever seen two bicycles try to pass in opposite directions. (I have, meanwhile, often seen two dogs try to pass in opposite directions.)
The view along the River Walk is quietly pleasing, making the Sixth Street pedestrian bridge part of an enjoyable recreational stroll. It does not connect you to any commercial businesses, however.
The nearby pedestrian bridge at the Springs Resort is also much traveled, but mainly, I suspect, by customers of the busy Springs Resort walking to or from the core downtown. But also some dog walkers.
The pedestrian bridge at Town Park? I rarely see anyone use it.
Three pedestrian bridges. Three traffic patterns. Moderately busy. Slightly busy. Never busy.
What type of foot traffic can we expect at First Street, if a bridge is constructed there?
I can imagine it being used in the summer by tourists in swimsuits, carrying inner tubes, looking to put-in behind the River Center. A bicycle might cross it once a day, and that’s being optimistic. The proposed 10-foot width seems like overkill.
But this bridge would indeed extend the east end of the River Walk, potentially another half mile along the San Juan River. Dog owners might well appreciate the extra walking distance (as will their dogs, no doubt.)
We ought to recognize, however, that people planning to walk their dogs on a recreational trail, typically drive their automobile to the trailhead. I can imagine the extension of the River Walk causing increased parking problems in the East End.
By comparison, the downtown segment of the River Walk is served by numerous public parking options. The East End segment, not so much. Almost all the parking in the East End is intended to serve commercial businesses.
Other than the River Walk trail, the ‘East End’ commercial district lacks sidewalks. The East End was designed for automobiles, not humans, or pets. Adding pedestrian connectivity in hopes of connecting shoppers or restaurant patrons to an automobile-centric district like the East End, is like putting lipstick on a pig, in my humble opinion.
At the April 18 Town Council meeting, the Council unanimously approved an East End pedestrian bridge design proposed by BCS Fabrication, at a projected cost of about $250,000. I assume this price does not include installation.
Maybe, over the next 20 years, we will see more of David Brown’s plan for downtown fulfilled.
If that’s the town our leaders want us to have.