lee’s summit missouri - walk friendly communitiesassessment.walkfriendly.org/fileupload/sidewalk...

Public Sidewalk Inventory Analysis Report

prepared for

Lee’s Summit Missouri

August 2009

Project No. 48760

prepared by

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Kansas City, Missouri

COPYRIGHT © 2008 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

INDEX AND CERTIFICATION


Project 48760

Report Index Chapter Number Number Chapter Title of Pages 1 Introduction 3 2 Existing Public Sidewalk Assessment 16 3 New Public Sidewalk Assessment 7 4 Public Sidewalk Prioritization 9 5 Public Sidewalk Funding Analysis 4 6 Public Sidewalk Recommendations 8


TOC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Scope Of Services ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Abbreviations and Key Words ......................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT .............................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Storage and Inventory Process ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Public Sidewalk Data Storage Structure .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Public Sidewalk Inventory ............................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Condition Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................ 2-5 2.3 Condition Assessment Process ...................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.1 Condition Assessment Data Analysis ............................................................................ 2-11 2.4 Replacement Costs ......................................................................................................... 2-11 2.5 Condition Assessment Results ....................................................................................... 2-12 2.5.1 Sidewalk Centerline ....................................................................................................... 2-12 2.5.2 Sidewalk End Points and Defects .................................................................................. 2-14

3.0 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 New Public Sidewalk Criteria .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 New Public Sidewalk Identification Process ................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Gap Identification Process ............................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 New Public Sidewalk Construction Costs ....................................................................... 3-4 3.4 New Public Sidewalk Results .......................................................................................... 3-5

4.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION ........................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing Public Sidewalk ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Prioritization Criteria ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Prioritization Results ........................................................................................................ 4-3 4.2 New Public Sidewalk ....................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Prioritization Criteria ....................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Prioritization Results ........................................................................................................ 4-5

5.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK FUNDING ANALYSIS ..................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Current Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Comparator City Analysis................................................................................................ 5-2


TOC-2

6.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Existing Public Sidewalk ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Phase I .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Phase II............................................................................................................................. 6-3 6.2 New Public Sidewalk ....................................................................................................... 6-5 6.2.1 Phase I .............................................................................................................................. 6-5 6.2.2 Phase II............................................................................................................................. 6-7 6.3 Policy ............................................................................................................................... 6-8 Appendix A – Funding Analysis Tables

* * * * *


TOC-3

LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page No. 1.1 Common Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 1-2 2.1 Public Sidewalk Defect Categories .................................................................................. 2-6 2.2 Public Sidewalk End Point Categories ............................................................................ 2-9 2.3 Public Sidewalk End Point ADA Compliance Status ...................................................... 2-9 2.4 Public Sidewalk Lengths and Defects by Decade of Construction ................................ 2-12 2.5 End Point ADA Compliance Statistics .......................................................................... 2-14 2.6 Defect Condition Statistics ............................................................................................ 2-14 2.7 Vertical Defect Statistics Breakdown ............................................................................ 2-15 3.1 APWA Sidewalk Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 GIS Street Centerline Classifications............................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Public Sidewalk Gaps by Street Classifications .............................................................. 3-5 4.1 Existing Public Sidewalk Lengths by Tier ....................................................................... 4-3 4.2 Public Sidewalk Gaps by Tier and Priority...................................................................... 4-5 5.1 Current Public Sidewalk Funding Summary ................................................................... 5-2 6.1 FY 2009 – FY 2010 Existing Sidewalk Maintenance Recommendation Summary ........ 6-2 6.2 Sidewalk Program Long Range Maintenance and Rehabilitation Requirements ............ 6-4

* * * * *


TOC-4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 2.1 City Aerial Photography .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 Public Sidewalk Centerline Features ............................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Multiple Public Sidewalk Segments Per Block Scenario ................................................ 2-4 2.4 Motion F5 Tablet PC ....................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Trimble Pathfinder ProXH GPS ...................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 Public Sidewalk Defect Category Examples ................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Public Sidewalk End Point ADA Compliance Status Examples ..................................... 2-9 2.8 Level of Service (LOS) Calculation Methods ............................................................... 2-11 2.9 Existing Public Sidewalk System .................................................................................. 2-13 3.1 Missing Sidewalk Segment Identification – Example 1 .................................................. 3-3 3.2 Missing Sidewalk Segment Identification – Example 2 .................................................. 3-4 3.3 Public Sidewalk System Gaps ......................................................................................... 3-5 4.1 Tier Prioritization System ................................................................................................ 4-3 4.2 Sidewalk System Level of Service .................................................................................. 4-4 4.3 Priority A Sidewalk Gaps ................................................................................................ 4-6 6.1 High Priority, Tier 1 Residential Gaps ............................................................................ 6-7

* * * * *

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Lee’s Summit has experienced a significant amount of growth over the last thirty years and as

such the majority of the City’s public sidewalks are less than thirty years of age but a significant portion

of the City is still lacking a cohesive public sidewalk system. The City currently contains approximately

582 total miles of road network of which 88%, or 510 miles, have the potential to have sidewalks based

on current City standards. The City realized that the maintenance and management of a 510 mile public

sidewalk system requires significant resources and developed a Sidewalk Position Paper in July of 2007

that documented the concerns, goals, and issues facing the City with regards to maintaining a public

sidewalk management program.

One of the largest issues inhibiting the City’s ability to develop a comprehensive sidewalk maintenance

program was the lack of accurate sidewalk inventory and condition assessment information. Therefore,

City staff was authorized to execute a comprehensive public sidewalk inventory and condition assessment

project. Data collected and analyzed during the project could then be used to develop a public sidewalk

management program.

1.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives identified for the public sidewalk inventory and condition assessment project were refined

during the first phase of the project. In phase I of the project many different options were discussed and

analyzed to ensure that the final objectives met the City’s needs. The final objectives for the project were

as follows:

• Inventory the entire public sidewalk network within the City

• Assess the condition of the entire public sidewalk network within the City

• Build a foundation that, in the future, would allow the use of the City’s maintenance management

system, Cityworks, to track the public sidewalk network maintenance

• Develop a set of sidewalk program recommendations that the City can use to leverage available

resources

• Develop a set of recommendations that the City can use to set policy related to the long term

funding of the sidewalk program

1-2

1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services for the public sidewalk inventory analysis project included the following

tasks and deliverables:

• Define objectives and goals in an initial phase of the project.

• Develop and document a public sidewalk inventory and condition assessment plan.

• Develop a process by which the Cityworks maintenance management system can be used

to track public sidewalk inventory and future maintenance activities.

• Field inventory every public sidewalk segment within the City.

• Assess the condition of every public sidewalk segment within the City and provide a

rating score that is dependent on defect type and defect severity.

• Field inventory every public sidewalk approach or endpoint and assess preliminary ADA

compliance status.

• Analyze public sidewalk condition and endpoint data to determine the current state of the

public sidewalk network.

• Analyze the City’s overall transportation network to determine where new public

sidewalk segments need to be constructed.

• Develop recommendations for the maintenance and new construction needs within the

City’s public sidewalk network.

• Develop policy and funding recommendations that the City can use to manage the public

sidewalk management program.

1.4 ABBREVIATIONS AND KEY WORDS Table 1.1

Common Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

PC Personal Computer

1-3

LOS Level of Service

MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation

LOSDefect Defect Level of Service

LOSEndPt Endpoint Level of Service

APWA American Public Works Association

* * * * *

2-1

2.0 EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT

The first step to make decisions related the City’s public sidewalk program fiscal policy was to

develop an accurate sidewalk inventory and condition assessment. The following chapter

describes the processes and methodologies used to inventory and assess the condition of the

City’s public sidewalks as well as the final inventory and assessment results.

2.1 DATA STORAGE AND INVENTORY PROCESS The inventory process was begun by developing a data structure that allow for efficient data

collection as well as seamless integration into the City’s existing systems, such as GIS and the

Cityworks maintenance management system. Once the data structure was defined, the public

sidewalk inventory was completed in two phases. The first phase of the inventory included using

the City’s aerial photography to define public sidewalk centerlines. The second phase of the

inventory involved the usage of mobile computers, loaded with the data collected from the aerial

photography, and global positioning system (GPS) technology to field audit every public

sidewalk segment within the City.

2.1.1 Public Sidewalk Data Storage Structure The format and structure of the sidewalk data was developed in a way that allows the City to

import the data into their existing GIS and work with it in the same way as other facilities such

as roads or water mains. The City’s GIS platform is built on Environmental Systems Research

Institute (ESRI) software and uses the enterprise geodatabase structure to store the mapping and

attribute information. Therefore an ESRI data storage scheme was used for the sidewalk

inventory data. An existing sidewalk centerline layer of information within the City’s data

structure was modified to support the information that would be collected during the inventory

analysis project and two new data layers were created for the sidewalk defects and sidewalk

endpoints.

The sidewalk defect and sidewalk endpoint data layers are point features that represent the exact

location of a particular sidewalk defect or endpoint. Table 2.1 and 2.2 define the different types

of defects and endpoints that were collected. The point layers were populated through the field

effort with sub-meter (± 3 feet) GPS technology. Each point feature included an accurate

2-2

location as well as key attributes such as defect type, defect severity, endpoint type, and digital

photos.

2.1.2 Public Sidewalk Inventory The two phased inventory approach started by using the aerial photography assets available

within the City’s GIS and continued into the full field data verification and collection effort.

Approximately 90% of the City’s sidewalks were readily viewable on the aerial photography.

For these areas, the sidewalk centerline were efficiently collected in an office environment and

then field verified during the second phase of the inventory. This process greatly expedited the

field audit because many times the sidewalk centerline features required very minor adjustments

and field personnel were left to focus on the identification of defects and assessing sidewalk

condition.

2.1.2.1 Phase I – Aerial Photography The sidewalk centerline data layer was first created through a heads up digitizing method. This

method entailed using the ESRI software ArcMap to display the City’s aerial photography. The

sidewalk centerline features were drawn based on what was shown in the imagery. Figure 2.1

shows that public sidewalks are easily visible on the City’s aerial photography.

Figure 2.1

City Aerial Photography

2-3

Only the sidewalk centerline data layer was created with this method because it wasn’t possible

to define the defect or endpoint attributes from the information found on the aerial photography.

Figure 2.2 shows the public sidewalk centerline features that were created based on the aerial

photography.

Figure 2.2

Public Sidewalk Centerline Features

The majority of the sidewalk centerline was created in block segments such that each sidewalk

feature or segment represented and entire block along the street. In some instances a block was

split across multiple sidewalk segments. These instances occurred when the sidewalk had an

endpoint in some place other than the end of the block. Figure 2.3 demonstrates an example of a

block that has multiple sidewalk segments.

2-4

Figure 2.3

Multiple Sidewalk Segments Per Block Scenario

Once the sidewalk centerline data layer was defined based on the aerial photography it was

loaded into the field data collection tools for verification and editing based on actual field

conditions.

2.1.2.2 Phase II – Field Audit In order to develop an accurate inventory and condition assessment of the public sidewalk

network within the City, each sidewalk segment was walked in the field. One person field crews

were outfitted with a set of data collection tools that allowed them to not only verify the accuracy

of the sidewalk centerline but also collect new sidewalk centerline data, collect exact locations of

sidewalk defects and collect digital photography documenting any findings.

The centerpiece of the field data collection tools was a tablet PC that included an integrated

digital camera and the ability to connect to peripheral devices, such as a GPS, through the use of

wireless and Bluetooth functionality. The tablet PC, see Figure 2.4, that was used for this

project was a Motion Computing F5 tablet PC. The tablet PC allowed field staff to use a pen or

stylus to collect all sidewalk attributes by writing directly on the screen of the computer. The

table PC was loaded with ESRI GIS software allowing field personnel to view the City’s base

data such as aerial photography, roads and parcels combined with the new sidewalk centerline

and defect information.

2-5

Figure 2.4

Motion F5 Tablet PC

Field personnel were able to track their location within the City through the use of GPS

technology. A Trimble Pathfinder ProXH GPS receiver, see Figure 2.5, was mounted on a

backpack and connected to the tablet PC through a Bluetooth wireless connection. The GPS

provided real time locations of personnel as they walked the sidewalk network throughout the

City. The field personnel’s location information was displayed on the screen of the tablet PC.

The location information was used to either verify sidewalk centerline accuracy, collect new

sidewalk centerline features or collect defect and endpoint locations.

Figure 2.5

Trimble Pathfinder ProXH GPS

2.2 CONDITION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The condition assessment criteria were developed such that minimal subjective judgment was

required. In most cases the field personnel could simply determine if there was an occurrence of

a defect and record the information in the field data collection tools. This approach was taken to

help ensure that, regardless of the field personnel, the sidewalk condition rating would be

consistent. When judgment decisions are necessary it is much harder to develop a set of

consistent data for analysis because each individual may have a slightly different judgment.

2-6

The condition of a sidewalk panel was broken down into eight different categories. Each of the

categories was then assigned a score based on the impact that type of defect had on the sidewalk

segment. The defect categories are listed below in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Public Sidewalk Defect Categories

Defect Category Description Score

Vertical Fault Vertical offsets in the sidewalk. Severity measured in ½ - 1”, 1 – 3” and > 3” increments.

15,25,35*

Horizontal Fault Horizontal gaps or openings of 2” or greater in the sidewalk 25

Spalling Surface deterioration of ¼” or greater on the sidewalk 10

Obstructions Any obstructions that restrict the operating width of the sidewalk to less than 36”

10

Cracking Four or more surface cracks in a sidewalk panel 10

Cross Slope Greater than a 1 in 12 cross slope on sidewalk 10

Ponding Standing water or evidence of standing water on sidewalk 5

Cleanliness Excessive debris and/or poor cleanliness on sidewalk 5

* Vertical fault scores are increasingly higher based on severity of offset.

Figure 2.6 provides photographic examples of the different defect categories that were collected

for the public sidewalk network.

2-7

Figure 2.6

Public Sidewalk Defect Category Examples

Vertical Fault Horizontal Fault

Spalling Obstruction

2-8

Cracking Cross Slope

Ponding Cleanliness In addition to the defect categories, used to assess the condition of the sidewalk segments, each

sidewalk end point was categorized and scored. A sidewalk end point was defined as any

termination point of a sidewalk segment. End points included scenarios such as an approach to

the street surface, a commercial driveway, or the end of a sidewalk segment where no approach

existed. The end points were grouped into categories and each end point was assigned a status

based on its compliance with ADA standards. ADA standards for sidewalk endpoints are

defined within section 4.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 28 CFR Part 36. The standards

were developed to ensure that appropriate accessibility to places of public accommodation for

individuals with disabilities. An end point’s ADA compliance status determined the score that

was assigned for each end point. Table 2.2 lists the different end point categories and Table 2.3

lists the different ADA compliance statuses with the associated score.

2-9

Table 2.2

Public Sidewalk End Point Categories

End Point Category Description

Intersection Sidewalk intersects the roadway surface

Commercial Driveway Sidewalk intersects a commercial driveway that is not at the same elevation as the sidewalk

Gap Sidewalk ends with no appropriate termination structure such as an approach

Tee Sidewalk intersects another sidewalk

Table 2.3

Public Sidewalk End Point ADA Compliance Status

Compliance Status Description Score

Not ADA Compliant End point structure does not meet or approximate ADA compliance requirements

50

Some ADA Compliance

End point structure that approximates ADA compliance requirements

25

Meets Initial ADA Compliance

End point structure visually appear to meet ADA compliance requirements*

0

* All necessary measurements of slope, width, etc… were not taken to determine complete ADA compliance. Figure 2.7 provides photographic examples of the different ADA compliance statuses that were

collected for the end points on the public sidewalk network.

Figure 2.7

Public Sidewalk End Point ADA Compliance Status Examples

Not ADA Compliant – Gap End Point Not ADA Compliant – Intersection End Point

2-10

Some ADA Compliance Meets Initial ADA Compliance

The scores for each defect and end point category were setup such that the worse the condition

the higher the score. This scoring process was developed to support the analysis of each

sidewalk segment in which all defect and end point scores were added for a particular sidewalk

segment and the higher the total segment score the worse the condition of the sidewalk.

2.3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROCESS The defect and end point condition assessment criteria were applied in the field through visual

inspection of the sidewalk segments and documented within the field data collection tools.

Where necessary, a measuring device was used to assess the magnitude of vertical or horizontal

faults. Additionally, a cross slope measuring device was used to determine if a sidewalk panel

exceeded the one inch of fall over twelve inches of width threshold.

To increase the accuracy of the field data, pick lists were built for most all condition assessment

criteria. The pick lists allowed field personnel to simply choose from an on screen list of valid

data values for each condition assessment criteria. The pick lists ensured that only valid data

values were collected for each condition assessment criteria.

Once field personnel were done each day, the data from that day’s field effort was backed up and

loaded to a database in the office. The office database was an enterprise Microsoft SQL Server

database that matched the platform within the City’s GIS. The enterprise database was checked

on a daily basis for data validity and accuracy. Any data discrepancies were flagged and

2-11

checked by field personnel. After all data accuracy and validity issues where addressed the

condition assessment data was ready for use within the analysis phase of the project.

2.3.1 Condition Assessment Data Analysis The first part of the condition assessment data analysis assigned the appropriate criteria scores to

each piece of condition data. Each condition data record was queried to determine its type and

then the associated criteria score was added to the enterprise database. Once all the scores were

assigned, the defect and end point condition scores were summed for each sidewalk segment

within the City. Each sidewalk segment was assigned two total scores based on the total amount

of defect and end point features. The scores were kept separate to allow further analysis to be

completed based on purely defect based scoring and ADA compliance scoring on the end points.

The total score for defects needed to be normalized so that all the sidewalk segments throughout

the City, regardless of length, could be compared. Therefore, the total defect scores for each

sidewalk segment were divided by the total length of the sidewalk segment resulting in total

defect condition score per foot for each sidewalk segment within the City. The end point total

condition was based on the total score attained by summing the condition on each end of a

sidewalk segment.

The new total defect condition ratio and end point total condition scores represented a

normalized rating for each sidewalk segment that was used as a defect and end point level of

service (LOS) measurement. The greater the LOS score on a sidewalk segment the worse the

condition of the segment. The equation used to develop the two LOS’s is represented below in

figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8

Level of Service (LOS) Calculation Methods

LOSDefect = (∑ Defect Score) LOSEndPt = (∑ End Pt Score)

Segment Length (ft)

2.4 REPLACEMENT COSTS In order to develop sidewalk replacement costs, a set of existing public sidewalk replacement

cost factors were developed. The cost factors allow budget estimates to be developed based on

the length of sidewalk to be replaced to achieve a desired LOS across the public sidewalk

2-12

system. The cost factors were developed based on the following set of assumptions; contractor

installation and standard MoDOT bid item for concrete sidewalk (bid item 608). The standard

MoDOT bid item includes sidewalk, curb ramps, incidental grading, concrete tinting, and

truncated domes. It is assumed that sidewalks will be replaced at the existing width and a four

inch depth.

• Small Sites (Less than 50 square yards) o $45.00 per square yard

• Medium Sites (50 to 100 square yards) o $40.00 per square yard

• Large Sites (Greater than 100 square yards) o $35.00 per square yard

2.5 CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS The existing public sidewalk condition assessment field effort was completed in late September

of 2008 and included data for every public sidewalk segment as of that date.

2.5.1 Sidewalk Centerline A total of approximately 353 miles of public sidewalk centerline was inventoried during the field

effort. The 353 miles of public sidewalk were overlaid with the City’s subdivision GIS data

layer to determine an approximate decade of construction for each sidewalk segment. Table 2.4

shows the breakdown of sidewalks by the date the subdivisions were recorded within the City.

Table 2.4

Public Sidewalk Lengths and Defects by Decade of Construction

Construction Decade*

Length of Sidewalk (Miles)

Percent of Total Length

Number of Defects

Percent of Total Defects

Pre 1960 17 5 % 1515 10 %

1960’s 15 4 % 2169 15 %

1970’s 45 13 % 3359 23 %

1980’s 56 16 % 2923 20 %

1990’s 99 28 % 2562 18 %

2000’s** 68 19 % 589 4 %

Unknown *** 53 15 % 1354 10 %

Totals 353 100 % 14471 100 %

2-13

* Decade estimated from the date recorded for each subdivision ** 2000 decade includes year 2000 through year 2007 *** Unknown includes all sidewalk segments that don’t intersect City’s subdivision GIS layer

or intersect a subdivision without a date recorded in the GIS data. Table 2.4 shows that approximately half of the City’s sidewalks have been constructed since

1990. Additionally, it can be determined that based on the accelerated growth rates seen in the

recent past approximately 100 miles of public sidewalks have been constructed per decade. It is

not anticipated that the growth rates of the 1990’s and early 2000’s will continue therefore it is

anticipated that the public sidewalk system will grow at a rate more representative of the 1970’s

and 1980’s. In the 1970’s and 1980’s approximately 50 miles of sidewalks were built per decade

and based on this growth rate it is anticipated that the public sidewalk system will include

approximately 369 miles of sidewalks by 2010 with approximately 419 miles of public sidewalk

in place by 2020. These public sidewalk estimates are independent of any additional resources

the City may choose to apply to the new sidewalk management program to fill gaps in the

existing sidewalk network.

Table 2.4 also shows that while approximately half of the City’s sidewalks have been

constructed since 1990 only 22% of the overall public sidewalk system defects are found on

these sidewalks. By simply comparing the percent of defects to the percent of the system it is

possible to see that as public sidewalks reach 15 – 20 years in age they begin to deteriorate at a

significant rate. As an example, in the decade of the 1980’s approximately 16% of the public

sidewalk system was built but this same portion of sidewalk accounts for 20% of the overall

defects across the system. The discrepancy between the amount of sidewalk system and volume

of defects is even greater in the decade of the 1970’s in which 13% of the sidewalks were built

and 23% of the defects are attributed to these sidewalk segments.

Figure 2.9 on the next page shows the locations of all the public sidewalk centerline throughout

the City.

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2ND

DOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

OLDHAM

SCRUGGS

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOOD

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOOD

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYO

R

0 1 2Miles

Figure 2.9Existing Public

Sidewalk System

LegendCity LimitsExisting Sidewalk

RoadsHighwayOn/Off RampArterialCollectorResidentialAlleyPrivate

2-14

2.5.2 Sidewalk End Points and Defects The following tables and figures show the final defect and end point condition assessment results

for the existing public sidewalk.

Table 2.5

End Point ADA Compliance Statistics

Compliance Status Count of Occurrences Percent of Total

Not ADA Compliant 1933 55 %

Some ADA Compliance 3969 18%

Meets Initial ADA Compliance 1265 27 %

Totals 7167 100 %

Table 2.6

Defect Condition Statistics

Defect Category Count of Occurrences Percent of Total

Vertical Fault 7608* 53 %*

Horizontal Fault 164 1 %

Spalling 723 5 %

Obstructions 425 3 %

Cracking 4321 30 %

Cross Slope 355 2 %

Ponding 839 5.8 %

Cleanliness 36 0.2 %

Totals 14471 100 %

* Includes all magnitudes of vertical faults

As noted in section 2.2, the vertical fault defects were broken down into three different severities

based on the magnitude of the vertical fault. Table 2.7 shows the detailed breakdown of the

over seven thousand vertical faults that were found on the public sidewalk network.

2-15

Table 2.7

Vertical Defect Statistics Breakdown

Vertical Fault Magnitude Count of Occurrences Percent of Total

½” – 1” Offset 4838 64 %

1” – 3” Offset 2703 35 %

> 3” Offset 67 1 %

Totals 7608 100 %

Table 2.7 demonstrates that well over half the vertical faults across the public sidewalk network

are less than one inch in severity. While the half to one inch vertical faults are important

measures for the public sidewalk network, they do not significantly impact the overall usability

of the sidewalk. Additionally, other defects such as cracks and spalling don’t greatly inhibit the

usability of the sidewalk.

Since all the different defect types were collected as separate features for a given sidewalk

segment it was possible to work with the data and determine the best combination of defects to

use when calculating the LOSDefect. In order to best determine which types of defects should be

included in the calculation of the LOSDefect the overall goal of providing a safe public sidewalk

system for the City of Lee’s Summit was used. If a defect type didn’t greatly affect the overall

safety and usability of a sidewalk it was removed from the overall LOSDefect calculation.

It was determined that the most important sidewalk defects where the vertical faults. Within

these defects any vertical faults of one inch or greater posed the greatest safety and usability risks

to the public. This determination was developed through Burns & McDonnell and City staff

expertise and verified through public input from two public meetings that were held in late

March of 2009.

LOSDefect was calculated for each sidewalk segment throughout the City using the vertical fault

defects that measure one inch or greater. The defect score of only these defect types were used

in the calculations for each sidewalk segment. The other defect information was not used in the

LOSDefect calculation but is available for the City to review and analyze in the future.

* * * * *

3-1

3.0 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT

Once an accurate inventory and condition had been assessed for the existing public sidewalks

within the City, the gaps or missing sidewalks were identified. Public sidewalk gaps could

include relatively small gaps in which only a few panels were missing to large gaps in which

entire sections of roadway do not have public sidewalk. Sidewalk gaps represent potential

locations within the City’s public sidewalk system in which new sidewalks need to be

constructed. The following chapter will discuss the different types of sidewalk gaps, how these

gaps were identified from the existing public sidewalk inventory data and the final results of the

new sidewalk construction needs analysis.

3.1 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK CRITERIA The main criteria defining the need for construction of new public sidewalks within the City is

the APWA Division V - Section 5200 Streets Design Criteria. The design criteria define the

sidewalk requirements for each street classification type. Table 3.1 shows the sidewalk

requirements as stated in the APWA design criteria.

Table 3.1

APWA Sidewalk Criteria

Street Classification Sidewalks Required*

Major Arterial 2

Minor Arterial 2

Industrial Collector 1

Commercial Collector 2

Residential Collector 2

Residential Local 1 - 2

Residential Access 0 - 1

* Number represents whether sidewalks are required on one or both (2) sides of the street.

In order to apply the APWA Sidewalk Criteria the street network within the City had to be

analyzed based on each different street classification. The City’s GIS street centerline data layer

was used as the base for the analysis. The data layer contained information that defined the

street classification for each street segment within the City. Table 3.2 shows the different street

3-2

classifications, associated mileage found within the GIS street centerline data layer and sidewalk

requirement that was assigned based on APWA design criteria.

Table 3.2

GIS Street Centerline Classifications

Street Classification Total Mileage Percent of Total Sidewalks Required

Alley 4 1 % 0

Arterial 95 16 % 2

Collector 72 12 % 2

Highway 54 9 % 0

On/Off Ramp 11 2 % 0

Private 4 1 % 0

Residential 342 59 % 1

3.2 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK IDENTIFICATION PROCESS With the sidewalk requirements for the City’s public sidewalk system defined, the next step was

to determine where the existing public sidewalk system fell short of the requirements. The GIS

was used to search for the locations within the public sidewalk system in which there were gaps

or missing sections of sidewalk within the public sidewalk network.

3.2.1 Gap Identification Process A process was developed in which the GIS was used to select locations along the City’s street

centerline data layer that were missing sidewalks. This process began with the definition of a

minimum gap that would be found in the public sidewalk system. Based on the knowledge

gained during the inventory of the existing public sidewalk system it was determined that the

likelihood of a gap in the sidewalk system smaller than two feet in length was very low.

Therefore, each segment of the street centerline data layer was split into two foot long pieces.

Each of the two foot long street centerline segments were then used to search for sidewalk

segments on either side of the street. Figure 3.1 depicts how two foot long segments were used

to identify missing sidewalks on either side of a street.

3-3

Figure 3.1

Missing Sidewalk Segment Identification - Example 1

Each sidewalk gap segment shown in Figure 3.1 represents a two foot long section of street

centerline that is missing a sidewalk based on the design criteria outlined in section 3.1. The

example in Figure 3.1 demonstrates that the arterial street running generally north and south

requires a sidewalk on both sides based on the design criteria and as such sidewalk gap segments

are identified for the right side of the street. Additionally, the street running generally east and

west is a residential street that only requires sidewalks on one side but in this case no sidewalks

are present on either side of the street resulting in gap segments along the street.

In addition to locating fairly large missing public sidewalk sections as show in Figure 3.1, the

GIS identification process located small gaps within the public sidewalk system. Since the street

centerline was split into two foot long segments any gap of two foot or greater was assigned a

gap segment during the analysis. Figure 3.2 shows an example where a gap of about seventy

five feet was found along a cul-de-sac street segment.

3-4

Figure 3.2

Missing Sidewalk Segment Identification Example - 2

The GIS identification process was used for each street within the City and sidewalk gap

segments were developed in each location where the existing public sidewalk system didn’t meet

the design criteria. Once all the sidewalk gap segments were identified they were used to

determine the length of public sidewalk along each street that needed to be constructed to meet

the design criteria. The length of new sidewalk to be constructed could then be combined with

construction fees to identify construction cost estimates for the upgrade of the public sidewalk

system to meet design criteria.

3.3 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION COSTS Just as with the existing public sidewalk replacement costs, a set of new sidewalk construction

cost factors were developed to allow budget estimates to be developed based on the length of

sidewalk to be constructed. The cost factors were developed based on the following set of

assumptions; contractor installation and standard MoDOT bid item for concrete sidewalk (bid

item 608). The standard MoDOT bid item includes sidewalk, curb ramps, incidental grading,

3-5

concrete tinting, and truncated domes. It is assumed that sidewalks will be replaced at a width of

five feet and a four inch depth.

• Small Sites (Less than 100 linear feet) o $50.00 per square yard

• Medium Sites (100 – 500 linear feet) o $45.00 per square yard

• Large Sites (Greater than 500 linear feet) o $40.00 per square yard

3.4 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK RESULTS After the completion of the GIS based gap identification process all the missing sidewalks in the

City were represented on a map and queried based on whether it was a gap on a residential or an

arterial/collector street. Table 3.3 below shows the breakdown of sidewalk gaps for both the

residential and arterial/collector street classifications.

Table 3.3

Public Sidewalk Gaps by Street Classifications

Street Classification Length of Sidewalk

(Miles)

Residential 124

Arterial/Collector 162

Totals 286

At Table 3.3 demonstrates that there are significant sections of the City that are missing

sidewalks when compared against the current standards for sidewalk construction. In many

cases areas identified as gaps using these criteria may not actually have a need for a sidewalk

based on numerous different factors including public need. Additional, prioritization of these

gaps was necessary and will be discussed in the next chapter of this report. Figure 3.3 on the

next page shows the location of all the residential and arterial/collector sidewalk gaps throughout

the City.

* * * * *

0 1 2Miles

Figure 3.3Public SidewalkSystem Gaps

LegendPublic Sidewalk GapsCity Limits

RoadsHighwayOn/Off RampArterialCollectorResidentialAlleyPrivate

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2NDDOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

SCRUGGS

OLDHAM

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOO

D

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOO

D

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYOR

4-1

4.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION

In the previous chapters of this report the existing public sidewalk inventory and new public

sidewalk construction needs were identified for the entire City. In order to address the defects

and missing sidewalks identified in each analysis a prioritization method was used to rank the

needs for both the existing and new public sidewalk. The prioritization criteria are meant to aid

the City in determining how to systematically apply resources to the upgrade and maintenance of

the overall public sidewalk system. A description of the prioritization criteria, methods and

results are found in the following sections.

4.1 EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK The City has a finite set of resources that can be applied to the replacement or repair of the

existing public sidewalk system. To best determine how to apply these resources a prioritization

process was setup to sort or rank the existing public sidewalk system needs. The prioritization

method is setup to address the public sidewalk segments in the poorest condition first by using

the LOSDefect scores for each public sidewalk segment to rank their priority.

4.1.1 Prioritization Criteria As noted in chapter 2, the LOSDefect scores were developed such that the higher the score the

worse the condition of the public sidewalk segment and only the critical vertical faults of one

inch or greater were used to calculate the LOSDefect. In order to use the LOSDefect as a

prioritization tool a target LOSDefect was set. The target LOSDefect represents the initial service

level the City would pursue for the public sidewalk network. The initial target LOSDefect is meant

to be the starting point to allow the City to get the public sidewalk maintenance program started

and establish a good baseline throughout the system.

The target LOSDefect was set at 0.200. This number equates to the equivalent of having 4 vertical

faults of one inch or greater across a 500 foot sidewalk segment. While having any vertical

faults at all on the sidewalk is detrimental it is not feasible, with the existing resources, to

address all these faults initially. Therefore, the 0.200 target LOSDefect was set as the initial goal

for the entire public sidewalk system. Once the City has been able to achieve the initial target

LOSDefect there will be the opportunity to lower the target and incrementally increase the quality

of the entire public sidewalk system.

4-2

Of the 353 total miles of existing public sidewalk approximately thirteen miles of it is at a

LOSDefect of 0.200 or worse. If an average maintenance/reconstruction rate is used almost the

entire public sidewalk system can be brought up to this standard with the initial bond money. A

further discussion of the costs associated with the maintenance/reconstruction of the existing

sidewalk network is contained in chapter 5.

While the LOSDefect scores ranked all sidewalk segments across the City it was necessary to

further prioritize the sidewalk segments based on public sidewalk usage. In order to prioritize

the public usage of sidewalks throughout the City a set of areas or tiers were developed around

critical pedestrian development types.

4.1.1.1 Prioritization Tier System The prioritization tier system was developed based on the location of key pedestrian intensive

development types. The key pedestrian intensive development types that were used to develop

the different prioritization tiers were schools and parks. Schools and parks represent the main

locations within the City were pedestrian traffic occurs and a significant portion of the pedestrian

traffic is expected to be children. Therefore, these locations were assigned a higher priority than

other areas of the City. In order to assign the priorities to each sidewalk segment the locations of

all the parks and schools were determined based on the City’s GIS mapping and then a buffer

area was created around each of these types of developments. Two different buffer distances,

quarter mile and half mile, were created around each school and park to add an extra level of

granularity to the prioritization tiers.

The quarter and half mile buffers represented distances around schools and parks in which it

could be estimated that pedestrians would walk to use these types of facilities. While it is

possible to walk from further distances the amount of pedestrian traffic coming from a distance

over half a mile was assumed to be significantly less than from closer distances and as such was

not included in the top priority tiers.

With the buffers around the school and park development types created a priority system was

developed to determine which areas would represent the highest sidewalk priorities. It was

decided that the most important pedestrian traffic was children and most likely the highest

volume of children pedestrian traffic was going to occur at schools. Schools not only act as

educational centers but also as multiuse facilities with playground equipment, ball fields and

4-3

many other facilities that children may use. Furthermore, it was decided that elementary and

middles schools would have the highest concentration of the pedestrian traffic among children

because many times high school students are driving and are not walking to and from the school.

Therefore, the highest priority tier was determined to be all areas within a quarter mile of

elementary and middle schools. The second tier was determined to be any area within a half

mile of elementary and middle schools, areas within a quarter mile from high schools and areas

within a quarter mile of parks. The third tier was determined to be any areas within a half mile

of high schools as well as areas within a half mile of parks. The fourth and final tier was

comprised of the remaining area within the City boundary that didn’t fall within any of the first

three tiers.

Figure 4.1, on the following page shows the complete tier prioritization system for the City.

Each area of the City is color coded based on which prioritization tier it has been assigned.

4.1.2 Prioritization Results The GIS was used to apply the prioritization tiers to the existing public sidewalk data layer and

determine exactly how much sidewalk was contained in each tier. Each sidewalk segment was

assigned a tier designation that was used to analyze the condition of the sidewalks based on not

only the LOSDefect but also the tier areas. Table 4.1 shows the total length of existing sidewalk as

well as the amount over the target LOSDefect of 0.200.

Table 4.1

Existing Public Sidewalk Lengths by Tier

Prioritization Tier Length of Sidewalk

(Miles)

Length of Sidewalk At Or Above

The Target LOSDefect

(Miles)

Tier 1 92 5

Tier 2 155 6

Tier 3 45 1

Tier 4 61 1

Totals 353 13

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2ND

DOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

OLDHAM

SCRUGGS

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOOD

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOOD

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYO

R

0 1 2Miles

Figure 4.1Tier Prioritization

System

LegendPrioritization Tier

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

RoadsHighwayOn/Off RampArterialCollectorResidentialAlleyPrivateCity Limits

Note:All areas within the City limits not included intier 1, 2, or 3 are included in tier 4.

4-4

Figure 4.2 shows the location all the public sidewalk segments with LOSDefect at or worse than

the target level of 0.200.

4.2 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK Just as with the existing public sidewalk replacement and maintenance, the City has a limited set

of resources that can be applied to the construction of new public sidewalks. Therefore a

prioritization method was used so that the potential new public sidewalk construction projects

could be ranked and fit within an overall plan to bring the public sidewalk system up to the

City’s design criteria.

4.2.1 Prioritization Criteria The foundation of the new public sidewalk construction prioritization strategy was the tier

system that was described previously in section 4.1.1. While the prioritization tier system

provided some guidance on the best locations across the City to apply new sidewalk construction

resources, it was not adequate to subdivide the new construction down to the level necessary

based on the current funding. Therefore, further prioritization methods were used to bring added

granularity to the new sidewalk construction priorities.

4.2.1.1 Public Sidewalk Gap Priorities In order to better prioritize the new sidewalk construction needs throughout the sidewalk system

the first step was to look at the criteria used to identify the gaps. The sidewalk gaps were

initially identified based on the City’s existing sidewalk construction standards. As noted earlier

in this report, this standard requires sidewalks on both sides of arterial and collector street

classifications. While this standard is good for new construction and is an overall good goal for

the City it isn’t currently the highest priority for the construction of sidewalks to fill gaps within

the existing sidewalk system. A sidewalk down one side of these street classifications would

allow safe public access without the need to build sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Therefore, higher priority was given to filling sidewalk gaps so that there would be one good

sidewalk down either side of a street, regardless of residential or arterial/collector classification.

While the prioritization of sidewalks on only one side of a street was the most significant method

of refining the tier prioritization, other guides or criteria were also used. The following list

defines all the prioritization criteria that were defined for the sidewalk gaps within each tier.

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2ND

DOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

OLDHAM

SCRUGGS

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOOD

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOOD

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYO

R

0 1 2Miles

Figure 4.2Sidewalk SystemLevel of Service

LegendSidewalk LOS

LOS >= 0.200LOS < 0.200


4-5

• Sidewalk on one side of a street, regardless of classification, is the highest priority.

• Sidewalk gaps in industrial areas are a lower priority than other areas.

• Sidewalk gaps on cul-de-sacs having fewer than six houses are a lower priority.

• Sidewalk gaps in developments where population density doesn’t deem sidewalks

necessary are a lower priority.

• Sidewalk gaps within developments older than the last 9 years are a higher priority.

Based on the criteria stated previously, each sidewalk gap in the City was given an “A” priority

if it fit within the highest priority category or “B” criteria if it didn’t match the criteria for the

highest priority sidewalk gaps.

The final prioritization filter that was used on the new sidewalk construction gaps was one that

approximated potential sidewalk usage for each gap segment. This was done by overlaying the

prioritized gap segments on the 2005 US Census data. The census data contained information

relating to total population and population density in the location of the sidewalk gap segment.

Therefore, it was possible to determine for each sidewalk segment what the possible pedestrian

traffic might be based on the density of population in the surrounding area. Sidewalk gap

segments in areas with a higher population density were given a higher priority than segments in

areas with a lower population density. This prioritization would be available to decide within the

final A and B priorities if necessary to work within the City’s existing resources.

4.2.2 Prioritization Results After applying all the different prioritization criteria to the public sidewalk gaps, Table 4.2 shows

the breakdown of public sidewalk gaps by tier and high/low priorities.

Table 4.2

Public Sidewalk Gaps by Tier and Priority

Prioritization Tier Length of Priority A

Sidewalk (Miles)

Length of Priority B

Sidewalk (Miles)

Tier 1 18 29

Tier 2 35 51

Tier 3 14 31

Tier 4 28 79

Totals 95 190

4-6

Figure 4.3 shows the location off all the priority A sidewalk gaps across the City. Each gap is color

coded based on prioritization tier.

* * * * *

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2ND

DOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

OLDHAM

SCRUGGS

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOOD

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOOD

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYO

R

0 1 2Miles

Figure 4.3Priority A

Sidewalk Gaps

LegendSidewalk Gap Segments

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3Tier 4


5-1

5.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK FUNDING ANALYSIS

5.1 BACKGROUND The purpose of this section is to review the City’s current sidewalk maintenance and new

construction funding methods and apply these financial resources to the required maintenance

and new sidewalk construction identified. Recommendations of funding methods to help cover

the future cost of sidewalk maintenance and new construction will be covered in chapter 6 of this

report.

5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS The City currently funds all sidewalk maintenance efforts and new construction for public

sidewalks. For the purposes of this section, “new construction for public sidewalks” will be

referred to as simply “new construction.” Developers and builders of new residential,

commercial, and industrial areas are responsible for the construction of new sidewalks in

accordance with the City Code of Ordinances.

The funds historically allocated for sidewalk maintenance and new construction were not

sufficient to address the breadth of the City’s sidewalk maintenance and new construction needs.

In order to help address these needs, the citizens of Lee’s Summit have passed a bond issue that

will be available to fund sidewalk maintenance and new construction plans identified as part of

the Public Sidewalk Inventory Analysis project. The proceeds from the bond issue will be

available through FY 2010.

The projected annual costs associated with sidewalk maintenance include, but are not limited to,

administration and inspection costs, design costs, and construction costs. The current projected

expenditures for FY 2009 total $1.248 million and for FY 2010 total $1.209 million.

Table 5.1 presents a summary of the current funding sources and their projected contributions,

and the projected annual costs associated with sidewalk maintenance and new construction

through FY 2010.

5-2

Table 5.1

Current Public Sidewalk Funding Summary

Bond Expenditure

Funding

FY 2009

($)

FY 2010

($)

Administration/Inspection 60,000 75,000

Construction 1,038,000 1,038,000

Design 150,000 96,000

Other Expenditures 0 0

Totals 1,248,000 1,209,000

The approximately $1.2 million dollars available in FY 2009 and FY 2010 is to be equally split

between the maintenance and reconstruction of existing sidewalk segments and the construction

of new sidewalk segments to fill gaps within the sidewalk system.

5.3 COMPARATOR CITY ANALYSIS In order to provide benchmarks from which Burns & McDonnell based its funding

recommendations, five local municipalities were contacted and interviewed regarding their

sidewalk maintenance and new construction funding methods. The interviews were comprised of

two questions:

1. What are the City’s methods for funding sidewalk construction and sidewalk repair?

2. Are builders/developers required to fund the construction of new sidewalks?

The name of each City, name, title, and contact information for each City representative

interviewed, and summaries of the results of the interviews are provided below.

City of Blue Springs, MO Contact: Jeff Sell Title: Assistance Director of Engineering Phone: 816.228.0121 Date of interview: August 20, 2008

• Funding of new sidewalk construction is the builder’s/owner’s responsibility.

• Funding of sidewalk repair is the owner’s responsibility.

• There is a small amount or city development money used when appropriate.

5-3

• Legislation to fund sidewalk repair and construction through a tax increase was

recently voted down by the community.

City of Independence, MO Contact: Dan McGraw Title: Land Acquisition Phone: 816.325.7600 Date of interview: August 20, 2008


• Funding of city sidewalk repair is provided by a revolving fund managed by the

Finance Department.

• Funding of sidewalk repair is the owner’s responsibility. A contractor remains under

contract with the City for three year periods. If the owner chooses, the City will order

the contractor to perform the work. The City pays the contractor the cost of

construction upfront. Through equally dispersed annual payments over five years, the

owner pays the City back the entire cost of repair or construction, a $75

administration fee to the Public Works Department, and a fee of one percent of the

cost of construction. The bill for construction is added to the owner’s annual personal

property tax fee.

City of Raymore, MO Contact: Mike Krass Title: Director of Public Works Phone: 816.331.1852 ext. 1139 Date: August 27, 2008


• Funding of sidewalk repair is the City’s responsibility.

• Funding of sidewalk repair is provided by a combination of contributions from the

City’s General Fund, a transportation tax, and a capital improvements tax.

5-4

City of Raytown, MO Contact: Jason Hanson Title: City Engineer/Interim Director of Public Works Phone: 816.737.6067 Date of interview: August 25, 2008

• Funding of new sidewalk construction is the builder’s/owner’s responsibility. New

residential developments must have a sidewalk on one side of the street. New

collector and arterial developments must have side walks on both sides of the street if

businesses will occupy both sides of the street.

• Sidewalks must be five feet wide and four inches thick (Americans with Disabilities

Act).

• Funding of city sidewalk repair is provided by a half cent transportation sales tax. The

tax covers transportation infrastructure including street repair, curb repair, sidewalk

repair, etc.

• There are no criteria to qualify repair efforts.

* * * * *

6-1

6.0 PUBLIC SIDEWALK RECOMMENDATIONS

Burns & McDonnell’s recommendations are broken down into two main phases. The first phase

of recommendations includes FY2009 and FY2010. This phase is currently funded through the

sidewalk bond and the recommendations will take this funding into account. The second phase

of recommendations is for the long range sidewalk system management plan. This phase of

recommendations will look out to FY 2020 and provide guidance regarding future sidewalk

program goals and funding.

6.1 EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK As noted in the previous sections of the report, the condition of many of the City’s existing

sidewalks is deteriorating. The following are Burns & McDonnell’s recommendations for a

comprehensive sidewalk maintenance program that will bring deteriorating sidewalks up to an

appropriate level of service as well as maintain the entire sidewalk network at or above the target

level of service.

6.1.1 Phase I Burns & McDonnell recommends calculating the LOSDefect with only the vertical faults one inch

or greater. It is also recommended that the target LOSDefect be set at 0.200 for the entire public

sidewalk system. This method for calculating the sidewalk level of service as well as the target

will allow the City to focus the existing sidewalk bond resources across the greatest amount of

sidewalks. Additionally, it will allow the City to set a solid sidewalk condition baseline

throughout the City by the end of 2010.

In addition to the maintenance and reconstruction of all sidewalk segments that are not up to the

target LOSDefect, it is recommended that any vertical faults across the entire sidewalk system that

are three inch or greater be repaired as soon as feasible. These defects are of a severity that

requires them to be dealt with regardless of whether or not the overall sidewalk segment is in

poor condition. To tend to these defects, of which there are less than 70 across the entire City, a

sidewalk bond set aside of $20,000 is recommended so that each of these locations can be

repaired or replaced during the initial phase of the public sidewalk maintenance and

reconstruction program.

6-1

Since the sidewalk bond funding is available through FY 2010 the sidewalk maintenance and

reconstruction budget requirements have been compiled for the first two year period. The total

construction budget from the sidewalk bond is set at $2.076 million with half of that allocated to

the maintenance and reconstruction of existing sidewalks. Therefore, a total of $1.038 million of

construction can be completed before the end of FY 2010. The $20,000 dollar set aside for

extreme defects was removed from the construction budget resulting in a total construction

budget of $1.018 million before the end of FY 2010.

Table 6.1 shows the costs associated with the reconstruction and maintenance of sidewalk

segments at or below the target LOSDefect based on the allowable budget of $1.018 million from

the sidewalk bond.

Table 6.1

FY 2009 – FY 2010 Existing Sidewalk Maintenance Recommendation Summary

Prioritization Tier Length of Sidewalk At Or

Above The Target LOSDefect

(Feet)

Maintenance /

Reconstruction Cost

($)

Remaining Sidewalk

Bond Funding

($)

Tier 1 26,313 414,000 604,000

Tier 2 29,886 473,000 131,000

Tier 3 5,450 88,000 43,000

Tier 4 7,699 125,000 (82,000)

Totals 69,348 1,100,000 (82,000)

Table 6.1 shows that there is a budget short fall of approximately $82,000 if the entire City is

brought up to the target LOSDefect. The budget short fall is based on the replacement cost factors

discussed in section 2.4. These estimates assume that all sidewalk segments with a rating at or

worse than the LOSDefect will need to be completely replaced. In reality, as the engineering and

design phase of the project begins each one of the locations will be assessed to determine if a

complete reconstruction is necessary or if spot repairs and other maintenance procedures can be

used. Whenever the entire sidewalk segment isn’t actually replaced, additional funding will

move down the ladder to help fund the remaining projects in tier four.

6-2

6-1

6.1.2 Phase II Burns & McDonnell recommends that the City continue with the LOSDefect calculation method

and threshold set in Phase I for the long range sidewalk program. The LOSDefect represents a

good balance of sidewalk quality and maintenance budget requirements for the sidewalk

program.

In order to forecast the estimated cost for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s

sidewalks from FY 2011 – FY 2020, a rate of deterioration was determined. The rate of

deterioration was determined by looking at the overall sidewalk LOSDefect for each segment and

comparing that information with the decade in which the sidewalk segment was constructed.

The result was a LOSDefect deterioration rate of 0.05 per year. The deterioration rate was used to

determine the amount of sidewalk maintenance and rehabilitation that needed to take place each

year based on the actual sidewalk segments in the City.

In addition to determining which sidewalk segments would need to be maintained it was

necessary to determine a maintenance and rehabilitation cost growth rate so that the dollars

estimated in the future reflected a more realistic cost. MODOT bid item 608 for concrete

sidewalk installation was reviewed to find a growth rate over the last five and ten years. The

resulting information fluctuated significantly and the average was approaching ten percent for

the last five years. Burns & McDonnell determined that this growth rate was excessive and as

such not appropriate for the sidewalk program. In order to get a second growth rate estimate,

Burns & McDonnell consulted the Bureau of Labor Statistics ten year historical costing for

concrete. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed a growth rate of 4.11 percent for concrete.

This growth rate is in line with the types of growth rates used for other utilities such as water and

wastewater; therefore it was determine to be a good fit for the projection of costs for the

sidewalk program.

Table 6.2 shows the overall breakdown of sidewalk maintenance and rehabilitation for the long

range planning period including adjusted dollars based on the growth rate discussed above.

6-3

6-1

Table 6.2

Sidewalk Program Long Range Maintenance and Rehabilitation Requirements

Year Length of Sidewalk (Feet)

Maintenance /

Rehabilitation Cost

(Adjusted Dollars)

2011 4,784 77,800

2012 5,242 149,600

2013 3,206 57,600

2014 9,642 178,000

2015 9,306 178,600

2016 9,455 188,500

2017 7,691 159,500

2018 6,054 133,500

2019 8,291 201,500

2020 12,197 284,900

Totals 76,498 1,609,500

Table 6.2 demonstrates that the City’s existing operating budget of $100,000 per year for

sidewalk maintenance is not adequate to maintain the public sidewalk system at the desired

LOSDefect. If the City stayed with the status quo of $100,000 per year for sidewalk maintenance

and rehabilitation by 2015 the sidewalk program would be at a deficit of over $141,000 and by

2020 the deficit would be over $600,000. Therefore, additional funding will be necessary to

adequately maintain the public sidewalk system at the recommended LOSDefect. The cash

analysis of the status quo funding scenario can be found in Appendix A.

Burns & McDonnell is recommending an increase in the yearly operating budget for the

sidewalk program. The increase in operating budget can be handled a variety of different ways

but two main ways are described in this section. The first method to handle the increase in

operating budget is to set a new operating budget based on the cumulative costs over the long

range planning period. This increase will result in higher initial operating budget increase which

may not be the best fit for the City during the current economic setting. The second operating

6-4

6-1

budget increase method includes a two step increase in which the initial increase required is

minimized but in 2016 another operating budget increase will be needed to meet the overall

sidewalk program budget needs in 2020. Burns & McDonnell is recommending the two step

increase for the City’s sidewalk program operating budget.

The two step operating budget increase will begin with an operating budget of $130,000 from

years 2011 – 2015. At the end of this five year period the City’s sidewalk program will have a

budget surplus of approximately $8,000. The second increase will set the operating budget at

$192,000 and will run from 2016 – 2020. The sidewalk program will have a budget surplus of

approximately $500 at the end of 2020. The cash analysis of this funding scenario along with the

issuance of new debt to cover the construction of new sidewalks can be found in Appendix A.

The operating budget increase strategy will allow the City to maintain the public sidewalk

system at a good level of service related to the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing

sidewalks. The operating budget strategy doesn’t provide any excess yearly funding for the

construction of new sidewalks. If the City wishes to address the construction of new sidewalks

through the use of the operating budget additional yearly funding would be necessary.

6.2 NEW PUBLIC SIDEWALK In section 4.2 of this report a detailed discussion was provided of the many different factors

involved in the prioritization and final determination of where new sidewalks should be built

within the City. While all the different prioritization methods allowed the over 280 miles of

sidewalk gaps to be narrowed to approximately 95 miles the volume of new sidewalk

construction work still far exceeds the City’s existing sidewalk bond funding. Additionally, it

was noted during the progression of the project that a one size fits all prioritization doesn’t fit the

new sidewalk construction. Therefore Burns & McDonnell is recommending the following

Phase I and Phase I approaches.

6.2.1 Phase I Burns & McDonnell recommends an initial approach to addressing the construction of new

public sidewalks of applying 80% of the new sidewalk bond funds to the gaps identified in the

prioritization process outlined in this report. The remaining 20% of the sidewalk bond funds will

be kept in reserve to address specific sidewalk connectivity or gaps that don’t fall within the high

6-5

6-1

priority areas of the City. This approach will allow the City to not only systematically apply the

majority of the sidewalk resources to increasing the connectivity of the sidewalk system based on

key analysis parameters but also apply a level of judgment and special consideration to the

application of a portion of the funds to meet specific needs.

Similarly to the existing sidewalk maintenance and reconstruction there will be half of the

overall $2.076 million, or $1.038 million, available for the construction of new sidewalks by the

end of FY 2010. Of the $1.038 million, approximately $830,000 will be applied to the

construction of sidewalks identified through the gap prioritization process and another $207,000

will be held in reserve to develop projects to fill gaps not identified as the highest priority areas.

If an average construction cost of approximately $20 per foot is used the total length of sidewalk

that can be constructed with $830,000 is about 6 miles. As shown in Table 4.2, there are

approximately 18 miles of priority A sidewalk gaps in tier one alone. Therefore further

refinement is recommended.

Burns & McDonnell recommends that the initial sidewalk bond money focus on constructing

sidewalks on residential streets. Overall most pedestrians walk in the neighborhood areas and

not on the major roadways of the City. If the 80% portion of the bond money is focused on

residential street sidewalk gaps then the additional 20% of the bond money could be used to

address specific arterial/collector gaps. Additionally, there will probably be significantly more

opportunities to construct new sidewalks along arterial/collector streets due to other City projects

such as road expansions, water and sewer infrastructure improvements, etc…

The total length of sidewalk gaps in tier 1 that is along a residential street and classified as

priority A is 53,727 feet. This equates to a total construction cost of $1,251,000. The $830,000

budget from 80% of the bond will not cover the entire cost of the construction of all the high

priority residential tier 1 gaps therefore the gaps within this prioritization will be sorted based on

the census population density discussed in section 4.2 of this report.

After applying the census population density information the high priority residential tier one

gaps were sorted to include all segments with a population density of approximately 1575 per

square mile. The resulting construction requirements will include 35,112 feet (6.65 miles) of

new sidewalk at a total construction cost of $816,000. This will leave $220,000 (approximately

6-6

6-1

1.6 miles of sidewalk) available for the construction of special situation or specific sidewalk gap

issues. Figure 6.1 shows the location of all the high priority tier one gaps that will be constructed

with the $816,000.

6.2.2 Phase II Once the FY 2009 – 2010 funding has been exhausted only a small portion of the new public

sidewalk construction needs will have been addressed in the City. Of the 95 total miles of

priority A new sidewalk construction locations, there will be almost 87 miles of construction

needed after the Phase I new public sidewalk funds are spent. Therefore, additional funding will

be necessary to address the new public sidewalk construction needs.

Burns & McDonnell recommends that the City issue another two year bond like the initial one

used in FY 2009 – 2010. The focus of the new bond funding would be to address the highest

priority new public sidewalk construction needs. In order to build all 87 miles of new priority A

sidewalk defined in this report the City would incur a cost of approximately $11.5 million.

Burns & McDonnell assumed that the City didn’t want to make this level of investment at this

time and as such is recommending an approach in which the priority A new public sidewalk

needs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 are addressed by the new bond. A new bond amount of $2.5 million is

recommended because it will allow the City to address all the remaining Tier 1 priority A areas

and still address approximately 5 miles of new public sidewalk within Tier 2.

The new bond would be issued for FY 2011 – 2012 and would be dedicated to the construction

of new sidewalks and any existing sidewalk maintenance or rehabilitation projects would be

funded by the increase in sidewalk system operating budget described in section 6.1.2. Of the

$2.5 million total bond value, it is assumed that approximately $375,000 of the money would go

to the administration/inspection and design of the new sidewalk projects and $2.125 million

would be available for the construction of sidewalks. An average construction cost of $45 per

square yard was used to determine that approximately 16 miles of new sidewalks could be

designed and built with the new bond money. It is Burns & McDonnell’s recommendation that

the remaining 10 – 12 miles of priority A sidewalks in Tier 1 that weren’t constructed with the

FY 2009 - 2010 funding be built with the new bond. The remaining 4 - 6 miles of new public

sidewalks funding should be focused on the priority A areas in Tier 2 and/or the funding of the

6-7

3RD

BLUE

WARD

HOOK

CHIPMAN

2ND

DOUGLASLONGVIEW

SCHERER

OLDHAM

SCRUGGS

TODD

GEO

RGE

RANS

ON

COLBERN

WOODS CHAPEL

TUDOR

VIEW

HIGH

COUNTY LINE

139TH

LAKE

WOOD

BLAC

KWEL

L

INDE

PEND

ENCE

HAMBLENPR

YOR

GREGORY

LEES

SUMM

IT

BOWLIN

OLDHAM

LAKE

WOOD

INDE

PEND

ENCE

OLDHAM

PRYO

R

0 1 2Miles

Figure 6.1High Priority, Tier 1Residential Gaps

LegendHigh Priority Tier 1 Gaps


6-1

special issue fund started in the Phase I recommendations that will allow the City to address new

public sidewalk construction projects that don’t fit the structured Tier system approach. The

cash analysis of this funding scenario along with the yearly maintenance budget needs can be

found in Appendix A.

At the end of FY 2012 the City will have addressed the highest priority new public sidewalk

construction needs and will then need to make a decision about what to do with the remaining

new public sidewalk construction locations. A new public sidewalk construction budget of

approximately $500,000 over the next 10 years would allow the City to address 90% of the

priority A new public sidewalk construction needs within Tiers 1, 2, and 3. A discussion relating

to this issue can be found below in the policy guidance section.

6.3 POLICY

Burns & McDonnell has reviewed the information from the comparator cities as well as the input

gathered during the public meetings for the sidewalk program, to determine a recommended

future public sidewalk program policy. With regards to the maintenance and rehabilitation of the

public sidewalk system it is recommended that the City fund this portion of the program. Three

of the four comparator cities fund sidewalk repairs from internal City mechanisms and in at least

one case a portion of a transportation tax is used to fund these activities. The possibility of

funding the maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s public sidewalks through an additional

tax was well received by almost 70% of the citizens who attended the public meetings for the

sidewalk project.

The funding of new public sidewalk construction is handled in basically the same way by all

comparator cities. Each comparator city requires the developer/owner to build new sidewalks

and no city funds are used for these activities. In most cases these policies are set with respect to

new development in which sidewalks are part of the required development project. The

comparator cities didn’t note a policy regarding the specific issue of building new sidewalks

where the development policies of the time didn’t require it or where gaps have been left in the

sidewalk system due to other circumstances. Therefore based on the input from the public

meetings it is Burns & McDonnell’s recommendation that either a bond issue or tax mechanism

be used to support a fund for the construction of new public sidewalks in the City.

6-8

Appendix A – Funding Analysis Tables

PUB

LIC

SID

EWA

LK IN

VEN

TOR

Y A

NA

LYSI

S FO

REC

AST

- ST

ATU

S Q

UO

CA

SH A

NA

LYSI

S

Cas

h Fl

ow A

naly

sis

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

FY 2

015

FY 2

016

FY 2

017

FY 2

018

FY 2

019

FY 2

020

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

Inco

me

Bon

d P

roce

eds

2,45

7,00

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

G

rant

Pro

ceed

s-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

O

ther

Inco

me

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tota

l Inc

ome

2,45

7,00

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Expe

nses

Con

stru

ctio

nN

ew C

onst

ruct

ion

975,

600

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

ehab

ilita

tion

1,10

0,40

0

77

,800

14

9,60

0

57,6

00

178,

000

17

8,60

0

188,

500

15

9,50

0

133,

500

20

1,50

0

28

4,90

0

A

dmin

istra

tion/

Insp

ectio

n13

5,00

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Des

ign

246,

000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

O

ther

Exp

ense

s-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

To

tal E

xpen

se2,

457,

000

77,8

00

149,

600

57

,600

17

8,00

0

178,

600

18

8,50

0

159,

500

13

3,50

0

201,

500

284,

900

Net

Cas

h Fl

ow F

rom

Ope

ratio

ns-

$

(7

7,80

0)$

(149

,600

)$

(5

7,60

0)$

(178

,000

)$

(1

78,6

00)

$

(188

,500

)$

(1

59,5

00)

$

(133

,500

)$

(2

01,5

00)

$

(284

,900

)$

Net

Cas

h, B

egin

ning

of Y

ear

-

-

22,2

00

(27,

400)

15

,000

(6

3,00

0)

(141

,600

)

(2

30,1

00)

(289

,600

)

(3

23,1

00)

(424

,600

)

N

etC

ash

Flow

from

Ope

ratio

ns-

(77

800)

(149

600)

(57

600)

(178

000)

(178

600)

(188

500)

(159

500)

(133

500)

(201

500)

(284

900)

Net

Cas

h Fl

ow fr

om O

pera

tions

-

(77,

800)

(1

49,6

00)

(57,

600)

(178

,000

)

(1

78,6

00)

(188

,500

)

(1

59,5

00)

(133

,500

)

(2

01,5

00)

(2

84,9

00)

Tr

ansf

ers

To (F

rom

) Sid

ewal

k Fu

nd-

10

0,00

0

100,

000

10

0,00

0

100,

000

10

0,00

0

100,

000

10

0,00

0

100,

000

10

0,00

0

10

0,00

0

N

et C

ash,

Yea

r-E

nd-

22

,200

(2

7,40

0)

15,0

00

(63,

000)

(1

41,6

00)

(230

,100

)

(2

89,6

00)

(323

,100

)

(4

24,6

00)

(609

,500

)

Net

Cha

nge

in C

ash

-

22,2

00

(49,

600)

42

,400

(7

8,00

0)

(78,

600)

(8

8,50

0)

(59,

500)

(3

3,50

0)

(101

,500

)

(1

84,9

00)

Cas

h Fl

ow A

naly

sis

FY 2

010

FY 2

011

FY 2

012

FY 2

013

FY 2

014

FY 2

015

FY 2

016

FY 2

017

FY 2

018

FY 2

019

FY 2

020

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

Inco

me

Bon

d P

roce

eds

2,45

7,00

0

1,

250,

000

1,

250,

000

-

-

-

-

G

rant

Pro

ceed

sO

ther

Inco

me

-

Tota

l Inc

ome

2,45

7,00

0

1,

250,

000

1,

250,

000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Expe

nses

Con

stru

ctio

nN

ew C

onst

ruct

ion

975,

600

1,

050,

000

1,

050,

000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

ehab

ilita

tion

1,10

0,40

0

77

,800

14

9,60

0

57

,600

178,

000

178,

600

188,

500

159,

500

133,

500

201,

500

284,

900

A

dmin

istra

tion/

Insp

ectio

n13

5,00

0

75,0

00

75,0

00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Des

ign

246,

000

12

5,00

0

12

5,00

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

O

ther

Exp

ense

s-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

To

tal E

xpen

se2,

457,

000

1,32

7,80

0

1,39

9,60

0

57,6

00

17

8,00

0

17

8,60

0

18

8,50

0

15

9,50

0

13

3,50

0

20

1,50

0

28

4,90

0

Net

Cas

h Fl

ow F

rom

Ope

ratio

ns-

$

(7

7,80

0)$

(1

49,6

00)

$

(57,

600)

$

(178

,000

)$

(1

78,6

00)

$

(188

,500

)$

(1

59,5

00)

$

(133

,500

)$

(2

01,5

00)

$

(284

,900

)$

Net

Cas

h, B

egin

ning

of Y

ear

-

-

52

,200

32

,600

105,

000

57,0

00

8,40

0

11

,900

44

,400

10

2,90

0

93

,400

N

et C

ash

Flow

from

Ope

ratio

ns-

(7

7,80

0)

(1

49,6

00)

(57,

600)

(178

,000

)

(1

78,6

00)

(188

,500

)

(1

59,5

00)

(133

,500

)

(2

01,5

00)

(2

84,9

00)

Tf

T(F

)Sid

lkF

d13

000

013

000

013

000

013

000

013

000

019

200

019

200

019

200

019

200

019

200

0

PUB

LIC

SID

EWA

LK IN

VEN

TOR

Y A

NA

LYSI

S FO

REC

AST

- N

EW D

EBT

ISSU

AN

CE

CA

SH A

NA

LYSI

S

Tran

sfer

s To

(Fro

m) S

idew

alk

Fund

-

130,

000

130,

000

130,

000

130,

000

130,

000

192,

000

192,

000

192,

000

192,

000

192,

000

N

et C

ash,

Yea

r-E

nd-

52

,200

32

,600

10

5,00

0

57

,000

8,

400

11,9

00

44,4

00

102,

900

93,4

00

50

0

Net

Cha

nge

in C

ash

-

52,2

00

(19,

600)

72,4

00

(4

8,00

0)

(4

8,60

0)

3,

500

32,5

00

58,5

00

(9,5

00)

(9

2,90

0)

lee’s summit missouri - walk friendly communitiesassessment.walkfriendly.org/fileupload/sidewalk...

Documents