Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment

A Self-Evaluation for the City of Sioux Falls, SD

December 1, 2017

1

Executive Summary The Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment was a initiative to create a comprehensive database of the sidewalk network features within the city of Sioux Falls, SD. The database and inventory were designed to serve as the City’s Self-Evaluation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.) The assessment evaluated both condition and compliance of the sidewalk network, with the intent of providing information to better inform programs and projects related to sidewalk accessibility and outline improvements for the City’s ADA Transition Plan.

The project was completed by City of Sioux Falls staff with assistance in designing the database from the consulting firm Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. The data collection for the inventory took place between May 2017 and August 2017 by a team that included seven interns and an Engineering Technician II. Minor corrections and finalization of data collection occurred through October 2017. The data collection team examined and recorded measurements for all sidewalks curb ramps and pedestrian signals, along with the operational status of the pedestrian signals, within the 78.1 square miles within the city of Sioux Falls, amounting to over 1,021 miles of sidewalk. In addition to measurements, the team recorded the geolocation of each feature and took photographs of all curb ramps. The inventory data was compiled into a geodatabase and underwent quality assurance processes that involved both automated and manual checks.

An ADA compliance index was developed to analyze the results of the inventory. Each detail of compliance was rated on a scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 represented full compliance with the proposed Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). Scores for individual details of compliance were aggregated for each segment of sidewalk, curb ramp, and pedestrian signal in order to summarize the overall compliance of the feature.

In general, the analysis revealed that compliance scores tended to be highest at the outside areas of the city where the pedestrian network was constructed after the development of modern accessibility standards. The downtown area, with higher pedestrian volumes, has also been a focus for accessibility upgrades. On average, neighborhoods in the core of the community, many of which contain pedestrian network features that predate ADA, had the lowest levels of compliance. Older areas with hilly topography had particularly low compliance levels, due to the natural tendency towards steeper sidewalk slopes. Overall, neighborhoods or street segments that have had an alteration or reconstruction project rated quite high.

To evaluate the sidewalk and ramp condition, a condition index was developed. The condition index was similar in design to the compliance index, but evaluated condition factors not included within the PROWAG requirements. The data collection team noted any major condition issues with pedestrian signals, but a condition index was not used to evaluate these features.

Overall, sidewalks on the outer perimeter of the city, and also downtown sidewalks, had the highest condition rating. Curb ramp condition scores followed a similar but less distinct trend and were more scattered due to ramp retrofit projects that have taken place throughout the city. Surface condition issues were the most common condition defects found on curb ramps, while sidewalks were more likely

2

to score poorly due to vertical faults or number of cracked panels. In addition, the team noted a small number of pedestrian signals had nonfunctional pushbuttons.

Based on the findings of the Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment, the City will develop recommendations to comply with ADA standards and condition requirements and be included in the City’s ADA Transition Plan. Completing this self-evaluation has been a major undertaking, but it will move the City of Sioux Falls towards making pedestrian accessibility even better for residents and visitors.

3

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4

Background ........................................................................................................................... 5

Federal Policies and Standards ................................................................................................... 5

Local Programs, Policies, and Regulations .................................................................................. 7

Local Plans ................................................................................................................................... 9

Project Approach ................................................................................................................. 13

GIS Architecture, Mapping and Analysis ............................................................................... 17

Disability Community Outreach ........................................................................................... 22

Sidewalk Inventory Results .................................................................................................. 23

ADA Compliance Assessment ................................................................................................... 23

Sidewalk ADA Compliance .................................................................................................... 26

Curb Ramp ADA Compliance................................................................................................. 37

Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................... 54

Pedestrian Signal Accessibility ............................................................................................. 63

Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment Interactive Map ............................................ 71

Appendix 1: Sidewalk Network Inventory Data Model ......................................................... 72

4

Introduction The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is the nation’s first comprehensive civil rights law which offers protections and addresses needs of people with disabilities. Title II of the Act prohibits state and local government agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities in their programs, services, and activities.

Among the City services that must be accessible to individuals with disabilities are transportation facilities, which includes pedestrian facilities. The current best-practices for pedestrian network accessibility is the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines1 (PROWAG). The PROWAG standards were developed by the Access Board, a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design. The Access Board released the proposed PROWAG in 2011, although a final rule is still pending. PROWAG provides guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. The guidelines ensure that sidewalks, pedestrian street crossings, pedestrian signals, and other facilities for pedestrian circulation that are constructed or altered in the public right-of-way are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. The City of Sioux Falls has adopted PROWAG as the best-practice for pedestrian facility compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.)

In order to assess a government agency’s ADA compliance, the ADA require a transition plan to describe current conditions and the steps necessary to complete any required modifications to transition to full compliance with the Act. The transition plan must include a self-evaluation in which barriers to accessibility are inventoried. The plan must also prioritize modifications to those barriers based on certain criteria and provide a schedule for implementing accessibility improvements. To comply with ADA, a self-evaluation of pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way was completed to measure and analyze the network for compliance. The information will be used to update the City of Sioux Falls ADA Transition Plan.

The City’s goals for the self-evaluation project included:

• Assess the condition and ADA compliance of pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals.

• Identify sidewalk gaps, missing curb ramps, pedestrian signal access, and priority areas for sidewalk network improvements.

• Create a comprehensive geographic database of pedestrian facilities features. • Promote policy updates with recommendations for pedestrian facility maintenance,

improvements, and funding.

The City’s pedestrian network consists of 1,021 miles of sidewalk and is growing every day. Data collection for the self-assessment was completed from May–August 2017 with a team of seven student interns. During the inventory, data on sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals were collected to

1 Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-guidelines

5

assess both condition and ADA compliance. The subsequent sections of the self-evaluation report provide additional background information, project approach, geospatial database structure, analysis of data collected and assessment of condition, and compliance of the pedestrian network.

Background In preparation to complete the self-assessment requirement of updating the City’s ADA transition plan, the City reviewed ADA inventory and assessment procedures from Bellevue, Washington; Lee’s Summit, Missouri; and the Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area (CUUATS). Both Bellevue, WA, and CUUATS allowed the City to incorporate elements of their report into the Sioux Falls report.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc was sourced to provide services involving the design of the sidewalk asset data model, data collection process and data visualization options.

Federal Policies and Standards2 Over the past five decades, state and federal regulators have enacted increasingly comprehensive protections for people with disabilities (see Table 1). These policies and standards form the backdrop for accessibility policies at the local level.

Americans with Disabilities Act Federal accessibility policy has its origin in the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968. The Act required limited accessibility provisions in buildings purchased or leased with federal funds.

During the 1970s, Congress enacted sweeping protections for individuals with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited discrimination on the

2 Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment for the Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area, February 2016, https://ccrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SidewalkNetworkInventoryAssessment.pdf

6

basis of disability by federal agencies and contractors and required new or altered facilities used for federally funded programs to be accessible. Unlike previous legislation, the Act framed accessibility as a civil rights issue, paving the way for the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also established the Access Board, a federal agency responsible for developing accessibility standards and investigating complaints. In 1988, the Civil Rights Restoration Act extended the protections of the Rehabilitation Act to all programs of agencies that receive federal funds.

The most comprehensive federal legislation protecting individuals with disabilities is the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its amendments. Building on the civil rights protections of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA guarantees equal access to areas such as employment, public facilities, transportation, and government services. Among other provisions, ADA requires state and local agencies to develop a transition plan that includes a self-evaluation of existing facilities and a prioritized list of future accessibility improvements.

Table 1 Federal Policies and Standards Timeline

Decade Americans with Disabilities Act Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 1960s 1968: Architectural Barriers Act (ABA)

1970s 1973: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act banned discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds 1977: Section 504 regulations were issued, paving the way for the ADA

1980s 1986: The National Council on Disability recommended enactment of ADA in its Toward Independence report 1988: Civil Rights Restoration Act

1990s 1990: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1991: Access Board published the original ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 1999: Access Board published updated ADAAG for public comment

1992: Access Board proposed guidelines for government facilities, including rules for public right-of-way 1998: Access Board issued final rules for government facilities but deferred action on public right-of-way rules 1999: Access Board convened the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (PROWAAC)

2000s 2004: Access Board published final ADAAG 2006: Department of Transportation adopted final ADAAG 2008: ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) was enacted

2001: PROWAAC reported its findings to the Access Board 2002: Access Board published draft Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) 2005: Access Board published revised draft PROWAG

2010s 2010: Department of Justice adopted final ADAAG

2011: Access Board published proposed PROWAG 2012: Public comment period for proposed PROWAG ended

During the 1990s and 2000s, the Access Board developed the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) describing the standards for accessible buildings and facilities. These standards were adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006 and 2010, respectively, giving them the force of law. Under ADA, the standards apply to state and local government facilities, transportation facilities, and most private commercial establishments.

7

Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines Public rights-of-way, including the pedestrian network, are required to be accessible to people with disabilities under Title II of ADA. In 1992, the Access Board proposed guidelines for government facilities that included standards for the public right-of-way. Based on public comments, however, the Board deferred action on the public right-of-way standards and instead formed the Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (PROWAAC) to make recommendations.

Following PROWAAC’s 2001 report, Building a True Community, the Access Board published the draft Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) containing standards for pedestrian access routes in the public right-of-way. The draft guidelines were revised in 2005, and proposed guidelines were published in 2011. The public comment period for PROWAG ended in 2012, and a final rule has not yet been released.

Local Programs, Policies, and Regulations The City of Sioux Falls has a long history of being a leader in South Dakota in the areas of pedestrian mobility and accessibility. The City has had a program for installing, inspecting, and maintaining sidewalks for over 30 years. The City has also been proactive in removing curb barriers and replacing them with accessible curb ramps.

The City of Sioux Falls, through coordination between Planning, Public Works, and the City’s ADA Coordinator, makes every effort to provide clear guidance on when, where, and how sidewalks should be constructed. The City follows all federal, state, and local laws and monitors trends in best practices and designs.

Requirements for New Development Chapter 96 of the Code of Ordinances of Sioux Falls, SD,3 requires the construction of a permanent sidewalk that fronts or abuts all streets, highways, and avenues, by the builder, owner, or developer of all new or relocated residential and commercial buildings within the city. This requires a permit for the sidewalk installation in the right-of-way and an inspection after the sidewalk installation.

3 Code of Ordinances of Sioux Falls, SD, http://www.siouxfalls.org/council/city-clerk/ordinances

8

Design Standards The relevant design standards are located in Chapter 16: Accessible Sidewalk Requirements of the Sioux Falls Engineering Design Standards4, which have been developed in accordance with the Proposed Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

The design standards and associated standard plates establish the criteria necessary to make sidewalk and ramp elements physically accessible to people with disabilities. It also identifies what features need to be accessible and then provides the specific measurements, dimensions, and other technical information needed to make the feature accessible.

Ownership, Maintenance, and Replacement Sidewalks within the public right-of-way are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner per South Dakota Codified Law, Chapter 9-465. Property owner responsibilities include repair, replacement, and snow removal. The City has taken responsibility for maintaining the corner ADA curb ramps once they are constructed.

Snow Removal City ordinances require the property owner or person in possession of any property abutting any sidewalk to keep the sidewalk free from snow and ice, and to remove any snow or ice from the sidewalk within 48 hours after the termination of any snowfall, snow, or ice accumulation. Citizens may submit sidewalk snow removal complaints to the City’s Property Maintenance department by phone or online. There is also a local program through the 211 Helpline Center, Scoop It6, to assist low income or disabled individuals who are unable to shovel their own snow.

4 Chapter 16: Accessible Sidewalk Requirements of the Sioux Falls Engineering Design Standards, http://www.siouxfalls.org/public-works/engineering/construction-mgmt/resources/design-standards/design-stds/chapter16 5 South Dakota Codified Law, http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/default.aspx 6 Scoop It Program Website, http://www.siouxfalls.org/code-enforcement/sidewalk-snow/scoop-it-program

9

Website The City’s website7 summarizes sidewalk information relevant to residents. It condenses the multiple sources of policies, ordinances, and laws related to sidewalks into a concise and easy to understand format.

Local Plans There are several planning documents that directly or indirectly touch on issues of pedestrian network construction and maintenance. While these plans are not legally binding, they provide a context for integrating pedestrian network improvements with ongoing planning efforts. Relevant plans are listed and summarized below.

Long-Range Transportation Plan (2035)8 The Sioux Falls Metropolitan Area Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is designed to guide multi-modal transportation activities through the year 2035. In the development of the plan, a transportation survey was administered to 1,066 residents. An employer survey was administered to 370 employers and a survey of traditionally underserved populations (or transit survey) was administered to 261 persons who use public transportation services. Focus groups were held with many different representative groups to design questions that were included in the surveys. Open-ended stakeholder interviews were conducted with 42 leaders than influence transportation decision making in the Sioux Falls MPO area.

The Long-Range Transportation Plan reflects the importance of pedestrian facilities to Sioux Falls residents and outlined the following benefits of a walkable community:

• More active and healthier people; • People and family-oriented development;

7 City of Sioux Falls Sidewalk Website, http://www.siouxfalls.org/sidewalk 8 Long-Range Transportation Plan (2035), http://www.siouxfalls.org/~/media/Documents/planning/long-range/lrtp/2035_lrtp/adopted_lrtp_rev120210.pdf

10

• Transportation choices; • Independent mobility for children; • Accessibility for all; and • Lower income mobility.

Shape Sioux Falls 2040 In 2016, the City of Sioux Falls completed and approved the Shape Sioux Falls 2040 Plan9, which is a comprehensive development plan used to guide city growth and development. The document reinforces the need for sidewalk and pedestrian connectivity.

Sioux Falls Complete Streets Policy The City of Sioux Falls has adopted a Complete Streets10 policy, Resolution 53-15, for planning, designing, and constructing all new City transportation improvement projects in an effort to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users.

1. The planning and design of street projects will give due consideration to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities from the very start of planning and design work for roadway projects.

2. The City of Sioux Falls will follow generally accepted or adopted design standards when designing improvements intended to fulfill the Complete Streets policy, but will also consider innovative or nontraditional design from guidance issued by AASHTO, ITE, NACTO, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

3. The Complete Streets policy will apply to all street projects except under one or more of the following conditions as determined by the City Engineer:

a. Ordinary maintenance activities and pavement preservation activities;

b. Design features that would put roadway users at a relatively high safety risk; and

c. Design features that would impose excessive and disproportionate costs in relation to the need or probable use.

9 Shape Sioux Falls 2040 Plan, http://www.siouxfalls.org/planning-building/planning/shape 10 Complete Streets Website, http://www.siouxfalls.org/planning-building/planning/complete-streets

11

4. It will be important to the success of the Complete Streets policy to ensure that the project development process includes early consideration of the land use and transportation context of the project, the identification of gaps or deficiencies in the network for various user groups that could be addressed by the project, and an assessment of the tradeoffs to balance the needs of all users. The context factors that should be given high priority include the following:

a. Whether the corridor provides a primary access to a significant destination such as a community or regional park or recreational area, a school, a shopping/commercial area, or an employment center;

b. Whether the corridor provides access across a natural or man-made barrier such as a river or freeway;

c. Whether the corridor is in an area where a relatively high number of users of non-motorized transportation modes can be anticipated;

d. Whether a road corridor provides important continuity or connectivity links for an existing trail or path network; or

e. Whether nearby routes that provide a similar level of convenience and connectivity already exist.

5. Implementation strategies may include, but will not be limited to, the following:

a. Consider, when appropriate, roadway design that slows motor vehicles and/or limits access so as to provide greater safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists (e.g., lane narrowing or the reduction of lanes, reduction of access, etc.).

b. Evaluate the effectiveness of narrowing pedestrian crossing distances at intersections where high motor vehicle counts and high pedestrian counts are expected. Narrowing can be accomplished with pedestrian refuge islands or curb bump-outs.

12

c. Provide appropriate bicycle accommodation in accordance with the Sioux Falls Bicycle Plan.

d. Use pedestrian-scale design elements adjacent to sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities (e.g., pedestrian scale lighting, application of buffers between roadways and sidewalks or shared use paths, application of street furniture, etc.).

e. Evaluate the use of traffic calming features along all roadway corridors.

f. Provide pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks adjacent to all streets.

g. Consider streetscaping along newly constructed or reconstructed roadways.

h. Implement items from the current City of Sioux Falls ADA Transition Plan to include design features for accessible pedestrian facilities.

i. Provide advance notice of construction projects to key bicycle and pedestrian network users.

j. Provide alternate routes for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit during construction, reconstruction, and repair of streets and trails. Incorporate time traffic signals with adequate pedestrian crossing time. Consider exclusive pedestrian timing or “leading pedestrian intervals” where pedestrian crossing volumes are high.

k. Develop a maintenance projection for on-street bike facilities, sidewalks, streetscaping, transit bus stops, and shared use paths to include pavement rehabilitation, street sweeping, pavement markings for pedestrian and bike facilities, and general cleaning.

l. Where appropriate, ask transit provider(s) to review alternatives of corridor studies.

13

Project Approach Geographic Information Systems (GIS) played a pivotal role in the project from data acquisition to creating a web-based mapping interface for asset management and compliance monitoring. Additional functionality of the geospatial database includes the ability to search and/or turn off certain defect types and generate reports of the defect information. The geospatial database was created by the City’s GIS department and is described in detail in a subsequent section.

Sidewalk Network Feature Creation Initially, all visible sidewalk was digitized from the City’s 2014 aerial imagery. After completing this task, there were several miles of sidewalk features remaining that were constructed after 2014. Various methods were used to capture that information including referencing as-built CAD files, GPS data, and other aerial resources to geospatially create the necessary sidewalk features. Near the end of the project, we received updated aerial imagery, which was captured on May 2, 2017.

At the conclusion of the inventory, the sidewalk database consisted of 1,021 miles of sidewalk and 13,557 curb ramps.

Figure 1 Screen Capture of Sidewalk Network Editing in ArcMap

14

The following GIS features were created during the digitization process:

• Sidewalk Line Segments – Pedestrian paths adjacent to public streets.

Sidewalk segments were created for each parcel frontage.

• Curb Ramp Points – Transitions between sidewalk and the street.

Ramp points were created for every ramp location at each radius.

• Intersection Points – GIS network connectivity.

Intersection points were created to easily identify sidewalk segment breaks.

• Crosswalks – Path segment connecting curb ramp points.

Crosswalk segments were added to the sidewalk ADA database for connectivity between segments. Defined crosswalk locations with pavement markings and/or contrasting pavement are included in a separate GIS database.

To increase field productivity as much as possible, attribute information was populated in the office and verified in the field for accuracy.

Sidewalk Inspection To accomplish the self-evaluation inspection within the required time frame, it was necessary to use seven data collection team members in the field. The goal was to evaluate the sidewalk features consistently as if a single individual evaluated every segment. To accomplish this challenging goal, each member was trained by the same leader and then each team member would work with another team member before working alone.

Figure 2 As-built Linework Used to Supplement 2014 Aerial Imagery

15

Field Equipment Each data collection team member was equipped with an iPad, the ESRI Collector Application, and a ‘Slope Walker’ smart level. Non-typical width measurements were measured using a conventional tape measure as required.

There was no need for a running length measurement since the sidewalk segments were created geospatially and were automatically attributed with the segment length.

Inspection Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Data collection team members were required to verify and populate sidewalk features prior to inspecting the features. Any database discrepancies or omissions found in the field were documented on the iPad. Feature inspections were then completed after the GIS database was updated with the corrected information found in the field.

If a team member encountered an unknown sidewalk condition or was unsure about how to classify a certain defect or issue, the team member would take a picture. The team leader would review the picture and provide guidance to resolve the issue.

Collection of Condition Defects and Details of ADA Compliance

All defect issues found for each sidewalk segment were documented. By reporting issues for each individual segment, it eliminated the need for spatial point identification while still giving a relative location for each defect. The mean sidewalk segment length was 79.6 feet. The table below shows the various sidewalk condition defects and details of ADA compliance that were collected as a part of the inventory.

16

Table 2 Table of Condition Defects and Compliance Details Collected for Sidewalks and Pedestrian Signals

Variable Units Sidewalks Ramps Pedestrian Signals / Pushbuttons

Assessment Index

Material --- ! ! ( Inventory

Length Feet ! ! ! Compliance

Width Feet ! ! ! Compliance

Running Slope Percent ! ! ! Compliance

Cross Slope Percent ! ! ! Compliance

Landing Space (Size) Inches ( ! ( Compliance

Landing Space (Slope) Percent ( ! ( Compliance

Detectable Warning --- ( ! ( Compliance

Condition Rating --- ! ! ( Condition

Obstructions Count ! ! ( Compliance

Vertical Faults Count ! ! ( Compliance

Horizontal Faults Count ! ! ( Condition

Cracking Count ! ! ( Condition

Non-Compliant Driveway Count ! ! ( Condition

Ponding Count ! ! ( Condition

Spalling Count ! ! ( Condition

Sediment Deposit Count ! ! ( Condition

Utility Access Count ! ! ( Compliance

Panels Affected Count ( ( ( Condition

Address --- ! ( ( Inventory

Parcel ID --- ! ( ( Inventory

Visual Appearance --- ! ! ! Inventory

Comments --- ( ! ! Inventory

Photos --- ( ! ! Inventory

Additional Pedestrian Signal-Only Compliance Variables

- Crossing Direction - Button Type - Button Operational - Orientation to Crosswalk - Crossing Sign - Pushbutton to Offset (Feet) - Pushbutton to Face of Curb (Feet) - Pushbutton to Reach to Clear Ground Space (Inches) - Pushbutton to Height (Inches) - ADA Standard Clear Space - Walking Distance from PB to Exit Crosswalk - Timer - Distance between Push Buttons (Inches) - Signal Head to Crosswalk Offset (Feet)

& All Features

( No Features

17

GIS Architecture, Mapping and Analysis The City of Sioux Falls maintains a comprehensive, enterprise-wide Geographic Information System (GIS). These key technology/software components were utilized in this project:

• Database o SQL Server 2016 o ArcGIS 10.5.1 Geodatabase

• Server o Enterprise - ArcGIS Server

• Cloud o ArcGIS Online o Web App Builder

• Desktop o ArcGIS 10.5.1 o ArcGIS Data Reviewer Extension

• Field o iPads / iPhones / Android Smartphones o Verizon Data Cards o ArcGIS Collector Application

Figure 3 shows the ESRI GIS Architecture used in this project.

Figure 3 GIS Architecture

18

Sidewalk Network Inventory Data Model The self-evaluation requirement of the ADA Transition Plan has proven to be one of the most challenging provisions for local government. In order to assess the state of pedestrian network features, governments need a large quantity of field data corresponding to current accessibility standards. These standards have evolved since their development. ADA provides little guidance on how accessibility data should be collected or assessed, leaving municipalities to develop their own procedures.

The City researched industry best practices and standards to determine the optimal ADA configuration and schema for our current and anticipated future needs. It consulted the consulting firm of Burns & McDonnell Company, Inc., a multi-disciplinary firm that also provides high level GIS services, to receive guidance and insight on how to proceed. Ultimately, the City designed the ADA features model using a unique combination of schemas from the ESRI Local Government Information Model, advice from Burns and McDonnell, and incorporated fields to help determine if the City is meeting the standards for PROWAG. See Figure 4 and Appendix 1: Sidewalk Network Inventory Data Model, for an example of each feature class, its description, a visual representation, and the attributes collected.

The sidewalk and the curb ramp feature classes also had condition data collected via an inspection. The inspection included noting any defects and what type, how many occurrences of each defect, and for sidewalks, how many sidewalk panels are affected.

Finally, any sidewalks and curb ramps with defects were photographed and added while in the field or later in the office. The photos were attached to the associated feature class and were available in the field, on the web, and on the desktop in the office.

Preparing Maps for Data Collection Streamlining and seamlessly connecting field crews and office workers was vital for the overall success of the data collection workflow. The data collection team increased production by working off of data that was directly connected to the Enterprise GIS. A web map was created in ArcGIS Online to allow editing and data collection in the field using Collector for ArcGIS. The web map was created using a

Figure 4 GIS Feature Classes

19

basemap, adding a feature service from ArcGIS Server that was published in ArcMap, and configuring the data collection form.

The workflow used for preparing data and creating a map enabled our field crews to gather data on smart phones or tablets using Collector for ArcGIS as shown in Figure 6.11 Finally, the Collector for ArcGIS app was downloaded and opened in the tablet or Smartphone to begin the inspection workflow. The City also monitored areas where the data collection team was working by publishing a tracking layer that collected the routes of the team. This improved reliability and consistency throughout the group.

11 https://resources.esri.ca/ann-stories/tech-spotlight-how-arcgis-apps-can-change-your-field-operations

Figure 5 Data Collection Web Map

Figure 6 Workflow for Preparing Data and Mapping for use by Field Crews

20

Database Quality Assurance / Quality Control During the initial data collection, 1,021 miles of sidewalk and 13,557 curb ramps were collected. A thorough review of every record posed challenges given the scale of the project and the number of people and systems involved. Data error collections can result from multiple factors including touchscreen data entry, inconsistent data entry, and human digitizing errors. Geometric networks and geodatabase versioning were used to aid in our quality assurance and quality control efforts.

Geometric networks are used to model networks and infrastructure. A geometric network resides within our ADA dataset in our geodatabase. After creating a geometric network, there are various network analysis tools that can be performed on the data. For example, finding all connected or disconnected sidewalks, and calculating the shortest path between two points using sidewalks.

Geodatabase versioning was used in order to facilitate the proper data flow between our office and field verification. Office staff utilized best editing practices in the office version of the geodatabase while the data collection team utilized best practices in the field version. These two versions were then reconciled and posted to a data review version. The data review version was reviewed by a data expert prior to being reconciled and posted to our production geodatabase.

Other data checks were also utilized in the office and in the field. Engineering Project Managers, GIS Specialists and Analysts, and Engineering Data Collectors performed spot checks, evaluated Data Reviewer results, queried outliers, identified null or missing values, assessed incorrect unit types, and reviewed the data collected on each feature for completeness.

21

Data Analysis To understand the patterns and overall condition of our data, spatial relationships and spatial patterns were identified. Python for ArcGIS was used to populate condition scores by selecting records, calculating expressions, performing statistical analysis, and computing the final level of services scores.

A model was created that spatially joined sidewalks, curb ramps, and push button feature classes with the level of services scores. Thematic mapping with hexagons was used to generate compliance and condition scoring maps and products. The resultant maps, which used average scores, displayed levels of ADA compliance throughout the city.

Data Sharing The City of Sioux Falls maintains ArcGIS Open Data12 and data is also shared on the U.S. Government’s Open Data site. The dynamic data schema used in this project can be found at both of these locations.

12 City’s Open Data Site, https://gis-cityofsfgis.opendata.arcgis.com/

22

Disability Community Outreach An effective ADA Self-Evaluation Report and Transition Plan process requires that the City of Sioux Falls identify improvements to pedestrian accessibility that make progress towards universal access. To assist in prioritizing improvement, rating systems were developed to characterize the compliance and condition of the pedestrian network features. Relative importance of the various details of compliance was informed by opinions of members of various disability representative stakeholder groups. City representatives presented to and requested feedback from the following stakeholder groups during the development of the self-evaluation and transition plan:

• ADA Accessibility Review Board13 o An advisory body to the Mayor, City Council and the City ADA Coordinator on matters

pertaining to universal accessibility of City buildings, programs and services. o The board has seven members including people with disabilities, advocates and an

engineer or architect. • Disability Awareness Commission14

o Duties to provide public education to heighten the awareness of physical, social, and economic barriers for people with disabilities; organized public awareness activities; educate the public about the role, function and activities of the commission; and advise other public or private entities on disability awareness issues.

o Commission has nine members and includes representatives of the disability community.

• Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)15 o Committee that has been established to solicit public participation into the local

transportation planning process, through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO.)

o Membership includes 13 members, including representatives from the areas of transportation, education, retirement community, transportation, construction and development, business and concerned citizens.

• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)16 o The role of this committee is to assist and advise the Urbanized Development

Commission on technical matters as they relate to the different elements of the transportation planning process.

o Committee comprised of staff from Minnehaha County, Lincoln County, SDDOT, City of Sioux Falls, Sioux Area Metro Transit, Federal Highway Administration, Sioux Falls School District, and Air, Railroad and Trucking representatives.

• Urbanized Development Commission (UDC)17 o Committee primarily comprised of elected officials from the local governmental

participants in the planning process. The UDC, with input from the CAC and TAC makes area transportation planning decisions.

13 http://www.siouxfalls.org/mayor/boards-commissions/accessibility-review-bd 14 http://www.siouxfalls.org/mayor/boards-commissions/disability-awareness-comm 15 http://siouxfallsmpo.org/committees/cac/ 16 http://siouxfallsmpo.org/committees/tac/ 17 http://siouxfallsmpo.org/committees/udc/

23

o Membership includes elected officials from Minnehaha County Commission, Lincoln County Commission, Federal Highway Administration, city council members and mayors from various cities in the MPO area.

• Interested Community Members o Interested community members attended a meeting and were provided the opportunity

to engage with City employees and provide feedback. Attendees included a representative of the Paralyzed Veterans of America organization, director of the Business Resource Network (promotes hiring people with disabilities,) representatives from Independent Living Choices (promotes independent living for people with disabilities), a member of Public Transportation Advisory Board (PTAB) and members of the South Dakota Association of the Blind and Siouxland Association of the Blind.

Sidewalk Inventory Results One of the main goals of the self-evaluation process was to allow for an initial assessment of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. The results of the sidewalk inventory will then be programmed into the City’s ADA transition plan. The following sections detail the results of the sidewalk network inventory, separated by ADA Compliance and Condition. Each of these sections addresses sidewalk segments and curb ramps separately.

Throughout the sidewalk inventory, 57,203 segments of sidewalk were inspected, representing 1,021 miles of sidewalk and 13,557 curb ramps. The sidewalk and curb ramps were inspected from May–August 2017. The sidewalk network is growing quickly with new sidewalks installed at over 1,000 new home sites every year.

ADA Compliance Assessment In order to assess preliminary compliance with ADA, a compliance index was developed. The compliance index took measurements taken as part of the inventory and converted them to a compliance score. PROWAG was used as the basis for assessing ADA compliance. For each detail of compliance, a score of 100 corresponds to full compliance with the relevant PROWAG standard. Lower scores indicate measurements outside of the compliant range, with the lowest scores indicating the greatest deviation from the standard. The scales were developed based on a review of sidewalk assessments performed in other cities as well as the distribution of observed values for each type of measurement.

For each detail of compliance, an overall compliance score was developed to summarize the level of compliance with current accessibility standards. Scores for individual criteria were aggregated for each feature according to predefined weights. The weights reflect the relative importance to overall

24

accessibility of each individual criterion. The compliance scores offer a valuable benchmark of ADA compliance, but because not all relevant PROWAG standards were included in the inventory, they are not a definitive measure of compliance or noncompliance.

While evaluating something as completely compliant or non-compliant may be more congruent with PROWAG standards, the development of a compliance index allows for prioritization of features for improvement, which is required in the ADA transition plan. Knowing the degree to which a feature meets or fails to meet standards offers a much more useful set of information. This allows the City to prioritize the worst areas first and defer work on features that fall only slightly outside the PROWAG standards.

For each feature type, the results of the compliance index are presented, first for each component criterion and finally for the combined compliance score. Scores are summarized in tabular format for the City and spatially on a map. The map consists of quarter-mile-high hexagons and displays the average compliance score for each zone.

In general, compliance scores tended to be highest at the periphery of the urbanized area, where the pedestrian network was constructed after the development of modern accessibility standards, and in the core of the community, where pedestrian network upgrades have been focused. With exception of the downtown area, older neighborhoods in the core of the community had the lowest levels of compliance on average as many contain pedestrian network features that predate ADA.

Where pedestrian access routes are contained within a street or highway right-of-way, the grade of pedestrian access routes shall not exceed the general grade established for the adjacent street or highway. (PROWAG R302.5) While sidewalks with steep grades may be ADA compliant as long as they don’t exceed the grade of the adjacent street, they still can present challenges to people using wheelchairs. For this reason, the sidewalk grade information is provided not for compliance evaluation but for awareness of areas of the city that may be more difficult to traverse for people with disabilities.

25

Table 3 Sidewalk Running Slope

Running Slope Miles Total % Sidewalk

5.0% or less 1,026.72 93.55% 5.01%–8.3% 62.04 5.65%

8.31% or greater 8.79 0.80%

The running slope data was generated using the City’s digital elevation model (DEM) which is a digital model of a terrain’s surface, created from Lidar elevation data. The DEM is extremely accurate with a vertical accuracy of 0.1 foot. Over 93 percent of sidewalk segments have a running slope less than 5 percent, which is considered to be fully accessible.

26

Sidewalk ADA Compliance Sidewalks represent the majority of the pedestrian network, and their level of ADA compliance impacts not only individuals with disabilities but all pedestrians.

The compliance index for sidewalks considers four criteria representing PROWAG accessibility standards: Cross slope, Vertical fault size, Obstructions, and Sidewalk width.

Cross Slope Cross slope is the slope of the sidewalk perpendicular to the direction of travel. To be ADA compliant, sidewalk cross slopes must be 2.0 percent or less (PROWAG R302.6). Greater cross slopes can make wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility devices unstable. The data collection team recorded a representative sidewalk cross slope for each sidewalk segment based on several cross slope measurements. A representative cross slope was utilized instead of a maximum to better characterize the sidewalk cross slope overall. The score for sidewalk cross slope on each segment is based on the scale identified in the table below. Spot locations of excessive cross slope (primarily driveways) were identified and categorized as a sidewalk defect when the cross slope was significantly different than the representative cross slope for the segment.

Table 4 Sidewalk Cross Slope Scores

Cross Slope Score Miles Percent of Total Length 2% or less 100 620.19 60.74% 2.01–4% 80 339.51 33.25% 4.01–6% 60 53.41 5.23% 6.01–8% 40 5.77 0.56% 8.01–10% 20 0.82 0.08% 10.1 % or more 0 0.48 0.05% Unknown/Null 0 0.62 0.06%

27

Table 5 Non-Compliant Driveway/Excessive Cross Slope

Number Miles Percent of Total Length

Percent of Segments with Non-Compliant Driveway

Non-Compliant Driveway 948 3.13 0.31% 1.66% Other Spot Locations with Excessive Cross Slope 54 0.19 0.02% 0.09%

Of the total sidewalk length in the inspected area, over 60 percent met the standard for average cross slope. Only 40 percent of sidewalks by length had a representative average cross slope between 2.1 and 8.0 percent. There were 1,002 driveways or other spot locations identified with excessive cross slope, which are found on under 2 percent of the segments and 0.33 percent of the total sidewalk length. Areas with back-of-curb sidewalk, such as older urban arterial streets, were most likely to have driveway crossings with excessive cross slope.

28

Vertical Faults (Trip Hazards) Vertical faults are points where the surface of the sidewalk is uneven, usually due to heaving or settling of panels typically resulting from freeze-thaw cycles, tree root growth, or settling of soil. To be ADA compliant, all vertical faults must be less than 1/2 inch. In addition, all faults between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch must be beveled or ground down to remove the fault (PROWAG R302.7.2). Because of the very strict standard set by PROWAG, sidewalk vertical faults were

Figure 7 Average Sidewalk Cross Slope Score

29

consistently problematic in virtually every segment. While trip hazards between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch are non-compliant and can present issues for pedestrians, the City chose not to inventory them within the scope of this assessment. Vertical faults larger than 1/2 inch cause the highest impedance for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, and are the most dangerous tripping hazards. The data collection team recorded each vertical fault that was observed on each segment. The score for each vertical fault was based on whether vertical fault was present on the segment.

Table 6 Sidewalk Vertical Fault Size Scores

Vertical Fault Score Number of Faults

Miles of Sidewalk

Percent of Total Length

Percent of Segments with Fault

1/2"–1" 0 10,433 21.27 2.08% 18.24% 1"–3" 0 5,139 12.16 1.19% 8.98%

> 3" 0 441 1.12 0.11% 0.77% Total 16,013 35 3.38% 27.99%

Over a quarter of segments have a vertical fault identified, with approximately 10 percent of the segments having a vertical fault over 1 inch. By length, 3 percent of the panels were affected by a vertical fault, which is a representation of what would need to be fixed by mudjacking, grinding or removal, and replacement.

30

Figure 8 Average Sidewalk Vertical Fault Score

The map of average vertical fault scores shows a correlation between vertical faults and age of neighborhood. Even when the City’s sidewalk inspection and repair program has been in one of these core areas of the city, it is likely due to develop problems again. This is due to the frequency of large mature trees with roots that heave the sidewalk and older sidewalk age overall.

31

Obstructions Obstructions are things that impede pedestrian travel on the sidewalk. Sidewalks must have a 4-foot-wide clear path free from obstructions (PROWAG R210). Sidewalks with a clear width less than 4 feet may be impassible for some pedestrians. At each obstruction, field staff took a picture to explain the obstruction type. The compliance score for sidewalk obstructions is based on whether an obstruction was present on the segment.

Table 7 Sidewalk Obstruction Scores

Score Number of Obstructions Miles Percent of

Total Length Percent of Segments

with Obstruction

General Obstructions 0 204 0.31 0.03% 0.36%

Inlet Lid 0 284 0.53 0.05% 0.50% Less than 1/2 percent of sidewalks by length had an obstruction, and less than 1/2 percent of segments had an obstruction. Obstructions caused by vertical separation at an inlet lid were encountered most often and were separated in their own category for ease of tracking these issues. The inlet lid obstruction issues were typically only present on streets with back-of-curb sidewalk.

The low number of obstructions can be attributed to residents and City working together to keep the sidewalks free of obstructions. The City also has a proactive tree inspection program that works with residents to address low-hanging tree branches over streets, Project T.R.I.M. (Tree Raising Improvement Methods18).

18 http://www.siouxfalls.org/parks/forestry/project-trim

32

Sidewalk Width Sidewalks must have a continuous width of at least 4 feet (PROWAG R302.3). The PROWAG advisory group recommends a total sidewalk width of at least 5 feet to accommodate street furniture and other obstructions. Sidewalks that are narrower than 4 feet may be impassible to some users. The data collection team recorded the narrowest passable width of the sidewalk for each block. The compliance score for each block is based on representative width measurements.

Figure 9 Average Sidewalk Obstructions Score

33

Table 8 Sidewalk Width Scores

Sidewalk Width Score Miles Percent of Total Length

Less than 3 feet 0 0 0.00% 3 feet–3.9 feet 0 0.02 0.00% 4 feet–4.9 feet 80 512.63 50.21% 5 feet–5.9 feet 100 480.06 47.02%

6 feet or greater 100 28.09 2.75% Nearly all sidewalks met the PROWAG standard for continuous width. However, since PROWAG requires periodic passing spaces on sidewalks less than 5 feet, approximately 50 percent may require additional passing spaces. There were no sidewalks less than 3 feet and sidewalks between 3 and 4 feet were very rare. A map was not included for sidewalk width since it essentially showed full compliance citywide.

Overall Sidewalk Compliance The overall compliance score for sidewalks was calculated by equally weighting each of the four compliance criteria. Equal weights were used because any of these factors can severely reduce the mobility and safety of individuals with disabilities.

Table 9 Sidewalk Compliance Weights

Variable Weight Cross Slope Score 25%

Vertical Fault Score 25% Obstruction Score 25%

Sidewalk Width Score 25%

Table 10 Sidewalk Compliance Scores

Compliance Score Miles of Sidewalk Percent of Total Length >90 to 100 706.34 69.18% >80 to 89 24.57 2.41% >70 to 79 216.76 21.23% >60 to 70 65.52 6.51% 60 or less 6.61 0.65%

Only 229 miles of sidewalk received a fully compliant score of 100. However, nearly 70 percent of sidewalks by length scored over 90 on the compliance index, indicating a high level of overall compliance. There are clearly areas that need improvement, with approximately 28 percent rating below 80. Compliance was highest at the outer edges of the city where subdivisions were constructed in the past 10–15 years and also in the downtown area. There are small clusters of residential neighborhoods with lower ratings. These can be explained as areas that were constructed before there was a focus on ADA compliance, but are not old enough to have had an alteration project or reconstruction project recently. Some of these areas have steep terrain, which also have made these older areas naturally less compliant.

34

Though the scores indicate that sidewalks overall are fairly compliant, they also reflect assumptions inherent in the data collection methodology. Since the data collection team recorded the representative cross slope for each segment, there may be more areas of non-compliance than identified. If the inventory had collected vertical separations between 1/4 and 1/2 inch, the scores would have been lower. The assessment used relatively short segments based on property width, which could statistically reduce the magnitude of sidewalk non-compliance based on the scoring formula.

Figure 10 Average Sidewalk Compliance Score

35

This sidewalk segment at 1200 North Broken Bow Avenue is 4 feet wide and slightly over 2 percent, but otherwise is fully compliant and rates 90 on the combined compliance index.

This sidewalk segment at 7904 West Eli Court is 4 feet wide with a cross slope of 2.4 percent and no other compliance defects identified, rating 90 on the combined compliance index.

Figure 11 Sidewalk Segment Examples with High Compliance Scores

36

This sidewalk on the north side of East 10th Street between St. Paul Avenue and South Omaha Avenue is 5 feet wide. The inventory noted a sidewalk cross slope over 2 percent, a non-compliant driveway with excessive cross slope and a vertical trip hazard, which brings the score to 60 on the combined compliance index.

This sidewalk on the west side of South Sycamore Avenue between 19th Street and 20th Street is 6 feet wide. The inventory noted a sidewalk cross slope over 2 percent, a non-compliant driveway with excessive cross slope and an inlet/vertical trip hazard, which brings the score to 60 on the combined compliance index.

Figure 12 Sidewalk Segment Examples with Low Compliance Scores

37

Curb Ramp ADA Compliance Curb ramps create a safe transition between the sidewalk and the street. ADA compliant ramps are particularly important for pedestrians who use mobility devices, and compliant detectable warning surfaces provide vital safety cues for blind and low-vision users.

Field staff collected data for 13,557 curb ramps and blended transitions. In the analysis that follows, the term “curb ramp” is used to refer to both ramps and blended transitions.

The curb ramp compliance index considers eight of the compliance details of PROWAG standards, including slopes, dimensions, and detectable warning presence. The compliance details fall into four areas of analysis:

• Ramp geometry • Detectable warning

surface • Landing/Turning Space • Hazards

As with sidewalks, compliance was highest at the edge of the city and in the downtown area. Other key findings from the compliance analysis include:

• Detectable warning surface was the lowest scoring area of analysis, and less than 53 percent of ramps had the required truncated domes.

• Ramp cross slopes and running slopes were both problematic, but noncompliance was higher in neighborhoods with hilly terrain where curb ramps were constructed before ADA standards were prevalent.

• Landing slopes were out of the compliant range about half of the time, while landing dimensions were compliant in most ramps that required landings.

• Vertical faults were less prevalent in ramps than in sidewalks, with only 4 percent of ramps having a vertical fault 1/2 inch or greater.

Ramp Geometry: Width To be ADA compliant, curb ramps must be at least 4 feet wide, excluding returned curbs (PROWAG R304.5.1). For curb ramps within medians or pedestrians islands, the minimum required width is 5 feet (PROWAG R302.3.1). The data collection team measured the width of curb ramps at the ramp opening. The compliance score is based on the width measurement.

38

Table 11 Curb Ramp Widths

Curb Ramp Width Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps less than 2.9' 0 31 0.2%

3' to 3.9' 50 1,716 12.7% 4' to 4.9' 100 7,797 57.5% 5' to 5.9' 100 2,663 19.6%

6' or greater 100 1,161 8.6% Unknown/Null 0 189 1.4%

Nearly 86 percent of curb ramps measured met the PROWAG standard for width. Less than 13 percent of all ramps were less than 4 feet wide and only 0.2 percent of those were less than 3 feet wide. Areas with higher levels of noncompliant ramp widths generally are older neighborhoods that have not had ADA curb ramp upgrades since they were originally constructed.

Figure 13 Average Curb Ramp Width Score

39

Ramp Geometry: Cross Slope Cross slope is the slope of the ramp perpendicular to the direction of travel. In order to be ADA compliant, curb ramp cross slopes must be 2.0 percent or less (PROWAG R304.5.3). Greater cross slopes can make wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility devices unstable. The data collection team recorded the cross slope for each ramp, and the cross slope measurement was used to calculate the compliance score.

Table 12 Curb Ramp Cross Slope

Cross Slope Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps < 2% 100 9,809 72.35%

2.01–4% 80 2,858 21.08% 4.01–6% 60 651 4.80% 6.01–8% 40 161 1.19%

8.01–10% 20 42 0.31% > 10% 0 27 0.20%

Unknown/Null 0 9 0.07% The representative cross slope for nearly 72 percent of curb ramps met the PROWAG standard. Cross slopes greater than 6.0 percent were relatively rare, representing less than 2 percent of ramps. Of these, 27 ramps had cross slopes in excess of 10 percent.

40

Figure 14 Average Curb Ramp Cross Slope Score

High average ramp slopes occurred in scattered neighborhoods, particularly in neighborhoods with hilly terrain where curb ramps were constructed before ADA standards were prevalent.

Ramp Geometry: Running Slope Running slope is the slope of the curb ramp in the direction of travel. To be ADA compliant, curb ramps must have a running slope of 5.0 percent to 8.3 percent, but they are not required to exceed 15 feet in length to meet the maximum slope requirement (PROWAG R304.2.2 and R304.3.2). Blended transitions must have a maximum running slope of 5.0 percent (PROWAG R304.4.1). The running slope measurement for each ramp or blended transition was used to calculate its running slope compliance score.

41

Table 13 Curb Ramp Running Slope Score

Ramp Running Slope Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps

8.3 % or less 100 10,189 75.16% 8.4 %–10.3% 67 1,741 12.84%

10.4 %–13.3% 33 1,091 8.05% 13.4 % or more 0 526 3.88% Unknown/Null 0 10 0.07%

Approximately 75 percent of curb ramps had running slopes within the range allowed by PROWAG. Some of the ramps over 8.3 percent may be exempt from the running slope requirement because their length exceeded 15 feet, but the inventory did not account for this.

High ramp running slopes were scattered across the city, but overall the downtown and recently developed areas of town are more compliant than older core areas. High ramp running slope areas also correlate with neighborhoods that have hilly terrain.

42

Figure 15 Average Curb Ramp Running Score

Detectable Warning Surface Detectable warning surfaces provide a tactile indication that a curb ramp is ending and the street is beginning. In order to be ADA compliant, ramps must include a detectable warning surface composed of truncated domes (PROWAG R305). The data collection team recorded the presence of detectable warning surface. Truncated domes were the only detectable warning surface that was counted. Any pavement grooving or other previous method of warning surface were not counted as a detectable warning panel. Upper combination ramps and other ramps not adjacent to the street were not included as they do not require detectable warnings.

43

Table 14 Detectable Warning Surface Score

Detectable Warning Score Number of Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps

Yes 100 7,145 52.70% No 0 6,412 47.30%

About 47 percent of the curb ramps requiring a detectable warning surface had no detectable warning panel.

Figure 16 Average Curb Ramp Detectable Warning Score

Detectable warning surfaces with truncated domes were most prevalent in the newest developments around the fringe of the city, reflecting the evolution in accessibility standards. The city has made significant progress in retrofitting detectable warning panels, but the method of scoring and averaging in each hexagon makes a large area of the city below a score of 60.

44

Landing/Turning Space: Dimensions The landing/turning space, or flat surface adjacent to the ramp, provides pedestrians with a safe space to stop or change their direction of travel. Landings that are too small may restrict the movement of pedestrians using mobility devices. To be ADA complaint, both the length and width must be at least 4 feet (PROWAG R304.2.1, R304.3.1, and R407.6.4). The data collection team recorded the presence of a landing area that met the minimum requirements.

Table 15 Landing Space Dimensions Score

Compliant Landing Size (greater than 4' x 4') Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps

Yes (or not required) 100 12,590 92.87% No 0 967 7.13%

Approximately 93 percent of curb ramps had a landing that met PROWAG standards for dimensions or it was not required. Ramps with a running slope of 5 percent or less are considered a blended transition and are not required to have a landing/turning space.

45

Figure 17 Average Curb Ramp Turning Space Size Score

Noncompliant landing dimensions were concentrated in the areas of the city with hilly terrain. Neighborhoods constructed in the past 20 years rated well in this area.

Landing/Turning Space: Slope To be ADA compliant, landings must have a cross slope and running slope of 2.0 percent or less (PROWAG R304.2.2, R304.3.2, and R304.5.3). Landings with steeper slopes make it difficult for users of wheelchairs and other mobility devices to stop and change direction safely. The data collection team recorded whether the landing cross slope and running slope for each curb ramp met the slope requirements.

46

Table 16 Curb Ramp Landing Slope Score

Compliant Landing Slope (less than 2%) Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps Yes (or not required) 100 7,736 57.06%

No 0 5,808 42.84% Unknown/Null 0 13 0.10%

Over 57 percent of ramps had a landing/turning space that met the PROWAG slope requirements or one was not required. Ramps with a running slope of 5 percent or less are considered a blended transition and are not required to have a landing/turning space.

Overall, it appears that turning space slope problems are scattered throughout the city. It also appears that this is an area for improvement, as only newer subdivisions appear to have higher average scores for turning space slope. Recent overlay (alteration) areas and areas with street reconstruction projects seem to have better scores indicating a high level of compliance on recent projects. The nature of the rating scale and pass/fail scoring emphasize the turning space as a major issue of noncompliance. Fifty-eight percent of ramps in the city do not have compliant turning space slopes, but the data collection team did not measure the degree of non-compliance. This scale makes the results map for average turning space slope score look worse than it may actually be in relation to other areas of compliance.

47

Figure 18 Average Turning Space Slope Score

Hazards: Vertical Faults Vertical faults are points where the surface of the ramp is uneven, usually due to heaving or settling of panels. To be ADA compliant, all vertical faults must be less than 1/2 inch. In addition, all faults between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch must be beveled or ground down to remove the fault (PROWAG R302.7.2). Larger vertical faults can create a tripping hazard and can impede mobility devices such as wheelchairs. While trip hazards between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch are non-compliant and can present issues for pedestrians, the City chose not to inventory them within the scope of this assessment. Vertical faults larger than 1/2 inch cause the highest impedance for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, and are the most dangerous tripping hazards. Field staff recorded each vertical fault that was observed on each ramp.

48

Table 17 Curb Ramp Vertical Fault Scores

Vertical Fault Score Vertical Faults Percent of Curb Ramps Vertical Fault: 1/2"–1" 0 282 2.08% Vertical Fault: 1"–3" 0 223 1.64% Vertical Fault: > 3" 0 23 0.17%

Total 528 3.89% Less than 4 percent of curb ramps had a vertical fault of 1/2 inch or greater, which is most likely attributed to curb ramps being more recently constructed, on average, and shorter in length than most sidewalk segments.

Areas with low vertical fault compliance scores for curb ramps were scattered throughout the city. Overall, vertical fault scores were better for curb ramps than for sidewalk segments. Curb ramps are generally newer, as they have been upgraded with street overlays and reconstruction projects for years. It is logical that newer concrete would be less susceptible to vertical faulting as the joints may still have some aggregate interlock. Most curb ramps occur at corners, which is not as likely of a place for trees or the roots that heave sidewalk. Intersection sight triangle requirements discourage and prohibit vegetation in these areas, which may contribute positively to the vertical hazards on curb ramps.

49

Figure 19 Average Curb Ramp Vertical Fault Score

Hazards: Obstructions Obstructions are objects that impede travel on the curb ramp. To be ADA compliant, ramps must have a 4-foot-wide clear path free from obstructions (PROWAG R210). Ramps where the clear width is less than 4 feet may be impassible for some users. The data collections team recorded any obstructions present at each ramp. The compliance score for curb ramp obstructions was assigned based on whether an obstruction was present.

50

Table 18 Curb Ramp Obstruction Scores

Score Number of Obstructions Percent of Ramps with Obstruction

General Obstructions 0 55 0.41% Inlet Lid 0 39 0.29%

Nearly all curb ramps in the city were free from obstructions, while just under 1 percent had at least one type of obstruction present. The most common types of obstructions were utility-related, such as inlet lids, poles, traffic signal cabinets, or hydrants.

Figure 19 Average Curb Ramp Obstruction Score

51

Average curb ramp obstruction scores were relatively high overall which can be attributed to two different factors. First, within alteration areas, there has been more effort to remove obstructions at the corners with curb ramp upgrades than on sidewalks. Secondly, because of intersection sight triangles, it is much less likely that a tree branch or vegetation is planted in an area that would obstruct a curb ramp.

Combined Curb Ramp Compliance The combined compliance score for curb ramps was calculated by weighting the scores for compliance criteria. Each criterion was assigned a weight between 5 and 15 percent depending on its importance to curb ramp accessibility and the range of scores observed.

Table 19 Curb Ramp Compliance Weights

Variable Weight Ramp Geometry 25% Ramp width 5% Ramp cross slope 10% Ramp running slope 10% Detectable Warning Surface 15% Landing 30% Landing Dimensions 15% Landing Slope 15% Hazards 30% Vertical Faults 15% Obstructions 15%

Overall, curb ramp compliance scores were relatively high, with over 63 percent scoring above an 80. As with the individual details of compliance, the overall curb ramp compliance areas needing most improvement were the hilly areas where ramps have not been upgraded in the past 20 years.

Table 20 Overall Curb Ramp Compliance Score

Compliance Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps less than 60 1,572 11.60%

60–69 2,138 15.77% 70–79 1,268 9.35% 80–89 3,407 25.13%

90–100 5,172 38.15%

52

Figure 20 Overall Average Curb Ramp Compliance Score

Downtown Sioux Falls scored relatively high on curb ramp compliance. With more pedestrian activity than other parts of the city, a higher proportion of ramps have been updated with modern accessibility features than in other parts of the city. New subdivisions and areas with recent alteration or reconstruction projects also scored high on curb ramp compliance.

Curb ramp compliance was most consistently problematic in older neighborhoods where there has not been a recent alteration or reconstruction project. These neighborhoods were constructed at a time when accessibility requirements were beginning to take shape, but current standards for accessible design were not yet in place. As a result, the curb ramps in these areas were built in a wide variety of configurations that are no longer considered accessible under the current PROWAG standards.

53

Without a detectable warning panel and a ramp slope of 13.5 percent, this curb ramp at the southwest corner of 18th Street and Suburban Drive scores a 60 on the combined compliance index. While there is a turn space meeting the minimum size requirements, it is above the maximum slope of 2 percent in any direction.

This ramp in the northeast corner of 21st Street and 2nd Avenue is slightly above the maximum ramp running slope, but meets cross slope, turning space size, and turning space slope requirements. There is a detectable warning panel, but the ramp opening width measures 36 inches which reduces the score to 90 on the combined compliance index.

Figure 21 Curb Ramp Compliance Score Examples

54

In some cases, such as ramps that are missing truncated domes, it may be possible to retrofit the noncompliant ramps to bring them into compliance with PROWAG standards. Other problems, such as incorrect geometry in the ramp and approaches, may require total reconstruction of the ramp area. In such cases, it may be necessary to replace one ramp type with a different type, such as replacement of a perpendicular ramp with combination ramps, to remedy overly steep ramp runs.

There are approximately 253 locations in the city remaining where there is a curb barrier at the street/sidewalk interface instead of a ramp. These are a high priority for retrofit with compliant ADA ramps.

Condition Assessment Sidewalk condition is just as important as compliance in regard to the accessibility of a sidewalk. Condition issues result from degradation over time due to changes in temperature, moisture, wear, and other factors. Freezing and thawing of the ground, which produces expansion and contraction, leads to cracking of sidewalk and curb ramp surfaces. Cracks allow moisture to penetrate the surface, which can lead to further cracking, formation of vertical faults, or the growth of grass and other vegetation. Similarly, water flowing over curb ramps and sidewalks can deposit dirt and other sediment. If these condition issues become serious enough, they can lead to compliance issues, particularly with the PROWAG standards for vertical faults and obstructions.

55

Common surface condition issues include:

• Horizontal Fault – A horizontal separation between panels or at a crack.

• Cracking – The panels are cracked but generally intact.

• Ponding – Water ponds on sidewalk creating potential for slipping, especially when icy.

• Sediment Deposit – Water has deposited a layer of sediment, reducing traction.

• Spalling – The smooth top layer of the surface has chipped away.

• Utility Access – A utility box or handhole within the sidewalk that is relatively flush with the surface is a different surface material than the rest of the sidewalk.

In general, newer sidewalks and curb ramps tend to have fewer condition issues than older features, though condition is not solely a function of age. New features that are designed incorrectly or that use less resilient surfaces develop condition issues more rapidly than features that follow construction best practices. Site preparation, materials, drainage, and ongoing maintenance all play a role in the lifespan of sidewalk network features.

To evaluate the condition of sidewalks and curb ramps, a condition index was developed. The condition index is similar in form to the compliance index, but it evaluates defects not covered by PROWAG. Since there was a possibility of having more than one defect on each sidewalk segment and curb ramp, a different approach to scoring was selected. Each defect identified reduced the condition score of the respective ramp or segment.

56

The condition ratings for sidewalks and ramps were calculated differently due to the fact that multiple condition issues could affect each sidewalk segment and ramp.

Sidewalk Condition Rating and Results The data collection team recorded all surface condition issues for each segment of sidewalk. Each sidewalk defect that was measured was assigned a score. The score was assigned based on the relative importance of the condition defect.

Table 21 Sidewalk Condition Score Summary

Sidewalk Condition Defect Score

Ponding, Spalling, Sediment Deposit, Utility Access 50

Cracking, Non-Compliant Driveway, Cross Slope, Inlet Hazard, Vertical Fault 1/2"–1" 100

Obstructions, Horizontal Fault, Vertical Fault 1"–3" 200

Vertical Fault Greater Than 3" 400 The scores assigned to each defect are much higher than other scoring used in this report because the sidewalk condition was normalized by length. This scoring system allowed for results generally within a range of 0–100. The equation below was used to calculate the sidewalk segment condition score.

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 100− ∑𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶ℎ

Because of the variation in segment length, number of defects, and number of panels affected, a few segments scored below zero. Any segments scoring below zero were assigned a zero value for ease of summarizing results.

Table 22 Sidewalk Surface Condition Results

Defect Type Number of Defects Miles of Sidewalk Percent of Total Length Horizontal Fault 131 0.25 0.02%

Cracking 7,760 19.59 1.92% Ponding 437 0.82 0.08%

Sediment Deposit 385 1.09 0.11% Spalling 3,977 10.65 1.04%

Utility Access 1,463 1.53 0.15% Total 31,656 73 7.11%

Nearly 93 percent of sidewalks by length did not have significant surface condition issues. The most common surface condition issues were cracking and spalling, affecting approximately 2 and 1 percent of sidewalks, respectively.

57

Table 23 Sidewalk Condition Scores

Condition Score Miles Percent of Total Length less than 60 41.52 4.07%

60–69 34.58 3.39% 70–79 65.09 6.38% 80–89 135.69 13.29%

90–100 743.91 72.86% Sidewalk surface condition issues were most common in the core area, bounded by Interstate 229 and Interstate 90. The figure showing sidewalk surface condition ratings is displayed with colored sidewalk segments instead of average hexagons to better represent overall condition ratings. The line weight for the segments below 70 is thicker, putting emphasis on the areas where condition is lower.

58

With one vertical fault between 1/2 inch and 1 inch, this sidewalk segment at 301 West Spyglass Drive scored 90 on the combined condition index.

This sidewalk segment at 2420 West Carriage Court has vertical faults between 1/2 inch and 1 inch that affect three panels, which scored 90 on the combined condition index.

Figure 22 Example Sidewalk Segments with High Condition Ratings

59

This sidewalk segment at 1609 South 8th Avenue has vertical faults between 1 inch and 3 inches and cracking that affects at least four panels, which scored 60 on the combined condition index.

This sidewalk segment at 4616 East 33rd Street scored 60 on the combined condition index due to vertical faults between 1 inch and 3 inches with non-compliant attempt to grind, which affects three panels.

Figure 23 Example Sidewalk Segments with Low Condition Ratings

60

Curb Ramp Condition Rating Calculation The data collection team recorded all surface condition issues for each curb ramp. Similar to sidewalk segments, each ramp defect that was measured was assigned a score. The score was assigned based on the relative importance of the condition defect.

Table 24 Curb Ramp Condition Score Calculation Summary

Curb Ramp Condition Defect Score Ponding Spalling, Sediment Deposit, Utility Access 5 Cracking, inlet hazard, vertical fault .5–1, Warning Panel 15 Obstructions, Horizontal fault, vertical fault 1–3" 25 Vertical fault greater than 3" 40

Because ramp condition defects were not divided by length, a different scoring system was used. The equation below was used to calculate the curb ramp condition score. Because of the relatively small segment of each ramp, the defect score multiplied times the number of panels affected.

𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑁𝑁 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑁𝑁𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 100−�𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

Table 25 Curb Ramp Surface Condition

Defect Type Number of Defects Percent of Curb Ramps Horizontal Fault 117 0.86%

Cracking 326 2.40% Ponding 33 0.24%

Sediment Deposit 471 3.47% Spalling 118 0.87%

Utility Access 159 1.17% Detectable Warning Panel Issue 102 0.75%

Total 1,326 9.78% Approximately 90 percent of curb ramps were free from surface condition defects. Sediment deposits and cracking were the most common surface condition defects observed, affecting over 3 and 2 percent of ramps, respectively. The sedimentation indicates that some ramps did not drain correctly. In alteration areas where curb ramps were added, introducing flat areas into existing terrain often slows down moving water, offering a location for sediment to deposit.

61

Surface condition issues on curb ramps appeared to be correlated with surface condition problems on sidewalks. In other areas, curb ramp surface condition issues occurred in the absence of significant sidewalk surface condition problems. This discrepancy reflects differences in the types of issues affecting sidewalks and curb ramps. Sidewalk surfaces were more likely to suffer from structural defects, such as spalling and cracking, while curb ramp surfaces were more likely to experience maintenance-related issues, such as sediment deposits.

Table 26 Curb Ramp Condition Scores

Condition Score Curb Ramps Percent of Curb Ramps less than 60 268 1.98%

60–69 32 0.24% 70–79 378 2.79% 80–89 670 4.94%

90–100 12,209 90.06%

62

With multiple cracks and a vertical fault between 1 inch and 3 inches, this curb ramp at 41st Street and Kelley Avenue scored 60 on the combined condition index.

This curb ramp at 33rd Street and Grange Avenue has a detectable warning panel in fair condition and utility access covers within the pedestrian circulation area. Overall, the ramp is in good condition and scores 90 on the combined condition index.

Figure 24 Curb Ramp Condition Score Examples

63

Pedestrian Signal Accessibility Pedestrian signals help facilitate the crossing of intersections by pedestrians using cues indicating pedestrian crossing phases. ADA compliant pedestrian signals have additional features that utilize sight, sound, and touch to make them more accessible to a wider range of people.

There are currently 270 traffic signals in the city of Sioux Falls of which 210 have pedestrian pushbuttons. Data was collected at all 1,130 pedestrian pushbuttons located at the intersections to determine if a variety of ADA (PROWAG) and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) criteria were met including:

• Pushbutton Type • Operational Pushbutton • Pushbutton Orientation • Pushbutton Crossing Sign • Pushbutton Offset from

Crosswalk • Pushbutton Distance to Face of

Curb • Pushbutton Reach Distance • Pushbutton Height • Clear Ground Space Size and

Slope • Countdown Pedestrian Signal • Pedestrian Signal Offset from

Crosswalk • Distance Between Pushbuttons

Overall, compliance scores were calculated for the pushbutton locations where a score of 100 would mean that the pushbutton has all required accessible features and all of the positioning and placement criteria are met. Prior to adopting PROWAG, audible pushbuttons with vibrotactile arrows were not installed by the City. Therefore, a score of 96 is the highest that a location can reach if it meets all other pushbutton criteria.

64

Pushbutton Type The pushbutton type criteria takes into account the size of the button, force required to push the button, visual contrast, tactile arrow, and audible features. The button types have been grouped as 2-inch or larger tactile arrow with audible signal, 2-inch or larger tactile arrow, 2-inch or larger piezo, 2-inch or larger plunger, and other.

Table 27 Pushbutton Type Summary

Button Type Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

2" Tactile Arrow w/ Audible Signal 10 0 0.00% 2" Tactile Arrow 8 0 0.00%

2" Piezo 6 878 77.70% 2" Plunger 5 198 17.52%

Other 0 54 4.78% Over 95 percent of the pushbuttons are accessible based on button size, force to push, and contrast which are features in the 2-inch plungers and piezo buttons that have been used in the past by the City of Sioux Falls.

Operational Pushbutton While collecting data on the pushbuttons, the City also had staff check to see if individual pushbuttons were operational or not.

Table 28 Operational Status of Pushbuttons

Operational Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

Yes 5 1,045 92.48% No 0 85 7.52%

At first, the data showing the number of inoperable pushbuttons was alarming. After an investigation, an overwhelming number of the 85 locations represented traffic signal phase 2 and 6 (mainline traffic). With those intersections running in coordination plans the majority of the day, the button failures were not noticed. Traffic signal technicians were tasked with starting to fix these locations immediately.

Pushbutton Orientation A key accessibility feature for pushbuttons is orientation of the arrows on pedestrian crossing signs and the arrow on vibrotactile arrows in the direction of the crosswalk. The direction of button push should be perpendicular to the direction of travel across the corresponding crosswalk.

Table 29 Pushbutton Orientation Summary

Orientation Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

Perpendicular 3 1,085 96.02% Parallel 0 45 3.98%

Over 96 percent of the pushbuttons were found to have the correct orientation to the corresponding crosswalk.

65

Pushbutton Crossing Sign Two details were collected relating to crossing signs at each pushbutton location: the presence of a button and the condition of the sign.

Table 30 Summary of Pushbutton Crossing Sign Presence

Crossing Sign Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

Yes 2 1030 91.15% No 0 100 8.85%

Table 31 Summary of Pushbutton Sign Condition

Sign Condition Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

Excellent 5 485 42.92% Very Good 4.5 116 10.27%

Good 4 160 14.16% Fair 3 150 13.27% Poor 1 94 8.32%

Very Poor 0 125 11.06% The sign condition rating is subjective, but helpful to the sign crew in prioritizing locations for crossing sign replacements. The goal is to have approximately 25 percent in each of the top four categories, indicating a good sign replacement rotation.

Pushbutton Offset from Crosswalk Per guidance in the MUTCD, pushbuttons should not be offset farther than 5 feet from the crosswalk that they are serving. Field staff measured the offset between pushbuttons and the crosswalk that they serve.

Table 32 Summary of Pushbutton Offset Distance

Pushbutton Offset from Crosswalk Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

5' or less 5 960 84.96% 5' to 6' 4 56 4.96% 6' to 7' 3 29 2.57% 7' to 8' 2 17 1.50% 8' to 9' 1 15 1.33% Over 9' 0 53 4.69%

Almost 84 percent of the pushbutton locations are within the correct offset from the crosswalk that they serve.

66

Pushbutton Distance to Face of Curb The MUTCD recommends that pushbuttons should be located within 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet from the face of the curb, or if that is not possible from 6 feet to 10 feet from the face of the curb. For this data we measured the distance from the face of the curb to button locations.

Table 33 Summary of Pushbutton Location

Pushbutton Distance to Face of Curb Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

1.5' to 6' 5 177 15.66% 6' to 10' 4 530 46.90% 0' to 1.5' 3 2 0.18% 10' to 12' 2 171 15.13% 12' to 15' 1 110 9.73% Over 15' 0 140 12.39%

The inventory reveals that pushbutton location is an area for major improvement, which will involve coordination with consultants and internal staff in designing pedestrian pushbuttons that are within the desired range. Just over 62 percent of the pushbutton locations meet the acceptable range criteria while only just over 15 percent meet the desired criteria.

Pushbutton Reach Distance A critical factor in accessibility is being able to actually reach the button that needs to be pushed to activate a pedestrian phase. The reach distance from the clear ground space to the push button should be 10 inches or less.

Table 34 Summary of Pushbutton Reach Distance

Pushbutton Reach Distance (x) Score Pushbuttons Percent of

Pushbuttons 10" or less 10 742 65.66% 10" to 25" (15-(x-10))/15*10 311 27.52% Over 25" 0 77 6.81%

Over 65 percent of the pushbutton locations are within the acceptable reach distance to the pushbutton.

Pushbutton Height Another critical element of pushbutton accessibility is mounting height. The ideal pushbutton height is at 42 inches, while a range from 15 to 48 inches is considered acceptable.

67

Table 35 Pushbutton Height Summary

Pushbutton Height (x) Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

42" 10 363 32.12% 42" to 48" 9 480 42.48% 15" to 42" 8 163 14.42% Over 48" (15-(x-48))/15*9 123 10.88%

Under 15" (15/x)*8 1 0.09% Over 32 percent of the locations are at the ideal height of 42 inches, and over 89 percent of the buttons are in the range of heights that are considered acceptable.

Clear Ground Space Size and Slope Originally, the City was trying to meet the 2 percent maximum slope requirement for the cross slope and running slope of the clear ground space found in ADAAG. Through the adoption of PROWAG, only the cross slope is required to be 2 percent or less and the running slope can match the running grade of the accessible path. The City considers adequate size and slope for the clear ground space to be very critical to a location being accessible and, therefore, it is heavily weighted in the scoring calculation. The score for clear ground space slope was calculated based on the measured cross slope with a maximum score of 35. The score for clear ground space size was calculated based on the measured dimensions of the clear ground space with a score between zero and one. The combined score was calculated by multiplying the ground space cross slope and size scores together. The clear ground space was only counted if it was a paved surface usable in all conditions.

Table 36 Clear Ground Space Cross Slope Summary

Cross Slope (x) Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

2% or less 35 881 77.96% 2% to 8.33% 35-(x-2)*35/6.33 237 20.97% Over 8.33% 0 12 1.06%

68

Table 37 Clear Ground Space Size Summary

Size of Clear Ground Space (x) Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

30" x 48" or more 1 1046 92.57% Less than 30" or 48" (% of x)*(% of y) 32 2.83%

No Clear Ground Space 0 52 4.60%

Table 38 Combined Clear Ground Space Score Summary

Clear Ground Space Size and Slope Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

35 816 72.21% 24 to 35 175 15.49% 12 to 24 58 5.13% 0 to 12 18 1.59%

0 63 5.58% Countdown Pedestrian Signal A visual cue that helps all pedestrians is the countdown timer. The MUTCD requires most pedestrian signal heads to be replaced with countdown timers when intersections are reconstructed. The City has long recognized the value of the countdown timers and has made an effort to replace the majority of the pedestrian signals with countdown timers even before intersections are rebuilt.

Table 39 Countdown Pedestrian Signal Summary

Countdown Pedestrian Signal Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

Yes 3 719 63.63% No 0 411 36.37%

Pedestrian Signal Offset from Crosswalk Pedestrian signal heads should be visible up to a point 10 feet from the end of a crosswalk per MUTCD guidelines. In an effort to evaluate this criteria, the team measured offset of the pedestrian signal from the crosswalk. For this evaluation, the offset was considered compliant if it was 10 feet or less.

Table 40 Summary of Pedestrian Signal Offsets

Pushbutton Distance to Face of Curb Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

0' to 10' 2 1028 90.97% 10' to 15' 1 57 5.04% Over 15' 0 45 3.98%

Over 90 percent of pedestrian signals were within the compliant range for offset.

69

Distance between Pushbuttons The final detail of compliance that was collected for pedestrian pushbuttons was the distance between buttons at a corner. In order for audible pedestrian signals to be effective, they need separation so that it is easier for pedestrians to determine which button is for which crossing direction. Ideally, the separation should be at least 10 feet between the buttons, where feasible. If 10 feet of separation is not achievable, then voice queues are required.

Distance Between Pushbuttons Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons

10' or more 5 202 17.88% 8' to 10' 4 27 2.39% 6' to 8' 3 14 1.24% 4' to 6' 2 23 2.04% 2' to 4' 1 2 0.18%

Less than 2' 0 862 76.28% In the past couple years, the City has begun preparing intersections for the possibility of adding audible pedestrian signals so only recent construction projects have been constructed with the desired separation, which represents the low level of compliance.

Overall Pedestrian Signal Compliance The table below summarizes the scoring for the previously discussed pedestrian signal accessibility criteria.

Table 41 Overall Pedestrian Signal Accessibility Scoring

Pedestrian Signal Accessibility Criteria Total Possible Score Pushbutton Type 10

Operational Pushbutton 5 Pushbutton Orientation 3

Pushbutton Crossing Sign 7 Pushbutton Offset from Crosswalk 5

Pushbutton Distance to Face of Curb 5 Pushbutton Reach Distance 10

Pushbutton Height 10 Clear Ground Space Size and Slope 35

Countdown Pedestrian Signal 3 Pedestrian Signal Offset from Crosswalk 2

Distance Between Pushbuttons 5 Total 100

Due to the City’s recent adoption of PROWAG, the highest score for pushbutton accessibility is 96. The City does not have any audible pushbuttons with vibrotactile arrows, but is working to incorporate this requirement in upcoming construction projects.

70

Table 42 Overall Pedestrian Push Button Scores

Score Pushbuttons Percent of Pushbuttons 90 to 100 217 16.11% 80 to 90 485 36.01% 70 to 80 463 34.37% 60 to 70 89 6.61% 50 to 60 43 3.19% 40 to 50 34 2.52% 30 to 40 16 1.19% 0 to 30 0 0.00%

71

In evaluating each detail of compliance separately, it appears the City is doing relatively well in most areas. The four locations that have been identified as being substantially in compliance, with the exception of adding the audible signals in the future, will be used as an example of best practices for compliance. Over 19 percent of the pushbutton locations are very close to being fully compliant, scoring above 90. Based on an analysis of the locations of these signals, the most compliant signals are those that have been constructed or reconstructed in the past five years.

Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment Interactive Map19 The conclusions in this Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment are based on inventory details of compliance and condition that were collected by the data collection team. In an effort to provide a more detailed look into specific details of the inventory, the City has developed a Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment Interactive Map. The interactive map allows users to view and analyze the results of the inventory at a sidewalk segment and curb ramp level and view the conclusions from this report in an interactive format.

19 http://www.siouxfalls.org/central-services/gis/Resources/interactive/Interactive-Maps/network-inventory-assessment

72

Appendix 1: Sidewalk Network Inventory Data Model

Sidewalk

Field Name Field Description Field Type Lengt

h Domain Values Object ID Unique identifier used by GIS Object ID Facility ID Locally assigned Facility Identifier String 50

Type Description of Sidewalk String 30 Back of Curb, Boulevard, Ramp, Bridge, None

Surface Type Sidewalk segment material type String 20 Concrete, Asphalt, Other

Cross Slope Sidewalk Cross Slope Double 8 Width Sidewalk width in feet Double 8 Install Date Installation date for Sidewalk Date 8 Condition Rating

Level of service calculation that defines the condition of the Sidewalk segment

Double 8

ADA Compliance

Whether the Sidewalk segment is ADA compliant or not.

String 5 Yes, No

Condition Visual Assessment of the condition of the asset

String 50 Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor, Unknown

Inspected Status of completed inspection String 10 Yes, No

Address Address for parcel where the Sidewalk segment is located

String 50

County ID Parcel ID for parcel where the Sidewalk segment is located

String 50

Comments General comments about the sidewalk

String 200

Owned By Indicates which organization owns the Sidewalk

SmallInteger

2 Our Agency, Private, Other

Maintained By Indicates which organization maintains the Sidewalk

SmallInteger

2 Our Agency, Private, Other

Global ID Unique identifier used by GIS Global ID created_user The user who created the Sidewalk String 255 created_date Date when the Sidewalk was created Date 8

last_edited_user

The user who performed the last update

String 255

last_edited_date

Date when the Sidewalk was last edited

Date 8

Enabled Enabled (geometric network created field)

SmallInteger

2 True (1), False (2)

73

Curbramp

Field Name Field Description Field Type Length Domain Values

Object ID Unique identifier used by GIS Object ID Facility ID Locally assigned Facility Identifier String 50

Type Curbramp Type String 50 Diagonal, Directional, Parallel, Combination, None

Detectable Warning

Whether the ramp has a detectable warning or not.

String 5 Yes, No

Cross Slope Curbramp cross Slope Double 8 Running Slope Curb ramp running slope Double 8 Width Curb ramp opening width in feet Double 8

Turn Space Slope

Yes if landing space slopes is less than 2%

String 5 Yes, No

Turn Space Size

Yes if landing space is at least 4' x 4' String 5 Yes, No

Install Date Installation date for Curbramp Date 8 Condition Rating

Level of service calculation that defines the condition of the curbramp

Double 8

ADA Compliance

Whether the curbramp is ADA compliant or not.

String 5 Yes, No

Condition Visual Assessment of the condition of the asset

String 50 Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor, Unknown

Inspected Status of completed inspection String 10 Yes, No Comments General comments about the

curbramp String 200

Owned By Indicates which organization owns the curbramp

SmallInteger

2 Our Agency, Private, Other

Maintained By Indicates which organization maintains the curbramp

SmallInteger

2 Our Agency, Private, Other

Global ID Unique identifier used by GIS Global ID created_user The user who created the curbramp String 255 created_date Date when the curbramp was

created Date 8

last_edited_user

The user who performed the last update

String 255

last_edited_date

Date when the curbramp was last edited

Date 8

Enabled Enabled (geometric network created field)

SmallInteger

2 True (1), False (2)

74

PushButton Field Name Field Description Field Type Length Domain Values

Object Id Unique identifier used by GIS Object ID Facility Id Locally assigned Facility

Identifier String 50

Intersection Intersection of Streets String 100 Quadrant Intersection Quadrant

location String 10 NW, NE, SW, SE

Crossingdirection The direction of travel across the intersection

String 10 E/W, N/W, NW/SE. NE/SW

Pushbutton Push Button for signal String 5 Yes, No Pushbuttontype Push Button Type String 10 Piezo, Plunger, Other Buttonoperational Button operating correctly String 5 Yes, No Orientedtoxwalk Is the pushbutton parallel to

the crossing direction String 5 Yes, No

Crossingsign Pushbutton sign present String 5 Yes, No Signcondition Sign Condition String 20 Excellent, Very Good, Good,

Fair, Poor, Very Poor, Unknown Signtype Sign Type String 10 R10-2, R10-3, R10-3A, R10-3B,

R10-3C, R10-3D, R10-3E, R10-3F, R10-3G, R10-3H, R10-3i

Pbtoxwalkoffset Perpendicular distance between the push button and the extension of the crosswalk lines, measured in feet

Double 8

Pbtofaceofcurb Distance from the face of the curb to the pushbutton, measured in feet

Double 8

Pbreachtoclrgrnd Distance from the center of the edge of the clear ground space to the pushbutton, measured in inches

Double 8

Httocntrofpb Height to Center of Push Button (Inch)

Double 8

Adaagstnrdclrspc Does the clear ground space meet the ADA Minimum of 30" x 48"

String 5 Yes, No

Sizeofclearspaceifnotmet

Size of Clear Space If Not Met (IN x IN)

String 10

Runningslope Running Slope (%) Double 8 Crossslope Cross Slope (%) Double 8 Wlkdistfrompbtoexitxwalk

The crosswalk length plus the distance to the pushbutton (Feet)

Double 8

Crosswalklength Crosswalk Length (Feet) Double 8 Pedhead Pedestrian Signal Head String 5 Yes, No Countdowntimer Countdown Timer Present String 5 Yes, No

75

Headtoxwalkoffset Perpendicular distance between the ped head and the extension of the crosswalk lines, measured in feet

Double 8

Distancebetweenpushbuttons

The separation distance between push buttons at the intersection, measured in feet

Double 8

Condition Rating Level of service calculation that defines the condition of the curbramp

Double 8

Global ID Unique identifier used by GIS Global ID created_user The user who created the

push button String 255

created_date Date when the push button was created

Date 8

last_edited_user The user who performed the last update

String 255

last_edited_date Date when the push button was last edited

Date 8

76

Defect Table Field Name Field Description Field Type Length Domain Values

Object ID Unique identifier used by GIS Object ID

Rel_GUID Unique identifier used to related the condition data table to the sidewalk and curbramp tables.

GUID

DefectType Type of defect being added String 50 Cracking, Cross Slope, Horizontal Fault, Non Compliant Driveway, Obstructions, Ponding, Spalling, Vertical Fault - 1/2" - 1", Vertical Fault - 1" - 3", Vertical Fault - > 3", Inlet Hazard, Sediment Deposit, Utility Access, Warning Panel

DefectScore Score assigned to the specific defect

Double 8

Pannels Affected Number of panels defect affected SmallInteger 2

Inspection Date Inspection date Date 8 Comments General comments about the

defect String 200

Global ID Unique identifier used by GIS Global ID

created_user The user who created the curbramp

String 255

created_date Date when the curbramp was created

Date 8

last_edited_user The user who performed the last update

String 255

last_edited_date Date when the curbramp was last edited

Date 8

77

Sidewalk Relationship Classes and Attachments Sidewalk__ATTACHREL - RelationshipClass Name Sidewalk__ATTACHREL Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite TRUE ForwardPathLabel attachment BackwardPathLabel object Description Sidewalk__ATTACHREL Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

Sidewalk GlobalID REL_GLOBALID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

Sidewalk__ATTACH Sidewalk_Defect__ATTACHREL - RelationshipClass Name Sidewalk_Defect__ATTACHREL Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite TRUE ForwardPathLabel attachment BackwardPathLabel object Description Sidewalk_Defect__ATTACHREL Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

Sidewalk_Defect GlobalID REL_GLOBALID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

Sidewalk_Defect__ATTACH Sidewalk_to_SidewalkDefect - RelationshipClass Name Sidewalk_to_SidewalkDefect Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite FALSE ForwardPathLabel Sidewalk_Defect BackwardPathLabel Sidewalk Description Sidewalk_to_SidewalkDefect Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

Sidewalk GlobalID Rel_GUID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

Sidewalk_Defect

78

Curb Ramp Relationship Classes and Attachments CurbRamp__ATTACHREL - RelationshipClass Name CurbRamp__ATTACHREL Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite TRUE ForwardPathLabel attachment BackwardPathLabel object Description CurbRamp__ATTACHREL Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

CurbRamp GlobalID REL_GLOBALID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

CurbRamp__ATTACH CurbRamp_Defect__ATTACHREL - RelationshipClass Name CurbRamp_Defect__ATTACHREL Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite TRUE ForwardPathLabel attachment BackwardPathLabel object Description CurbRamp_Defect__ATTACHREL Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

CurbRamp_Defect GlobalID REL_GLOBALID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

CurbRamp_Defect__ATTACH CurbRamp_to_CurbRampDefect - RelationshipClass Name CurbRamp_to_CurbRampDefect Cardinality OneToMany IsAttributed FALSE IsComposite FALSE ForwardPathLabel CurbRamp_Defect BackwardPathLabel CurbRamp Description CurbRamp_to_CurbRampDefect Origin Class Name Origin Primary Key Origin Foreign Key

CurbRamp GlobalID Rel_GUID

Destination Class Name Destination Primary Key Destination Foreign Key

CurbRamp_Defect