Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory the First Step in Ensuring Compliance with Accessibility Requirements

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory The first step in ensuring compliance with accessibility requirements

September 2017

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Executive Summary

In the summer of 2017, the Town of Falmouth undertook an inventory of its existing sidewalk network. This project was listed as a recommended action item in the 2016 Falmouth Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan . The inventory focused primarily on American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance of sidewalk segments, curb ramps, and crosswalks.

Sidewalk segments and curb ramps were surveyed for the most common barriers to access, including:

• Sidewalk width, vertical grade, and maintenance; • Curb ramp width, vertical grade, and cross slope; • The presence of level landing panels, detectable warnings, and other curb ramp elements; • Flush and level transitions between sidewalks, ramps, and crosswalks; etc.

Over 10 miles of priority sidewalk segments were surveyed. The key results include:

• 50 percent of sidewalk segments (17 segments) have at least one vertical or horizontal fault. • 29 percent of sidewalk segments (10 segments) have at least one obstructing or protruding object. • 62 percent of sidewalk segments (21 segments) have at least one non-conforming curb cut. • 6 percent of curb ramps (10 ramps) have a ramp panel less than 36 inches wide. • 15 percent of curb ramps (25 ramps) lack a level landing panel. • 36 percent of curb ramps (59 ramps) lack detectable warnings installed and in good condition. • 26 percent of curb ramps (42 ramps) lack flush and level transitions.

The following recommendations are made to improve conditions and increase compliance:

• Repair all vertical and horizontal faults (51 faults).

• Install high-performing detectable warnings (59 ramps).

• Remove all obstructing and protruding objects (15 objects).

• Retrofit all non-conforming driveways and curb cuts (47 curb cuts).

• Install crosswalk signals or signage at appropriate locations.

• Consider requiring a sidewalk width of 6 feet or more in high traffic locations.

• Attempt to perform crosswalk maintenance and striping as early in the season as is practical.

• Establish "enhanced maintenance zones" in priority pedestrian areas.

• Reconsider corner/diagonal curb ramp configurations, in favor of two perpendicular ramps.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction and Background ...... 3 Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act ...... 4 Methodology Used and Metrics Evaluated ...... 4 Scoring ...... 9 Results ...... 10 Recommendations ...... 12 Conclusion ...... 14 Appendices ...... 15

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Introduction and Background

The current Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Falmouth was adopted by the Falmouth Town Council in 2014. A key land use theme in this plan envisioned Falmouth as having two mixed-use and commercial growth areas, one along Route 1 and another along Route 100, to be surrounded by residential growth areas of increased density. Guiding development in this manner would allow for walkable and bikeable neighborhoods with convenient connections to the village centers.

Several public outreach efforts informed the Comprehensive Plan, including a statistically significant survey with questions on bicycling and walking. 61 percent of respondents indicated that it was important or very important to extend a bike network across Falmouth. 58 percent felt the same about a sidewalk network. As a result, encouraging more biking and walking became an important part of the plan.

In 2016, the Town Council adopted a bicycle and pedestrian plan. That plan, spearheaded by a coalition of Town staff, consulted with experienced stakeholders and advocates, including representatives from the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Maine Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the public. Two public forums and an informal survey resulted in a list of recommended improvements to be evaluated. Two priorities became clear: a better-connected bicycle and pedestrian network throughout town, and increased ADA compliance of that network.

Ultimately, that plan envisioned Falmouth as a place where biking and walking were promoted as safe and convenient modes of transportation. To achieve that end, a key goal of the plan was to strengthen connections to the Route 1 and Route 100 corridors, the school campus, downtown Portland, and other important destinations.

A list of 47 recommended action items was included in the plan to advance its vision and goals. Two of those action items are:

• Make ADA improvements to the entire sidewalk system, especially at crosswalk locations; and, • Incorporate the latest ADA-compliant crossing technologies, including audio warning devices and countdown signals, whenever a traffic signal is being upgraded.

The latter was acknowledged as an ongoing activity, but the former necessitated that an inventory be created to assist Town staff in identifying deficiencies, prioritizing improvements, and planning for future expansions to the sidewalk network.

In the summer of 2017, Town staff inventoried and surveyed the existing Falmouth sidewalk network, with an emphasis on accessibility and ADA compliance. The Town's sidewalk network is relatively new, and gradually expanding. In tandem with that expansion, staff and the public have expressed a desire that the existing sidewalk infrastructure be kept in good condition. Further, with Falmouth poised for future growth, cultivating walkable village centers and promoting non-motorized transportation modes are important strategies towards reducing congestion, fostering a strong sense of community, and reducing any negative environmental impacts.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990, prohibiting discrimination based on disability. Title II of that act concerns access to public facilities and programs, and is the primary source of the need for public entities to ensure adequate public access for people of all abilities to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically relevant to this project, Title II governs the geometric requirements for sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb ramps.

Several documents were consulted for guidance on compliance with the ADA:

• ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2007, specifically o Chapter 6, "Curb Ramps and Pedestrian Crossings Under Title II of the ADA" and o Appendix 2, "Survey Forms: Curb Ramps;" • Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings: An Informational Guide , U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2004; • The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2015; and, • ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003.

While the above documents provided a basic understanding of common non-compliance problems, most include a caveat, and this report includes the same: For full ADA compliance it is necessary to follow Chapters 4 through 10 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design . However, Chapter 4 alone, regarding "Accessible Routes", is 32 pages long. Even a cursory reading of that chapter indicates that much of its content is beyond the scope of this project. Thus, this inventory and survey work considers only the most common curb ramp and sidewalk related barriers to accessibility.

Methodology Used and Metrics Evaluated

Existing GIS data suggests the sidewalk and pedestrian connection network in Falmouth totals over 26 miles in length. (A "pedestrian connection" refers to walkways that typically go through parking lots or lead directly to buildings, providing general pedestrian access to or within a specific site; for example, the Falmouth Village Shoppes Plaza or the Falmouth School Campus.) Staff identified a subset of priority sidewalk segments to be inventoried.

The segments prioritized were those along major corridors, through key pedestrian environments, and in areas that may see an increase in pedestrian use due to future growth. Generally excluded were sidewalks on minor residential streets (especially dead end streets), and other pedestrian connections not directly adjacent to roadways. The priority segments surveyed totaled over 10 miles in length. The map on page 6 shows the surveyed priority sidewalk segments within the overall network.

Field inspections were performed from May to August 2017. The equipment utilized to perform the inspections included a standard tape measure, an electronic level, a camera, and the two evaluation sheets (one for sidewalk segments and another for curb ramps and crosswalks). See Appendix A for the evaluation sheets.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The following table details the priority sidewalk segments surveyed:

PRIORITY SIDEWALK SEGMENTS SURVEYED ID Street Cross streets Side Length (ft) 1 Route 1 Andrews Ave. to Martin's Pt. Br. E 1,912 2 Route 1 Hammond Rd. to Andrews Ave. E 1,113 3 Route 1 Brown St. to Hammond Rd. E 1,606 4 Old Route 1 Providence Ave. to Brown St. E 1,477 5 Route 1 Foreside Rd. to Clearwater Dr. W 3,863 6 Route 1 Fundy Rd. to 183 Route 1 E 1,298 7 Route 1 Clearwater Dr. to Depot Rd. W 986 8 Route 1 Fundy Rd. to Depot Rd. E 1,356 9 Route 1 Bucknam Rd. to Depot Rd. W 1,469 10 Route 1 Depot Rd. to Bucknam Rd. E 789 11 Depot Rd. Route 1 to Lunt Rd. N 1,064 12 Lunt Rd. Depot Rd. to I-295 S 1,890 13 Depot Rd. Lunt Rd. to Legion Rd. E 1,101 14 Blueberry Ln. Falmouth Rd. to Merrill Rd. E 2,769 15 Lunt Rd. I-295 to Falmouth Rd. S 1,774 16 Falmouth Rd. Middle Rd. to Lunt Rd. S 1,845 17 Falmouth Rd. Lunt Rd. to Blueberry Ln. S 631 18 Falmouth Rd. Blueberry Ln. to Merrill Rd. S 2,621 19 Johnson Rd. Foreside Rd. to Route 1 S 3,878 20 Foreside Rd. Johnson Rd. to Underwood Park W 770 21 Allen Ave. Ext. Ledgewood Dr. to Portland line S 354 22 Ledgewood Dr. Middle Rd. to Allen Ave. Ext. E 6,319 23 Woodville Rd. Juniper Ln. to Fal. Middle Sch. E 1,527 24 Woodville Rd. Fal. Middle Sch. to Fal. High Sch. E 811 25 Woodville Rd. Fal. High Sch. area W 909 26 Route 100 Over Presumpscot River E 1,401 27 Leighton Rd. East of Route 100 S 667 28 Leighton Rd. West of Route 100 S 623 29 Leighton Rd. Over I-295 S 301 30 Brook Rd. Leighton Rd. to Blackstrap Rd. E 1,326 32 Farm Gate Rd. Lunt Rd. to Clearwater Dr. N 2,044 33 Clearwater Dr. Route 1 to Waterview Way N 1,938 34 Clearwater Dr. Farm Gate Rd. to Route 1 S 727 35 Hat Trick Dr. Depot Rd. to Clearwater Dr. W 1,565

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Evaluating sidewalk segments :

Width of the pedestrian travel zone. The prototypical sidewalk can be divided into three zones:

• A frontage zone directly along buildings and other street walls, generally not less than two feet in width; • A pedestrian travel zone free of any objects and hazards; and, • An optional planting/buffer zone serving as a buffer between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Benches, lighting, and other such objects are also collected in this zone.

The width of the pedestrian travel zone must be greater than 4 feet, and is ideally 6 feet or more in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic. Note that wheelchair users require 5 feet to turn around and 6 feet to pass each other.

Running vertical grade. Generally, the sidewalk will match the grade of the adjacent roadway. A maximum grade of 1:12 (that is, a rise of 1 inch over a run of 12 inches) is permitted for a distance of 30 feet before a level landing area must be installed. The landing, which must have minimum dimensions of 5 feet by 5 feet, serves as an area for users to rest, and can be enhanced with benches, drinking fountains, or other amenities.

Cross slope. To allow for drainage, the maximum permitted cross slope is 1:50. High cross slopes can cause wheelchairs users to lose their lateral balance, and can cause all users to veer from the pedestrian travel zone.

Obstructing and protruding objects. The pedestrian travel zone must be free of all obstructing and protruding objects. For the purposes of this survey, a vertical protrusion is any object hanging less than 80 inches above the sidewalk (for example, an unpruned tree branch). A horizontal protrusion is any object that extends more than 4 inches into the pedestrian travel zone horizontally and does not extend to within 2 feet of the ground vertically (for example, a mailbox overhanging the sidewalk). Such an object can be difficult for blind

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017 pedestrians to detect. Finally, an obstruction is any object that reduces the width of the pedestrian travel zone to less than 3 feet (for example, a telephone pole in middle of the sidewalk). Such an object can render a sidewalk segment entirely unusable to certain users.

Objects that extend more than 4 inches into the pedestrian travel zone horizontally but do not extend to within 2 feet of the ground vertically can be difficult for blind pedestrians to detect.

Vertical and horizontal faults. A sidewalk segment must have a smooth and even surface. Any vertical fault greater than 0.25 inches can be a tripping hazard. A vertical fault greater than 3 inches can render a sidewalk impassable to wheelchair users. Horizontal faults greater than 0.5 inches, especially running in the direction of travel, can catch wheelchairs, roller blades, strollers, and other such devices. Significant faults can signal maintenance and drainage problems.

Surface deterioration, cracking, or spalling. Similarly to faults, areas of significant surface deterioration can signal maintenance and drainage problems. These areas also make passage by wheeled users difficult. Note that even a new surface can be non-compliant if it is overly textured.

Maintenance and cleanliness. In addition to making certain segments difficult or impossible to traverse, areas of poor maintenance, debris, and standing water are unsightly and unwelcoming.

Driveways and curb cuts. Driveways, curb cuts, and other private accesses are less stringently regulated than intersections of public ways, but a clear and accessible route must be provided when they interrupt a sidewalk. Detectable warnings, pedestrian signals, or crosswalk markings, for example, do not need to be provided, but the path must remain level, smooth, and free of objects and hazards.

Evaluating curb ramps:

Ramp panel width. The width of the ramp panel must be at least 36 inches.

Ramp panel running slope. The running slope of the ramp panel may not exceed 1:12.

Ramp panel cross slope. The cross slope of the ramp panel may not exceed 1:50.

Gutter slope. Streets have a lateral slope to aid drainage. The gutter slope at the base of the ramp panel may not exceed 1:20. Excessive gutter slope can make for an uncomfortable transition at the bottom of the ramp.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Landing panel. At the top of the ramp panel, a level landing with minimum dimensions of 36 inches by 36 inches must be provided. This is to allow wheelchair users a space to turn after ascending the ramp. It also serves as a continuation of the accessible way for users travelling perpendicular to the ramp.

Detectable warnings. A strip of detectable warnings stamped with a truncated dome pattern must be present and in good condition at the base of the curb ramp to warn pedestrians that they are about to enter the street.

Transitions. Transitions from one element of the ramp to another, and between the sidewalk, ramp, and street, must be flush and level.

General configuration. The geometry of an intersection may necessitate a particular type of curb ramp. This survey recognized five curb ramp configurations, some of which require additional consideration:

• A parallel/directional ramp is where two successive ramps meet level with the street, or when the nature of the intersection maintains the direction of pedestrian travel. • A flared sides ramp is where the ramp slopes down from three directions. In such a configuration, the slope of the flared sides may not exceed 1:12. • A returned sides ramp is where the ramp slopes down from one direction only. In such a configuration, there must be a planting/buffer zone between the street and sidewalk to discourage perpendicular travel across the ramp. • A corner/diagonal ramp is where two perpendicular crosswalks at an intersection link to a single curb ramp, or where crossing on the diagonal is permitted. In such a configuration, there must be at least 48 inches of space at the base of the ramp, outside of the path of turning vehicles. • A built-up ramp is where a ramp rises from the street to meet level with the sidewalk. In such a configuration, the ramp must be installed outside of the path of vehicle travel.

A parallel/directional ramp. A flared-sides ramp. A returned-side ramp.

A corner/diagonal ramp. A built-up ramp.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Evaluating crosswalks:

Markings. Whether or not crosswalk striping was installed, maintained, and aligned with the curb ramp was recorded. Striping may not be appropriate or necessary in all locations, especially in lower-volume residential neighborhood streets. Striping is necessary along major corridors. Note that restriping typically occurs annually.

Signals/signage. The presence of any form of pedestrian signals or signage (rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs), advance warning signs, etc.) was recorded.

General configuration. The relationship between the general pedestrian facility and the street was recorded. This survey anticipated three configurations; two more were identified in the field:

• Crosswalks at the intersection of two public ways; • Crosswalks at a mid-block location; • Curb ramps at a cut-through median ; • Curb ramps leading to no crossing , where a sidewalk ends and pedestrians are reasonably expected to continue on the shoulder of the road; and, • Sidewalks leading to dead-ends , where curb ramps and additional wayfinding did not exist in conspicuous locations.

Scoring

In order to prioritize problem areas, a numeric score was calculated for each segment. See Appendix B for the final scoring matrices. The scoring relied on deductions , representing specific non-conformities and other non- ideal conditions.

Deductions of increasing severity were assigned within each metric. A higher score signals a sidewalk segment of poorer condition and/or of higher concern. For example, a single vertical fault of 0.5 inches counted for a one-point deduction, while a single vertical fault of 3 inches counted for three deductions.

Two metrics, the width of the pedestrian travel zone and the running vertical grade of the segment, required a single selection serving as an average for the entire segment. The other metrics allowed the surveyor to 1) check if there were no problems (or, if so, that they were within allowable limits), or 2) tally the number of instances of a problem. For example, under "Obstructing and Protruding Objects", the surveyor checked "None" if there were no such objects, or tallied the number of offending objects on the segment. Summing the checkmarks and tallies on the sidewalk evaluation sheet yielded the segment deductions .

The curb ramp and crosswalk evaluation sheet worked similarly, with the exception that there was no gradation in scoring. The metrics are either met (with no deductions assigned) or not (with one deduction assigned).

Each crosswalk is associated with the sidewalk segment(s) to which it provides direct access. In turn, two curb ramps are associated with each crosswalk. (In the case of a cut-through median, there are additional curb ramps.) These curb ramps are noted under "Curb Ramps and Crosswalks" on the sidewalk evaluation sheet. Summing the deductions of the associated curb ramps yields the ramp deductions .

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Summing the segment deduction and the ramp deductions yields total deductions . As longer segments are likely to have more problems by virtue of their length, the total deductions are divided by the length (in feet) of the segment. The resulting value is adjusted by a factor of 10 and subtracted from one to yield a final index score resembling a baseball batting average: higher is better, lower is worse. A score of 1.000 represents a perfectly compliant sidewalk.

Results

The following table shows the highest scoring sidewalk segments:

HIGHEST SCORING SIDEWALK SEGMENTS Street Cross streets Score Falmouth Rd. Blueberry Ln. to Merrill Rd. 0.935 Ledgewood Dr. Middle Rd. to Allen Ave. Ext. 0.927 Route 100 Over Presumpscot River 0.914 Blueberry Ln. Falmouth Rd. to Merrill Rd. 0.910 Route 1 Foreside Rd. to Clearwater Dr. 0.904

Generally, these sidewalks are quite new, lack significant faults, cracking, or maintenance problems, and have few associated curb ramps relative to their length. There are, however, instances of excessive cross slope, and a few non-compliant residential and business curb cuts along these segments.

The following table shows the lowest scoring sidewalk segments:

LOWEST SCORING SIDEWALK SEGMENTS Street Cross streets Score Route 1 Depot Rd. to Bucknam Rd. 0.607 Depot Rd. Route 1 to Lunt Rd. 0.549 Leighton Rd. East of Route 100 0.445 Leighton Rd. Over I-295 0.435 Leighton Rd. West of Route 100 0.326

These sidewalks vary in age. The Route 1 segment is fairly new, but suffers from a high number of non- compliant commercial curb cuts. (For example, many of the ramps at the entrances to the Falmouth Shopping Center exceed a 1:12 slope.) The Depot Road segment is generally in disrepair, with a high number of vertical and horizontal faults, areas of surface deterioration, and areas with evidence of standing water. The three Leighton Road segments suffer from large faults, non-conforming commercial curb cuts, and poor curb ramps. Their relatively short lengths cause the problems to be even more pronounced. Note that new sidewalks throughout this area are currently being designed as part of the upcoming Route 100 corridor reconstruction project.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Other important findings include the following:

• 79 percent of sidewalk segments have a width of 5 feet or more. Only one segment, Lunt Road between Depot Road and I-295, is less than 4 feet for a significant distance. • 82 percent of segments have no or low vertical grade. Only one segment, Lunt Road between I-295 and Falmouth Road (specifically, the length immediately west of the railroad crossing), is of excessive slope and may require the installation of a level landing. • 71 percent of segments are free of obstructing or protruding objects. • 68 percent of segments are free of vertical faults. 53 percent are free of horizontal faults. • 35 percent of segments were marked as "clear and clean". Trash, organic material, or other debris was present at 29 percent of segments, while standing water or evidence of standing water was present at 53 percent of segments. • 32 percent of segments have at least one non-conforming residential curb cut. (There are a total of 21 such non-conformities.) 41 percent of segments have at least one non-conforming commercial curb cut (of which there are a total of 26). Non-conforming curb cuts usually result from excessive ramp slope, excessive cross slope, or uneven transitions.

Six curb ramps received no deductions. Five of these are along the newly reconfigured portion of Route 1 South.

Two ramps had a score of 7 and one ramp had a score of 9 due to being dead-ends in the network. The eastern end of the Falmouth Road sidewalk ends before reaching Middle Road with no curb ramp, no crosswalk, and no wayfinding of any kind. Note that this termination point was designed in anticipation of a reconfiguration of that intersection.

On Leighton Road, the sporadic construction of the sidewalk over time has resulted in a short segment missing and two additional dead-ends. Removing these outliers leaves the bulk of the curb ramps scoring from 1 to 3, relatively well against a worst-case scenario of 10.

The following chart shows the distribution of curb ramp scores:

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Specific non-conformities include the following:

• 6 percent of curb ramps (10 ramps) have a ramp panel less than 36 inches wide. • 13 percent of curb ramps (21 ramps) have a ramp panel running slope exceeding 1:12. • 31 percent of curb ramps (51 ramps) have a cross slope in excess of 1:50. • 15 percent of curb ramps (25 ramps) lack a level landing panel. • 36 percent of curb ramps (59 ramps) lack detectable warnings installed and in good condition. • 27 percent of curb ramps (44 ramps) lack flush and level transitions.

Crosswalks allow for some flexibility in their assessment. For example, painted markings or pedestrian signals may not be appropriate at every intersection, especially in low-volume residential neighborhoods. The survey found that 50 percent of curb ramps (77 ramps) lead to an unmarked crosswalk, or a crosswalk on a high-volume corridor where the markings have faded significantly. These are typically repainted annually. 65 percent (100 ramps) lead to a crosswalk that lacks any kind of pedestrian signals or signage.

Corner/diagonal-type ramps are a consistent problem. Turning vehicles routinely encroached on the 48-inch clear space at the bottom of the ramp, which can create a significant danger for wheelchair users.

Recommendations

It is the hope that this report will provide guidance to future planning and policy decisions regarding the expansion and maintenance of the pedestrian network. To that aim, this report provides short-term recommendations for improving the existing network, and long-term recommendations for policy changes that ensure continued future compliance.

Addressing non-conformities:

A first priority is to bring existing non-conformities into compliance. This can be achieved through two complementary strategies. (See Appendix C for more detail.) The first strategy prioritizes the "low-hanging fruit" by considering the following:

• Scope: What general commitment is necessary to identify a specific non-conformity to be addressed? • Time: What time commitment is necessary to identify and implement a solution? • Cost: What financial commitment is necessary to implement a solution?

Through this strategy, the following is recommended:

Repair all horizontal faults greater than 0.5 inches (31 faults). These are relatively easily identified and patched. Remaining gaps and grates should be designed such that a 0.5 inch sphere cannot pass through, and that the long dimension of any grate opening is perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Repair all vertical faults greater than 0.25 inches (20 faults). Faults less than 0.5 inches can be beveled with a maximum grade of 1:2. Faults greater than 0.5 inches require a ramp with a maximum slope of 1:12, or need to be removed.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Install high-performing detectable warnings (59 ramps). The yellow plastic or cast iron variants performed best, while red plastic or brick variants were more likely to have failed. Their positioning relative to the base of the curb ramp and crosswalk should be standardized, but they should be located as close to an intersection as is practical.

Carrying out these recommendations changes the score of the average sidewalk segment from 0.780 to 0.830.

A second strategy advocates for user safety and experience by prioritizing the following:

• Safety: What safety risk is posed to users by leaving the non-conformity unaddressed? • Liability: What liability might the Town be exposed to by leaving the non-conformity unaddressed? • Walkability: How is the walkability of the pedestrian environment negatively effected by leaving the non-conformity unaddressed?

Through this strategy, the following is recommended:

Remove all obstructing and protruding objects (15 objects). Protruding objects, like a tree branch or signage that overhangs the sidewalk, can be difficult for blind pedestrians to detect, and a collision could cause injury. Other objects can make a sidewalk feel cluttered, uncared for, or unwelcoming.

Retrofit all non-conforming driveways and curb cuts (47 curb cuts). Non-conforming curb cuts usually result from excessive ramp slope, excessive cross slope, or uneven transitions. The interaction between vehicle and pedestrian should be made as visible, predictable, and safe as possible.

Install signals or signage in appropriate locations. This survey found 100 curb ramps leading to a crosswalk that lacked any form of signals or signage. Note that this survey did not attempt to judge whether a particular crosswalk should or should not have signals or signage; they may not be appropriate in all areas. Installing these where appropriate will improve visibility for drivers and wayfinding for pedestrians.

Improving the pedestrian environment:

A second priority goes beyond minimum ADA requirements and focuses on ensuring a high-quality pedestrian environment in the future. Appendix D outlines steps municipalities can take to ensure compliance with ADA requirements now and in the future. To achieve this, the following is recommended:

Consider requiring a sidewalk width of 6 feet or more in high traffic locations. In many locations, including Lunt Road over I-295, Route 1 South, or the intersection of Route 1 and Route 88, narrow sidewalks feel out of scale with their surroundings and cause a pedestrian to feel exposed and unwelcomed. Furthermore, two wheelchair users require at least 6 feet to pass each other.

Attempt to perform crosswalk maintenance and striping as early in the season as is practical. The seasonal wear and tear on Maine roads is unavoidable, but an earlier response after the weather becomes favorable can keep crosswalks visible for a longer period of the year.

Establish "enhanced maintenance zones" in priority pedestrian areas. Continuous monitoring of important pedestrian corridors will cultivate a pleasant and productive environment in areas where the Town would like to see more people walking. Areas might include the Falmouth School Campus, the Route 1 corridor, or the Route 100 corridor.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Reconsider corner/diagonal curb ramp configurations. Corner ramps require a minimum 48 inches of clear space at the bottom of the ramp, but a wide curb radius invites higher vehicle speeds, which is inappropriate in a pedestrian environment. Two perpendicular ramps, or a tighter curb radius, slows turning vehicles and can improve visibility for drivers and pedestrians.

Corner/diagonal configurations can be more effective if the curb radius is tighter. But, that the path of vehicle travel will allow enough clearance at the base of the ramp seems unlikely in either case. Two perpendicular ramps improve visibility and safety.

Conclusion

Management of the Falmouth sidewalk network faces two distinct challenges. First, maintenance of the existing network should be performed in tandem with future expansion. Second, expansion should be done carefully and thoughtfully to ensure a pleasant pedestrian environment and continued compliance with ADA requirements. So doing will position Falmouth as an inviting place to walk, strengthening the local economy and community, reducing reliance on personal automobile, and providing an equitable transportation network for residents, workers, and visitors.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendices

A. Evaluation Sheets B. Final Scoring Matrices C. Prioritizing Short-Term Improvements D. Ensuring Compliance Now and in the Future E. Photo Gallery F. Acknowledgements and References

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix A. Evaluation Sheets

1. Sidewalk Evaluation 2. Curb Ramp and Crosswalk Evaluation

SIDEWALK EVALUATION Street: Side: N S E W Cross streets: Length: Surveyed by: Date:

WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL ZONE VERTICAL FAULTS 6 ft or more 0 pt 0.25 in or less 0 pt 5 ft - less than 6 ft 1 pt 0.25 in - less than 1 in 1 pt 4 ft - less than 5 ft 2 pt 1 in - less than 3 in 2 pt Less than 4 ft 3 pt Greater than 3 in 3 pt

OBSTRUCTING AND PROTRUDING OBJECTS HORIZONTAL FAULTS None 0 pt 0.5 in or less 0 pt Vertical protrusions 1 pt 0.5 in - less than 1 in 1 pt Horizontal protrusions 2 pt 1 in - less than 3 in 2 pt Obstructions 3 pt Greater than 3 in 3 pt

CROSS SLOPE, EXCL. CURB RAMP LOCATIONS SURF. DETERIORATION, CRACKING, SPALLING 1:50 or less 0 pt None 0 pt Greater than 1:50 1 pt Present 1 pt

RUNNING VERTICAL GRADE MAINTENANCE AND CLEANLINESS 1:20 or less 0 pt Clear and clean 0 pt 1:20 - less than 1:12 1 pt Poor maintenance, debris 1 pt Greater than 1:12 at a point 2 pt Standing water or evidence 1 pt Greater than 1:12 extended 3 pt of standing water

DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS Driveways and curb cuts adhere to curb ramp standards 0 pt Residential driveway or other curb cut does not adhere to curb ramp standards 1 pt Commercial driveway or other curb cut does not adhere to curb ramp standards 3 pt

CURB RAMP AND CROSSWALK DEDUCTIONS SEGMENT DEDUCTIONS Location Ded.

Total deductions Segment length TOTAL FINAL SCORE

CURB RAMP AND CROSSWALK EVALUATION 1 Location: 2 Location: 3 Location: 4 Location: 5 Location: 6 Location: Surveyed by: Date:

1 2 3 4 5 6 YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO CURB RAMPS 0 pt 1 pt 0 pt 1 pt 0 pt 1 pt 0 pt 1 pt 0 pt 1 pt 0 pt 1 pt Ramp panel width 36 in or more Ramp panel running slope 1:12 or less Ramp panel cross slope 1:50 or less Gutter slope 1:20 or less Landing panel 36 in or more Detectable warnings Installed and maintained Transitions Flush and level Configuration ------[ ] Parallel/directional ------[ ] Flared sides Side slope 1:12 or less [ ] Returned sides Planting strip/buffer [ ] Corner/diagonal 48 in or more cleared space [ ] Built-up Outside path of vehicles

CROSSWALKS Installed, maintained, and Markings aligned with curb ramp Signals/signage Call buttons, RRFBs, etc. Configuration ------[ ] Street intersection [ ] Mid-block [ ] Cut-through median 5 ft depth or more

TOTAL DEDUCTIONS

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix B. Final Scoring Matrices

1. Sidewalk Segments Final Scores 2. Curb Ramp and Crosswalk Final Scores

Sidewalk Segments Final Scores

ID STREET CROSS_STREETS SIDE LENGTH (FT) WIDTH_6 WIDTH_5 WIDTH_4 WIDTH_3* SLOPE_NO SLOPE_LOW SLOPE_MED SLOPE_HIGH* XSLOPE_LOW XSLOPE_HIGH* OBJECTS_NO OBJECTS_V* OBJECTS_H* OBJECTS_X* VFAULT_NO VFAULT_LOW* VFAULT_MED* VFAULT_HIGH* HFAULT_NO HFAULT_LOW* HFAULT_MED* HFAULT_HIGH* CRACKING_NO CRACKING_YES* MAINT_CLEAN MAINT_POOR* MAINT_WATER* CURBCUT_NO CURBCUT_RES* CURBCUT_BUS* SEG_DEDUCTIONS RAMP_DEDUCTIONS TOTAL_DEDUCTIONS FINAL_INDEX

POINTS 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 CHECK/TALLY [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] __ [ ] ______[ ] ______[ ] ______[ ] __ [ ] __ __ [ ] __ __

18 Falmouth Rd Blueberry Ln to Merrill Rd S 2621 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 11 17 0.935 22 Ledgewood Dr Middle Rd to Allen Ave Ext E 6319 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 6 18 28 46 0.927 26 Route 100 Over Presumpscot Riv E 1401 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 12 0.914 14 Blueberry Ln Falmouth Rd to Merrill Rd E 2769 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 15 10 25 0.910 5 Route 1 Foreside Rd to Clearwater Dr W 3863 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 17 20 37 0.904 6 Route 1 Fundy Rd to 183 Route 1 E 1298 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 13 0.900 16 Falmouth Rd Middle Rd to Lunt Rd S 1845 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 12 20 0.892 1 Route 1 Andrews Ave to Martins Pt Br E 1912 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 12 21 0.890 15 Lunt Rd I-295 to Falmouth Rd S 1774 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 11 21 0.882 4 Old Route 1 Providence Ave to Brown St E 1477 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 16 18 0.878 9 Route 1 Bucknam Rd to Depot Rd W 1469 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 15 18 0.877 24 Woodville Rd FMS to FHS E 811 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 11 0.864 19 Johnson Rd Foreside Rd to Route 1 S 3878 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 22 31 53 0.863 34 Clearwater Dr Farm Gate Rd to Route 1 S 727 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 10 0.862 17 Falmouth Rd Lunt Rd to Blueberry Ln S 631 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 10 0.842 3 Route 1 Brown St to Hammond Rd E 1606 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 14 12 26 0.838 30 Brook Rd Leighton Rd to Blackstrap Rd E 1326 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 17 22 0.834 23 Woodville Rd Juniper Ln to FMS E 1527 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 16 26 0.830 13 Depot Rd Lunt Rd to Legion Rd E 1101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 10 19 0.827 8 Route 1 Fundy Rd to Depot Rd E 1356 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 24 24 0.823 12 Lunt Rd Depot Rd to I-295 S 1890 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 20 14 34 0.820 32 Farm Gate Rd Lunt Rd to Clearwater Dr N 2044 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 33 40 0.804 21 Allen Ave Ext Ledgewood Dr to Portland TL S 354 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 8 0.774 20 Foreside Rd Johnson Rd to Underwood Pk W 770 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 18 0.766 7 Route 1 Clearwater Dr to Depot Rd W 986 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 6 19 25 0.746 25 Woodville Rd FHS area W 909 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 28 0.692 35 Hat Trick Dr Depot Rd to Clearwater Dr W 1565 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 16 29 45 0.712 2 Route 1 Hammond Rd to Andrews Ave E 1113 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 13 20 33 0.704 33 Clearwater Dr Route 1 to Waterview Way N 1938 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 5 35 34 69 0.644 10 Route 1 Depot Rd to Bucknam Rd E 789 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 12 19 31 0.607 11 Depot Rd Route 1 to Lunt Rd N 1064 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 17 31 48 0.549 27 Leighton Rd East of Route 100 S 667 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 22 15 37 0.445 29 Leighton Rd Over I-295 S 301 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 7 17 0.435 28 Leighton Rd West of Route 100 S 623 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 18 24 42 0.326

COUNT 7 20 6 1 24 4 5 1 24 14 24 5 5 5 23 10 2 8 18 9 9 13 27 9 12 10 37 13 21 26 PERCENT 21 59 18 3 71 12 15 3 71 29 71 9 12 9 68 21 6 15 53 12 21 29 79 21 35 29 53 38 32 41 Curb RampandCrosswalkFinalScores 7OdRue1a rvdneAeS lrd11Itreto 3 Intersection 1 2 1 2 Mid-block 2 1 2 Intersection 1 2 Intersection 1 Intersection Flared 4 1 3 Intersection 4 4 1 4 Parallel/directional 3 Nocrossing Intersection 4 Parallel/directional 1 1 3 Intersection Nocrossing Intersection Parallel/directional 1 1 1 1 Parallel/directional 3 Intersection Mid-block 1 1 1 1 1 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 1 1 4 Intersection 1 3 Parallel/directional 1 1 SE NE 3 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 3 1 1 SE 1 1 1 Intersection Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 1 1 Intersection 1 1 1 1 N Corner/diagonal 1 Intersection 1 1 1 1 S Parallel/directional 1 SE 1 OldRoute1at GilslandFarmRd 3 1 1 1 SW 49 2 OldRoute1at HartfordAve 1 SE Corner/diagonal 1 48 OldRoute1at ProvidenceAve 1 Corner/diagonal SW 1 47 Intersection FarmGateRd at10FarmGateRd 2 Corner/diagonal Intersection 1 46 1 FarmGateRdat10 GateRd S SW Corner/diagonal 1 45 FarmGateRdatMarigoldLn2 SE SW N 1 Intersection 1 44 FarmGateRdatMarigoldLn2 3 SE 43 FarmGateRdatMarigoldLn1 N 5 1 42 FarmGateRdatMarigoldLn1 NW 1 Intersection Corner/diagonal 41 4 FarmGateRdat28 NE 1 1 Corner/diagonal Intersection 3 40 FarmGateRdat34 1 1 1 39 LuntRdatFarmGate 1 4 NW NE2 Intersection Corner/diagonal 38 Intersection 1 3 LuntRdatFarmGate 1 NE1 1 37 1 DepotRdatLunt SE 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 36 5 DepotRdatLegion 1 SW Intersection 1 35 Corner/diagonal 1 LuntRdat5 1 1 1 E 34 DepotRdatLunt 1 Intersection Parallel/directional W 33 1 DepotRdatLunt Parallel/directional 1 1 32 1 1 DepotRdatHatTrickDr SW Parallel/directional 31 Route1atDepotRd SE 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 30 Route1atDepotRd NE 1 1 29 Route1atDepotRd Parallel/directional NW 1 28 Route1atDepotRd 27 Route1at227 1 NW 26 Route1at227 SW 25 Route1atClearwaterDr NW 24 Route1atClearwaterDr SW 23 1 Route1atClearwaterDr 22 Route1atClearwaterDr 1 SE 21 NW ClearwaterDratHatTrick NE NE 20 ClearwaterDratHatTrick NE 19 ClearwaterDratFarmGateRd 18 ClearwaterDratFarmGateRd SE2 17 ClearwaterDratWaterviewWay 16 ClearwaterDratWaterviewWay 15 ClearwaterDratWillowLn 13 ClearwaterDratWillowLn 12 BlueberryLnatMiddleRd 11 BlueberryLnatFalmouthRd 10 amuhR tMrilR E1Prle/ietoa nescin3 Intersection 1 2 1 2 9 Intersection 4 4 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 Intersection 1 Intersection 1 1 Intersection 1 1 1 1 1 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Missing/dead-end 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 1 1 1 SE 1 1 1 1 SW SW 1 SE1 SW SE SW SW Falmouth RdatMerrill SE 9 Falmouth RdatRidgewoodDr 8 Falmouth RdatBlueberryLn 7 FalmouthRdatBlueberryLn 6 Falmouth RdatMiddle 5 Falmouth RdatLunt 4 FalmouthRdatLunt 3 Lunt RdatMiddle 2 LuntRdatMiddle 1 RAMP_ID

LOCATION

DIRECTION

WIDTH

SLOPE

XSLOPE

GSLOPE

LANDING

DETECT_WARNS

TRANSITIONS aalldrcinl1Itreto 1 2 Intersection 1 1 Intersection 1 1 Mid-block 1 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 1 Intersection 1 1 1 Mid-block 1 Mid-block 2 Parallel/directional 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional 1 Corner/diagonal 1 1 Intersection 1 2 Intersection 1 Intersection 1 1 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Parallel/directional aalldrcinl1Itreto 1 1 Intersection Intersection 1 1 1 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Parallel/directional

RAMP_CONFIG

CONFIG_CHECK

MARKINGS

SIGNALS

XWALK_CONFIG

DEDUCTIONS 0 ot tBcnmR lpNE Route1atBucknamRdSSlip 100 9Rue1a uka dS21Cttruhmda u-hog 2 2 Cut-through 2 Intersection 2 1 1 2 Intersection Cut-through 1 1 1 Cut-throughmedian Cut-through 1 1 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 1 Cut-throughmedian Parallel/directional Mid-block 1 1 1 Cut-throughmedian 3 1 Mid-block 1 Parallel/directional 1 Mid-block Parallel/directional SW2 Mid-block 2 1 1 Mid-block SW1 Cut-through Parallel/directional NW2 Mid-block 1 NW 3 4 Parallel/directional NW1 SE 1 2 1 Parallel/directional NE2 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 2 Route1atBucknamRd NE1 1 Cut-throughmedian 99 Intersection SE 1 Route1atBucknamRd 1 C 98 Parallel/directional Route1atBucknamRd NSlip 1 Intersection 1 E 97 1 Route1atBucknamRd 1 1 NE 4 96 1 Route1atBucknamRdNSlip SE Parallel/directional 95 Intersection Route1atBucknamRd Corner/diagonal E 94 Intersection Route1atBucknamRd 1 Parallel/directional 1 93 NW 1 Route1atBucknamRd 3 C 1 Parallel/directional 92 Route1atBucknamRd 1 1 1 W 1 91 Route1at251 1 E 90 Route1at251 Mid-block Parallel/directional C 89 Route1atFundyRd 1 Corner/diagonal Mid-block W 88 Route1atFundyRd 1 2 87 Route1at182 1 1 86 Route1atForesideRd SW SE 85 Intersection SE Route1at182 1 84 Route1at182 NE Parallel/directional SE 83 Route1at194 1 4 Parallel/directional 4 1 NE 82 Route1at194 81 Route1at194 SE 1 Intersection 80 Intersection Intersection ClearwaterDratHatTrick NW Parallel/directional 1 79 Route1atBayShoreDr NE SE 1 1 78 Route1atBayShoreDr NE 76 Route1atBayShoreDr 3 1 SE 75 Route1atRegRocRd 1 NE 5 74 Parallel/directional Route1atRegRocRd W Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 73 Route1atAndrewsAve Mid-block 1 C 1 72 Route1atAndrewsAve E Mid-block 1 1 71 Route1atAndrewsAve 1 1 NE 70 Route1atPhillipsRd 1 69 Route1atPhillipsRd SE 1 1 68 Route1atPaysonRd Parallel/directional NE 67 1 Route1atPaysonRd Parallel/directional 66 1 Route1at64 1 1 65 Route1at64 NW SE 1 64 C Route1at64 SE 63 C Route1atWinslowRd NE 62 Route1atHammondRd SW 61 Route1atHammondRd 1 60 Route1atForesideCommonRd 1 59 Route1atForesideCommonRd 58 SW Route1atForesideCommonRd NE 57 Route1atBrownSt2 56 SE Route1atBrownSt 55 Route1atBrownSt 54 Route1atBrownSt 53 OldRoute1at110 52 OldRoute1at110 51 OldRoute1atGilslandFarmRd 50 RAMP_ID

LOCATION

DIRECTION

WIDTH

SLOPE

XSLOPE

GSLOPE

LANDING

DETECT_WARNS

TRANSITIONS u-hog ein1Cttruh1 1 Cut-through 1 Intersection 1 1 Intersection 1 2 2 Cut-through Cut-through median 1 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 1 1 Corner/diagonal 1 Cut-through median 1 Cut-through Corner/diagonal Corner/diagonal 1 1 Cut-through median Intersection 1 1 1 Intersection 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 1 2 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 1 Intersection 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 0 1 Intersection 1 1 Cut-through Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional 0 Intersection 0 1 Cut-through median Cut-through Intersection Parallel/directional 0 0 Parallel/directional Cut-through Intersection Cut-through median 1 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 Cut-through median Parallel/directional Parallel/directional u-hog ein1Cttruh1 Cut-through 1 Cut-through median

RAMP_CONFIG

CONFIG_CHECK

MARKINGS

SIGNALS

XWALK_CONFIG

DEDUCTIONS 5 ryR tLiho dS aalldrcinl11Itreto 4 Intersection 3 1 1 1 Nocrossing 3 Parallel/directional Mid-block 1 1 1 5 Driveway 4 1 4 Parallel/directional 1 3 3 Driveway 2 3 Driveway 1 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 Driveway 1 Driveway 1 Parallel/directional Driveway 3 1 1 Driveway 1 1 Driveway 1 3 1 1 5 SE Parallel/directional Intersection 3 E Parallel/directional 1 1 Intersection 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 Intersection 1 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional 1 S 1 Parallel/directional 4 1 1 2 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 1 1 2 3 Parallel/directional 1 1 Intersection W Parallel/directional 1 Intersection 1 GrayRdatLeighton SW Parallel/directional Intersection Intersection 150 1 Parallel/directional 1 GrayRdat75 1 1 3 1 149 1 2 LeightonRdat46 NW 3 4 148 Parallel/directional WoodvilleRdatFalmouthHighSchool3 SW 147 Intersection 1 WoodvilleRdat74 NW 1 3 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional 146 Intersection Intersection Parallel/directional WoodvilleRdatFalmouthHighSchool2 1 SW 4 1 1 NE 145 Parallel/directional WoodvilleRdatFalmouthHighSchool2 1 NE SE 144 Intersection Corner/diagonal 1 WoodvilleRdatFalmouthHighSchool1 SE 1 6 5 143 Intersection 3 1 WoodvilleRdatFalmouthHighSchool1 NE 1 1 1 142 1 SE WoodvilleRdatAthleticFieldsEastDr 1 Parallel/directional NE 1 141 3 1 1 Intersection Intersection 1 Parallel/directional WoodvilleRdatAthleticFieldsEastDr SE Parallel/directional Intersection 1 1 3 1 1 SE 140 Corner/diagonal 1 1 1 WoodvilleRdat51 2 1 1 139 Parallel/directional 1 WoodvilleRdat51 Intersection 2 1 1 138 NE 1 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 1 WoodvilleRdatStreamwoodLn 2 1 1 SE 1 137 1 Intersection WoodvilleRdatStreamwoodLn 1 2 NW 1 1 Intersection 136 WoodvilleRdatStillwood 1 Parallel/directional Corner/diagonal SE 135 Parallel/directional Intersection 1 WoodvilleRdatStillwood Intersection NE 1 1 Intersection 134 1 WoodvilleRdatJuniperLn 1 1 Parallel/directional 2 1 133 LedgewoodDratAllenAveExt 1 Parallel/directional 4 NW 132 LedgewoodDratAllenAveExt 1 Parallel/directional SW NE 131 Parallel/directional Intersection LedgewoodDratCountryLn NW 1 1 130 1 LedgewoodDratCharlotte NE Parallel/directional 1 Mid-block 1 SE 129 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 LedgewoodDratCountryLn NW 2 1 128 1 LedgewoodDratNorthledgeTerr 1 6 127 1 1 NW LedgewoodDratNorthledgeTerr Returned SW 126 LedgewoodDratIcePond 1 SE Mid-block Intersection Parallel/directional 125 2 LedgewoodDratSlocum Parallel/directional 1 1 1 124 SW LedgewoodDratSlocum 1 123 SE LedgewoodDratMiddleRd Intersection 1 122 SW Route1atJohnsonRd 121 SE JohnsonRdatArborsideDr 1 120 SW JohnsonRdatValleyAve Corner/diagonal Parallel/directional 1 1 119 SE 1 JohnsonRdatValleyAve 118 1 JohnsonRdatRaymond 1 W Parallel/directional 117 SE JohnsonRdatRaymond 1 E 116 JohnsonRdatBartlettWay SW E 115 W NW JohnsonRdatBartlettWay 1 W 114 1 JohnsonRdarKilbornWay 113 JohnsonRdarKilbornWay 112 ForesideRdatTownLanding 111 ForesideRdatTownLanding SW 110 W ForesideRdatUnderwoodPark 109 ForesideRdatRamsdell 108 HatTrickDr2 SW 107 HatTrickDr2 106 HatTrickDr1 105 HatTrickDr1 104 DepotRdatHatTrickDr 103 Route1at251 102 Route1atBucknamRdSSlip 101 RAMP_ID

LOCATION

DIRECTION

WIDTH

SLOPE

XSLOPE

GSLOPE

LANDING

DETECT_WARNS

TRANSITIONS aalldrcinl11Da-n 2 Dead-end 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 Driveway 1 2 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional 0 Intersection Parallel/directional 2 2 2 Intersection 2 1 Mid-block 2 1 1 Mid-block 1 1 Mid-block 1 1 Mid-block 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Parallel/directional Parallel/directional

RAMP_CONFIG

CONFIG_CHECK

MARKINGS

SIGNALS

XWALK_CONFIG

DEDUCTIONS 32WovleR tJnprL E11Prle/ietoa nescin4 Intersection 1 1 Parallel/directional 1 1 NE WoodvilleRdatJuniperLn 1332 0 ot tDptR W11Cre/ignl11Itreto 4 2 1 3 Intersection 1 Intersection Nocrossing Cut-through 1 1 1 Nocrossing 1 4 5 3 1 Corner/diagonal Parallel/directional 2 Intersection 5 Intersection 5 1 1 Cut-throughmedian 1 Intersection Parallel/directional 1 1 1 1 Nocrossing Parallel/directional Nocrossing Intersection 1 1 1 1 1 7 Parallel/directional Parallel/directional 1 6 7 1 Parallel/directional 1 Nocrossing 1 Parallel/directional 1 Intersection Nocrossing Parallel/directional 1 Parallel/directional 1 SE 1 NW 1 NW 1 1 1 1 C 1 E 1 1 NE Missing/dead-end Parallel/directional 1 1 1 1 Missing/dead-end 1 1 1 NE SE 1 FalmouthRdatRidgewoodDr 1 1 1 801 NE 1 Route1atWinslowRd 1 1 622 SW Route1atDepotRd SE 302 SE 1 Route1at227 1 252 1 1 GrayRdat47rd 1 161 1 1 GrayRdatLiberty 160 1 BrookRdatBlackstrap S 159 SW BrookRdatHamlin S 158 BrookRdatHamlin 157 LeightonRdatBrook 156 LeightonRdatI-95 155 LeightonRdatI-95 154 LeightonRdat66 153 LeightonRdat64 152 GrayRdatLeighton 151 RAMP_ID

LOCATION PERCENT COUNT DIRECTION 10 6 WIDTH 21 13 SLOPE 51 31 XSLOPE 0 0 GSLOPE 25 15 LANDING 59 36 DETECT_WARNS 44 27 TRANSITIONS aalldrcinl1Itreto 1 Intersection 1 Parallel/directional

RAMP_CONFIG 26 16 CONFIG_CHECK 77 50 MARKINGS 100 65 SIGNALS

XWALK_CONFIG

DEDUCTIONS Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix C. Prioritizing Short-Term Improvements

STRATEGY I: THE "LOW-HANGING FRUIT" METRIC SCOPE TIME COST NOTES

SIDEWALK SEGMENTS

Horizontal faults Low Low Low Relatively easily identified and patched.

Significant faults may need beveling or moderate Vertical faults Low Low Medium realignment to ensure smooth transitions. Depends on the object. Vegetation and tree Obstructing and protruding objects Low Medium Medium branches are easily pruned; utility poles are not so easily relocated. Requires a staff time commitment, and cost can Maintenance and cleanliness Low Medium Medium vary. Trash and debris is easily removed, fixing drainage problems can be more costly. Identifying whe re, when, and how to resurface a Surf. deterioration, cracking, or spalling Medium Medium Medium segment of sidewalk can start to require a greater commitment. Easily identified, but more difficult to implement Driveways and curb cuts Low High High solutions.

Widening a sidewalk segment requires, essentially, Width of the pedestrian travel zone Medium High High complete reconstruction. Requires considerable design efforts and financial Running vertical grade Medium High High commitment if the solution is the construction of a level landing. Complete reconstruction is easier than identifying Cross slope High High High specific areas of non-conformity

CURB RAMPS AND CROSSWALKS

Easily identified and relatively low cost, with a Crosswalk markings Low Medium Low moderate commitment for scheduling and performing the work. Locations and solutions are known, but costs are Detectable warnings Low Low Medium not insignificant.

Lateral reconstruction is more easily managed here Ramp panel width Low Medium Medium than with some of the other metrics. There is a commitment in scoping out signals or Crosswalk signals/signage Medium Medium Medium signage, as they may not be appropriate in all locations.

Ramp panel running slope Low Medium High Requires full reconstruction.

Ramp panel cross slope Low Medium High Requires full reconstruction.

Can require full reconstruction or new construction Landing panel Low Medium High behind the ramp, which may not be in the existing right-of-way.

Transitions Medium Medium High Requires full reconstruction.

No instances of excessive gutter slope were Gutter slope N/A N/A N/A recorded.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

STRATEGY II: USER SAFETY AND EXPERIENCE METRIC SAFETY LIAB. WALKAB. NOTES

SIDEWALK SEGMENTS

These objects can render a sidewalk segment Obstructing and protruding objects High High High impassable and can cause injury.

Vertical faults are tripping hazards, or significant Vertical faults High High Medium barriers to someone in a wheelchair. Vehicles backing out of residential driveways, or Driveways and curb cuts High Medium High traffic quickly exiting a commercial driveway to enter traffic, can be a danger to pedestrians. Can lead to unsafe and unwelcoming conditions if Surf. deterioration, cracking, or spalling Medium Medium Medium left unaddressed..

Can lead to unsafe and unwelcoming conditions if Maintenance and cleanliness Medium Medium Medium left unaddressed.

Horizontal faults Medium Low Low Passage by wheeled users can be made difficult.

The minimum standard is adequate, but wider Width of the pedestrian travel zone Low Low Medium sidewalks are more welcoming and can invite greater activity. Except in extreme cases, has relatively little affect Running vertical grade Low Low Low on safety or usability.

Except in extreme cases, has relatively little affect Cross slope Low Low Low on safety or usability.

CURB RAMPS AND CROSSWALKS

Crosswalk markings High High High Visibility is key to pedestrian safety at intersections.

These serve to delineate the pedestrian space. Detectable warnings High High High Failing warnings (broken or crumbling) can be a tripping hazard. A narrow panel is impassable for a wheelchair user. Ramp panel width Medium Medium High Sufficient space for pedestrians to pass is important at the edge of the roadway. Controlling the flow of pedestrian and vehicular Crosswalk signals/signage Medium Medium Medium traffic at intersections improves safety. Different signal timing choices can affect user experience. A steep slope is unsafe for wheelchair users, or Ramp panel running slope Medium Low Medium others in, for example, inclement weather.

Excessive cross slope can be a hazard to wheelchair Ramp panel cross slope Medium Low Low users. Clear space behind the ramp benefits wheelchair Landing panel Low Low Medium users, and allows room for pedestrians to pass one another. Except in extreme cases, has relatively little affect Transitions Low Low Low on safety or usability.

No instances of excessive gutter slope were Gutter slope N/A N/A N/A recorded.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix D. Ensuring Compliance Now and in the Future Adapted from ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2007.

The following steps can help the Town of Falmouth maintain standard operating procedures that ensure compliance with ADA requirements now and in the future.

Conduct a preliminary assessment. Determine the extent to which the Town has complied with ADA requirements for sidewalks, curb ramps, transit stops, and other pedestrian facilities.

Prioritize improvements. Identify locations requiring immediate action. Locations constructed or altered post- ADA without ADA-compliant facilities must be retrofit. Subsequent priorities are sidewalks and curb ramps providing access to, in descending order, local government facilities, bus stops and other transportation services, public accommodations, business districts, and residential areas.

Make a long-range plan. Address the steps the Town will take over a specific time period to come into compliance. In consultation with Town Management, Public Works, Finance, and others as appropriate, set goals for compliance based on priorities, resources, and reasonable time frames.

Create an avenue for public comment. Establish procedures for soliciting input on the accessibility of pedestrian facilities and transportation stops from the public. Establish an ongoing program for installing curb ramps upon request in both residential and nonresidential areas, and integrate these requests into the long- range plan.

Ensure compliance during construction and alteration. Develop a written policy ensuring that ADA-compliant sidewalks will be provided along any newly constructed or altered street, and that curb ramps will be provided at any newly constructed or altered intersection. Consider also mid-block pedestrian crossings and public transportation stops. If pedestrians may legally cross at a location, curb ramps must be provided.

Review standard designs. Many states and municipalities have standard designs for common features such as curb ramps or detectable warnings. Review these standards for compliance, and make changes if necessary.

Review the responsibilities of private developers. Infrastructure can become the responsibility of municipalities after it has been built by private developers. If the private developers have not provided ADA- compliant infrastructure, the municipality assumes the responsibility of coming into compliance. Exercise the Town's authority under zoning and land use laws, as well as plan review processes, to ensure that private developers comply with accessibility requirements. Establish a policy of refusing to accept property that has not been built in compliance with ADA requirements.

Require compliance from service providers. When preparing contracts for services by architects, engineers, and contractors involved in constructing and altering transportation and pedestrian infrastructure, consider including a provision specifically requiring compliance with Title II of the ADA.

Require certification from service providers. Where compliance with federal law is contractually required, consider requiring your architects, engineers, and contractors to certify ADA compliance before accepting, and making final payments for, their work.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix E. Photo Gallery Note that these photos represent existing conditions during the survey period only. Some issues, like crosswalk striping in some areas, have already been addressed since the survey was completed. Others may have solutions forthcoming.

The sidewalk is dusty and bumpy on The sidewalk at Falmouth Rd. and Many transit stops around town, Lunt Rd. crossing the railroad Middle Rd. dead-ends without a including this one on Blueberry Ln., tracks, and steep leading up to the curb ramp. This intersection will lack clear and level boarding areas. intersection with Middle Rd. soon be redesigned.

The segment along Clearwater Dr., The transition to a narrower This commercial curb cut does not with street trees and pedestrian- sidewalk on Clearwater Dr. properly accommodate pedestrians, scaled lighting, is the foundation for and the sidewalk does not continue a mixed-use neighborhood. to Route 1.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The sidewalk in front of the library A major fault across the sidewalk in Vegetation on Depot Rd. is is less than 4 feet wide, and has front of the library. There is no crowding out the right side of the significant cracking. crosswalk across Lunt Rd. here. sidewalk, and contributing to its deterioration.

This mailbox on Lunt Rd., though Much of this Lunt Rd segment is This jog on Lunt Rd. does not temporary, is an obstruction. Note less than 4 feet wide. maintain a consistent 36 inch the evidence of standing water. width, effectively an obstruction.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The Lunt Rd. bridge over I-295 will A utility pole at the corner of Lunt The Farm Gate Rd. segment is soon be reconstructed with Rd. and Farm Gate Rd. is an disconnected, with two dead ends improved bike/ped. facilities. obstruction. lacking effective curb ramps.

A parked vehicle on Farm Gate Rd., Routing the sidewalk along Old The drainage grate is a hazard, and though temporary, is an Route 1 is a pleasant alternative to the uneven pavement application obstruction. busy Route 1 proper. leads to excessive cross slope. The detectable warnings are set back too far from the intersection.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Wayfinding is awkward in the transition from Old Route 1 back to the main highway. Note also the excessive cross slope.

A cut-through median typical of this stretch of Route 1 South. Note the untamed vegetation in the foreground.

The recently reconstructed Martin's Point bridge includes a wide multi-use sidewalk on the south side and a 5-feet wide sidewalk, pictured here, on the north side.

There are high speeds and high traffic volumes near the intersection of Route 1 and Route 88.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

New construction ties into the This utility cover on Route 1 has This cut-through median is typical existing network on Clearwater Dr. settled into the pavement, enough of this section of Route 1. to result in a vertical fault.

The corner islands at Route 1 and Excessive cross slope across a Parked cars could encroach on the Bucknam Rd., one of the busiest commercial curb cut. sidewalk and become a barrier. intersections in Falmouth.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Many slip lanes and high speeds at the intersection of Route 1 and Route 88. The intersection is important to the regional bicycle network, and several improvements have been made recently.

This parallel ramp in front of Underwood Park has excessive cross slope, can be blocked by a parked car, and does not lead to a crosswalk.

This section is less than 4 feet On Johnson Rd., the sidewalk is Two drainage grates are hazards at wide. Vehicles parked in the Town extended behind a utility pole, this residential curb cut on Landing lot further encroach. maintaining sufficient clear space. Johnson Rd.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

A different style of drainage grate Numerous problems at this curb The 5-foot width is made narrower is an improvement. The slots are ramp at Arborside Dr.: a horizontal by the guardrail and vegetation. narrow but must be oriented fault, missing detectable warnings, The intersection of Route 1 and perpendicular to travel. uneven transitions, excessive cross Johnson Rd., visible in the slope, a drainage grate in the background, has no provisions for crosswalk, etc. pedestrians.

An inadequate curb ramp at Lacking a level landing at Excessive cross slope and lack of a Middle Rd. and Ledgewood Dr. Ledgewood Dr. and Slocum Dr. level landing at Ice Pond Dr.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The concrete pad under these Excessive cross slope through much Trash and recycling bins, however detectable warnings at Northledge of this section of Ledgewood Dr. temporary, are an obstacle for all Dr. has failed. pedestrians.

The sidewalk properly routed Unpruned vegetation on the walk Uneven transitions, inappropriately behind mailboxes on Woodville Rd. to school. placed detectable warnings, the In general, the sidewalks around ramp oriented towards vehicle town do this well. traffic, faded striping, pavement deterioration in the crosswalk, etc.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The concrete landings used in this area are settling and cracking, and many of the detectable warnings have not held up well.

Raised crosswalks are an effective way to slow traffic and improve visibility. This one in front of the elementary school has since been restriped.

Excessive cross slope pointing to a A raised crosswalk in front of the A wide turning radius in front of the significant embankment along high school. high school pushes back the Woodville Rd, and a fairly narrow detectable warnings, effectively segment at less than 5 feet wide. defeating their purpose.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

A lack of wayfinding at this slip lane exiting a shopping plaza on Route 100 near Leighton Rd.

Drivers cutting the corner or going around left-turning vehicles have damaged the edge of the roadway. Significant potholes have developed at the intersection of Route 100 and Leighton Rd.

The east end of the Leighton Rd. Drivers have taken the liberty of A steep ramp with no detectable sidewalk terminates in a private widening the roadway; the ramp is warnings and no landing panel parking lot. There are numerous now in the path of vehicle travel. leading to a misaligned crosswalk cracks and faults, and a parked car with faded striping. could block access.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The sidewalk is abruptly The interruption from the other There is no curb ramp at the interrupted at one property on direction. Leighton Rd. entrance to this Leighton Rd. shopping plaza.

The various segments along Access to the sidewalk on the A very shallow turn invites high Leighton Rd. are not connected. bridge over I-95 is not an option for speeds from drivers turning from someone in a wheelchair. Brook Rd. to Leighton Rd.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

The lack of a curb ramp at Brook Looking down Route 100 towards The sidewalk will continue north of Rd. and Blackstrap Rd. suggests a the Presumpscot River. the Presumpscot River after the future connection, but the interim completion of the Route 100 solution is not satisfactory. project.

Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory Summer 2017

Appendix F. Acknowledgements and References

Contributors:

Andrew Clark , intern, performed the surveying and field work, and was the primary author of this report.

Jay Reynolds , Director of Public Works, provided support throughout the project, and offered guidance on the content of this report.

Theo Holtwijk , Director of Long-Range Planning and Economic Development, provided additional guidance.

References:

For guidance on ADA compliance,

ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2007.

Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings: An Informational Guide , U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2004.

The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2015.

ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments , U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003.

For Falmouth planning and policy background,

Town of Falmouth 2013 Comprehensive Plan , Town of Falmouth, 2013. See falmouthme.org/long-range-planning- advisory-committee/pages/2013-comprehensive-plan for more information.

2016 Falmouth Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan , Town of Falmouth, 2016. See falmouthme.org/bicycle-pedestrian-project for more information.