Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Sidewalks (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

107 OVERVIEW Sidewalks provide a safe, convenient way for pedestrians to move about on a path that is physically separated from vehicular traffic on roads and streets. Sidewalks allow easy access to homes, schools, work places, and shopping and recre- ational areas. When the physical features of the sidewalk— walkway, curbs, curb cuts, and ramps—are coordinated with street lighting, traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings, an environment is created where pedestrians can proceed along the walkway and cross streets conveniently and safely. Side- walks serve all groups of the population—children, adults, the elderly, and those with disabilities. For this reason, the design, upgrading, and maintenance of sidewalks and related features (curbs, curb cuts, and ramps) must conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 28 CFR Part 35). Agencies that participated in the study survey were asked to rank in order of importance the transportation objectives that are served by sidewalks. The composite results across all responding agencies are given in Table 26. New York pointed out, as part of their survey response, that compliance with ADA maintenance requirements should be understood as an aspect of the transportation objectives represented in Table 26. Meeting these objectives calls on agencies to observe stan- dards, technical recommendations, and guidelines from a variety of sources. Figures 85 and 86 present agencies’ perceptions of those sources of guidance that are the impor- tant drivers of engineering and management decisions regarding sidewalks. Results are shown for two key aspects of asset management: new construction and installation, and maintenance and rehabilitation, respectively. The importance of ADA, national standards, state and local public policy, and especially individual agency policies, standards, guidelines, and procedures, is evident in these results. AASHTO guidelines for pedestrian facilities include the design and maintenance of sidewalks (A Policy on Geo- metric Design . . . 2004). The FHWA has developed a soft- ware tool, PEDSAFE, to help practitioners identify and select countermeasures that promote greater pedestrian mobility and safety, and that can be tailored to local site situations, identified safety problems, or desired changes in behavior (Harkey and Zegeer 2004). Canadian guidance for sidewalks is found in an InfraGuide Best-Practice document for sidewalk design, construction, and maintenance [National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (InfraGuide) 2004]. The city of Portland (Oregon) noted that ADA re- quirements should be seen as an explicit aspect of both con- struction and maintenance guidance. The city of Edmonton noted that Canadian guidance includes the InfraGuide Best- Practice guide mentioned previously and the TAC’s Urban Supplement (Geometric). [Author’s note: As this report was going into production, users of the InfraGuide were informed that it was being discontinued owing to a lack of continued funding. The website is no longer available.] MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Synthesis Survey Findings Maintenance of sidewalks is characterized by a sharing of re- sponsibility among public and private groups, and can vary by locale. The distribution of work and maintenance management responsibility that was reported by agencies participating in the study survey is shown in Figure 87. The major sharing of responsibility occurs between DOTs and local governments. (Canadian provincial ministries did not respond to this ques- tion.) Both DOTs and local agencies contract with private firms, with a mixed practice as to whether contractors exercise management responsibility. The “Other” category refers to property owners (or their local subdivisions), who are respon- sible for maintaining the portion of the sidewalk that fronts their property. The city of Portland notes that it maintains cor- ners and the free-standing curb; however, the property owner maintains the sidewalk. Other aspects of asset management practice are revealed through agencies’ methods of budgeting for preservation, operation, and maintenance of sidewalks, and their approaches to preserving and maintaining sidewalks once in service. Survey results for the budgeting method are shown in Figure 88. Explanations of the abbreviated budgeting process descrip- tions in this figure are given in chapter two. The largest number of responding agencies at all levels of government chose the “staff judgments, political priorities, and citizen demands” option, but overall the results in Figure 88 appear to have a somewhat indefinite quality. More than 25% of the responding agencies indicated “no specific budgeting approach,” and more than 20% selected “Other.” Based on the accompanying com- ments by agencies, this ambivalence appeared to be because (1) not all agencies maintain sidewalks; (2) there is no specific, CHAPTER SEVEN SIDEWALKS

assigned budget for sidewalks that would require a struc- tured process; and (3) sidewalk expenditures are not large enough to be overly concerned about budgeting. Agency approaches to sidewalk preservation and mainte- nance are tallied in Figure 89. Immediate correction of prob- lems and a prioritized approach to correcting problems were equally the strongest responses, followed by worst-first and deferred maintenance approaches. No agency selected preventive maintenance as a description of its strategy. Agencies explained their characterizations by clarifying how and when they are used. For example: • Maryland (prioritized approach)—The State Highway Administration will reconstruct sidewalks in a one-time effort to improve safety and pedestrian accessibility. Local subdivisions must then accept maintenance of both new and reconstructed sidewalks. • Edmonton (prioritized approach)—It is really a reactive approach. Priority is given to areas of high-pedestrian use; for example, hospitals or senior-citizen lodges. The agency does not attempt to meet any performance targets. A perennial backlog exists. • Portland (worst-first approach)—This is used for curb repair and has a limited budget. (Other): This includes the sidewalk posting program, with a 20-year cycle. 108 • Iowa (prioritized approach)—Applied to Interstate rest area sidewalks. • Tampa (prioritized approach)—Our prioritization program focuses on repairing the most severe and highly traveled sidewalks first. All repairs are made within 12 months of request. Sidewalk Management Plans and Guidelines City of Portland, Oregon The city of Portland’s Office of Transportation (PDOT) has developed a Sidewalk System Management Plan as part of its approach to comprehensive asset management (Portland Transportation Asset Management 2004). Sidewalks are rec- ognized as building more cohesive neighborhoods, adding value to homes, and encouraging walking. The plan com- prises several parts: • Asset trends and updates, describing the physical asset, the status of current inventory, condition, unmet needs, current performance, and budget and expenditure history. • Standards, roles, and responsibilities, covering the sev- eral bureaus within PDOT regarding sidewalk planning, design, construction, inspection, and maintenance. • Effectiveness and efficiencies, comparing Portland’s program with those of other jurisdictions, relating con- dition to various service levels, and highlighting opportunities for innovation and further operational efficiencies. • Emerging issues and action plan, outlining identified needs, actions, and priorities. • Appendices, which describe specific policies, proce- dures, selection criteria, and other details. In its plan, Portland notes a unique aspect of its sidewalk preservation management: proactive inspections that notify property owners if repairs to their sidewalks are needed. By contrast, other jurisdictions surveyed by Portland rely on public complaints to warn of needed repairs. PDOT tracks the Rank Factor 1 2 edestrian and cyclist comfort and convenience 3 Increased accessibility to employment 4 Increased accessibility to transit, bus, and rail 5 ore efficient travel, reduced time and congestion 6 ocal aesthetics and appeal 7 Improved air quality 8 Pedestrian and cyclist safety; accident and accident risk reduction P M L Other TABLE 26 PRIORITY OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES SERVED BY SIDEWALKS No Response Other Agency Guidelines Public Policy National Standards Statutes Percentage of Responses 0 20 40 60 80 100 FIGURE 85 Technical management guidance for new construction of sidewalks.

0 20 40 60 80 100 Own Agency Private (Outsourced) Other Govít. Unit Other Entities No Response Pe rc en ta ge o f R es po ns es Mgmt. Resp. No Mgmt. Resp. FIGURE 87 Responsibility for maintaining sidewalks once in service. 109 No Response Other Agency Guidelines Public Policy Nat’l. Standards Statutes Percentage of Responses 0 20 40 60 80 100 FIGURE 86 Technical management guidance for maintenance and rehabilitation of sidewalks. value of its sidewalk assets in terms of replacement value, as it does other infrastructure assets. As of July 2003, the replacement value of its sidewalk system was $1.2 billion, second only to pavement as the taxpayers’ greatest investment in their urban transportation infrastructure. The objectives of Portland’s sidewalk program are to: • Protect the public from injury by identifying hazards and ensuring their timely repair; • Protect the taxpayer from the expense of liability as a re- sult of sidewalk-related personal injury; • Protect individual property owners by notifying them that a hazardous condition exists and by assisting with cor- rection of that hazard; • Protect the general public’s investment in the transporta- tion system, which includes sidewalks, corners, and curbs; and • Manage the maintenance of sidewalks, corners, curbs, and driveways in a way that protects street trees and other desirable vegetation whenever possible. PDOT has no sidewalk system condition assessment. Rather, the condition of curbs and corners is based on the professional judgment of PDOT staff, accounting for the sidewalk material, identified redevelopment projects, and anticipated damage from tree roots. Needs identified in its Management Plan account for the estimated backlog of work on curbs and corners; repairs to the sidewalk itself are the responsibility of the property owner. Levels of service for the sidewalk system are expressed in terms of the estimated backlog which, when combined with the projected rate of annual repair, yield the anticipated time in years to eliminate the backlog. With budget con- straints, PDOT has found it necessary to cut back on its inspections and essentially to forego curb repair. Resources have been directed instead to reconstructing corners to meet ADA requirements, including ramps and, as of Janu- ary 2003, tactile warning devices. The agency also absorbs additions to sidewalk inventory with no corresponding increase in budget (Portland Transportation Asset Man- agement 2004). Halifax Regional Municipality, Canada The Halifax Regional Municipality has several infrastructure management programs for the civil facilities that it owns (“Infrastructure Management” 2006). Sidewalk and curb management are included as part as roadway management, together with pavements, traffic lights, and traffic signs. Halifax maintains an inventory of sidewalk length by mate- rial type and monitors their condition. Condition rating for concrete sidewalks (the most preva- lent type) is based on distresses such as spalling, minor and major faulting, minor and major cracking, and good and poor patching. Slabs with no distresses are noted as “good slabs.” Rating is done by inspectors who walk the sidewalk with handheld counters on which to record the number of dis- tresses observed. Data are entered into a PDA onsite; at the office the PDA data are downloaded to a database. The data are used to compute the percentage of slabs that are defective

and a Sidewalk Deficiency Rating, which is computed by weighting the major defective slabs by a value of 1, and the minor defective slabs by a value of 0.25. These ratings are used to determine which sidewalk sections will be considered for capital repairs. Asphalt sidewalks are rated on a more subjective basis. The condition of the entire section of a sidewalk is observed and the sidewalk is rated good, fair, or poor (“Infrastructure Management” 2006). Brisbane City Council, Australia The city of Brisbane is developing a Strategic Asset Manage- ment Plan (2003) for its footpaths. Because this plan is still in draft form, details are not provided here. However, Brisbane 110 is considering a management approach based on customer- oriented levels of service. These levels of service are based on the physical condition of the sidewalk, in terms of the sever- ity of defects. Brisbane has also estimated the replacement value of sidewalk assets, and is formulating a scheduled replacement plan based on service lives for each type of material (concrete, asphalt, pavers). It has also developed a risk management matrix, which identifies specific risk events, their likelihood and driving factors, and proposed methods to mitigate these risks. English Walking Programs The English Department for Transport and Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions have produced pub- lications that encourage walking and provide guidance to local 0 20 40 60 80 100 No Response Other No Maintenance Responsibility Deferred Maintenance Worst First Prioritized—Avail. Res. Corrected Immediately Preventive—Schedule Percentage of Responses FIGURE 89 Approach to maintaining and preserving sidewalks. 0 20 40 60 80 100 No Response No Specific Approach Other Percent of Total Budget Judgment, Politics Previous + Adjustments Percent Inventory Annually Budget Drives Target Target Drives Budget Percentage of Responses FIGURE 88 Annual budgeting method for sidewalk preservation and maintenance.

111 agencies on planning, strategies, and techniques for sidewalks. The Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions document offers general guidance across a number of topics, including the benefits of walking, need for planning in both transportation and land use, the value of partnerships and candidate partners, practical actions that can be taken in land use and transportation to provide attractive and practical side- walks, and methods to influence people’s attitudes toward walking and involving the public through local organizations, businesses, and social groups to feel “ownership” for the side- walk program (Encouraging Walking . . . 2000). The Department of Transport documents approach the issue from a transportation focus, including best practices on accessibil- ity of facilities to all pedestrians as part of a broader strategy on inclusive mobility (Inclusive Mobility . . . 2002), and struc- turing of the walking strategy in terms of objectives, measures, outcomes, and performance indicators (“Framework . . .” n.d.). MEASURING ASSET PERFORMANCE Measures of Sidewalk Performance The information provided by agencies on performance mea- surement of sidewalks is summarized in Figure 90, based on categories of performance factors similar to those described in chapter two. Measures of physical condition and confor- mity with ADA requirements were clear leaders among survey respondents, with associated qualitative measures and customer complaints also making a strong showing. Amplifying on these responses: • Florida uses a performance index based on cracking. • Iowa includes a condition measurement of faulting. It also maintains a toll-free customer comment telephone number. • Vermont uses a qualitative rating based on setback from the roadway shoulder. Oregon also uses a physical mea- sure of separation from traffic. Florida has investigated a Pedestrian Level of Service concept to understand what factors are considered by pedestrians as contributing to safety and comfort (Landis et al. 2001). Although perceptions of many characteristics of the sidewalk likely influence pedestrians’ judgments (e.g., architectural interest, shade in daytime, good lighting and amenities at night, and presence of other pedestrians), FDOT was interested in formulating a level of service based on read- ily measurable road and sidewalk characteristics. FDOT limited the study to the roadway environment between inter- sections. The following items were tested using regression PHYS: Compliance with ADA PHYS: Vegetation Encroach. PHYS: Debris Accumulation PHYS: Quality of Markings PHYS: Structural Condition PHYS: Surface Type & Width QUAL: Compliance with ADA QUAL: Vegetation Encroach. QUAL: Debris Accumulation QUAL: Quality of Markings QUAL: Surface Type & Width PHYS: Other Asset Age Performance or Health Index QUAL: Structural Condition QUAL: Other Asset Value Customer Complaints Customer Surveys Other No Response 0 20 10 40 60 80 30 50 70 90 100 Percentage of Responses FIGURE 90 Measuring performance of sidewalks. PHYS = physical; QUAL = qualitative.

analysis of these factors versus pedestrians’ ratings of sidewalk courses: • Presence of a sidewalk, • Lateral separation of the sidewalk from motor vehicle traffic, • Barriers and buffers between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic, • Motor vehicle volume and composition, • Effects of motor vehicle traffic speed, and • Driveway frequency and access volume. All of these factors, with the exception of driveway fre- quency and access volume, were found to be statistically sig- nificant. FDOT developed a series of model equations based on the regression analyses to incorporate the contributions of these factors within a computed pedestrian level of ser- vice value. There are several potential uses of this level of service concept: providing the pedestrian component of FDOT’s statewide multimodal evaluation; influencing road- way cross-sectional design, as well as the design of specific features (e.g., width of sidewalks); prioritizing needs for sidewalk retrofit construction; and “completing the picture” in conjunction with other measures of sidewalk capacity and quality (e.g., walkability audits) (Landis et al. 2001). Frequency and Method of Measurement The frequencies with which physical performance measures are addressed are shown in Figure 91. Edmonton uses varying frequencies: once every 2 years for arterials and collectors; once every 4 years for local streets. As another example, Portland inspects sidewalks on a 20-year cycle, supplemented by a complaint-driven process. The methods used by responding agencies to assess sidewalk condition and performance are reported in Figure 92. 112 Although visual inspections and customer complaints are the most common methods used, physical measurements are applied as well, at least in part to meet ADA requirements. Hawaii reported using a measuring tape and digital level for this purpose. Vermont employs Roadware–Visadata and Surveyor measuring tools for its photologging. ASSET SERVICE LIFE Information on service life was obtained in the study survey for three major components of sidewalks: (1) the sidewalk it- self, (2) the curb, and (3) corners in urban areas, including ramps. Reporting agencies were also asked to identify how they determine service-life values. Responses to this question are shown in Figure 93. Among the 25% of reporting agencies that identified at least one method, their emphasis was on collective agency knowledge, whether represented by their experience with sidewalk infrastructure (e.g., a database of observed historical service lives) or by the professional judg- ment of their staffs. LCCA analyses were also noted as a source of information, but to a lesser degree. Comprehensive service-life data reported by agencies in the study survey are given in Table 27. Examples of the dis- tributions of estimated service lives for two sidewalk mate- rials are shown in Figure 94 for concrete sidewalks and in Figure 95 for asphalt sidewalks. The labels on the horizon- tal axis give the upper values of each range of service-life data. For example, if these labels are 0, 5, 10, 15 . . . , then the column labeled 5 shows the number of responses for es- timated service life of zero to 5 years; the column labeled 10, the number of responses for estimated service life of more than 5 to 10 years; the column labeled 15, the number of responses for estimated service life of more than 10 to 15 years; and so forth. It should be noted again that the data in Table 27 and Figures 94 and 95 may be derived in part from the professional judgment of agency personnel. More Than Once A Year Annually Biennially Less Freq Than Biennially FIGURE 91 Frequency of physical condition assessments of sidewalks.

113 No Response No Info. Collected Other Customer Complaints Customer Surveys Non-Destructive Testing Physical Measurement Photo, Video Visual Inspection 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Responses FIGURE 92 Data collection methods for sidewalk condition and performance. No Response Do Not Use Service Life Other Manufacturer’s Data Professional Judgment Literature Agency Experience LCC Analyses Model Develop, MIS 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Responses FIGURE 93 Sources for determining service lives of sidewalks. MIS = management information systems; LCC = life-cycle cost. To apply the service-life concept in asset management, a method is needed to determine where an asset is in its service life—that is, how much life is consumed, and how much remains. Agencies were presented with a number of ways to determine the current status of an asset regarding its service life and asked to rank each method by relevance to their agency. The result for sidewalks is shown in Table 28 (note two instances of ties). On the related issue of identifying the extension in service life owing to maintenance, only one of the 23 reporting agen- cies for this asset responded affirmatively. Edmonton noted that as the result of requiring a gravel base for sidewalks, they estimate a doubling of service life as a result. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT Agencies participating in the study survey identified their key IT capabilities as shown in Figure 96. One-half of the responding agencies identified specific IT capabilities support- ing sidewalk management. For the most part these included inventory and location information, as well as recommenda- tions of inspectors and an ability to track public comments. A number of respondents also reported information on sidewalk condition, photographs, and GIS-based maps. Agencies characterized their IT systems for sidewalks as shown in Figure 97. Workbooks or spreadsheets were the most numerous types of procedures, with the remainder divided

114 Component and Material No. of Responses Minimum (Years) Maximum (Years) Mean (Years) Median (Years) Mode (Years) Sidewalks Concrete 7 20 60 34.3 25 20 Asphalt 5 5 20 11.4 10 10 Brick or block 2 20 20 20 20 Gravel, crushed rock 1 — — 10 — — Curbs Concrete 7 10 60 29.3 20 20 20 Asphalt 2 5 15 10 10 — Granite block 1 — — 20 — — Corners (urban) Concrete curbs 6 10 50 26.7 20 20 20 Granite curbs 1 — — 20 — — Curb with concrete ramp 4 20 50 27.5 20 20 Curb with stone or brick ramp 2 20 20 20 20 Notes: —, value is undefined for the particular distribution. When distribution is based on only one data point, its value is shown in the Mean column. TABLE 27 ESTIMATED SERVICE LIVES OF SIDEWALK COMPONENTS 5 N o. o f R es po ns es 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Estimated Service Life, Years FIGURE 94 Estimated service life of concrete sidewalks.

115 between broad-based systems and simple programs. The agen- cies that reported using a sidewalk management system or a maintenance management or transportation infrastructure asset management system that includes sidewalks are listed here. • Sidewalk Management System—None. • Maintenance or Asset Management System That In- cludes Sidewalks – New Mexico DOT – City of Edmonton, Alberta – City of Portland, Oregon. Other capabilities included devices such as straight-line diagrams. The city of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, has developed a side- walk management system that combines two branches of technology—a database and mobile GIS capabilities—to provide a solution that supports field as well as office needs (Weis 2005). • The management system assists in several phases of sidewalk management, encompassing field inspection of sidewalk condition, preparation of inspection reports to be sent to property owners, preparation of condem- nation letters for deficient sidewalk sections to be replaced, documentation of construction repairs, and preparation of tax assessment notices. • The field capabilities are built around a handheld com- puter that has an electronic data collection form for recording sidewalk defects. The computer also has mobile GIS software and a GPS, which is synchronized to the GIS on an office computer that is linked to the sidewalk management database. A parcel map is used as a base map by the GIS. • The inspector records the sidewalk condition on the electronic data forms, creating records of observed defects. The GIS associates these defect records with a parcel, and parcel information is added to the inspection form. The inspector also takes digital photographs of each defect, which are stored with the defect informa- tion for the parcel. The information is automatically 5 N o. o f R es po ns es 4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Estimated Service Life, Years FIGURE 95 Estimated service life of asphalt sidewalks. Rank Factor 1 The agency does not use/does not monitor service life for this type of asset 2 Assets are repaired or replaced as soon as they fail without regard to service life 3 Monitor condition of the asset occasionally 3 Service life is often determined more by functional obsolescence than by wear and tear 5 Compare current age of asset with the maximum age that defines service life 6 Monitor condition of the asset on a periodic schedule 7 Apply deterioration models to estimate where the asset is on “the curve” 7 Other factors TABLE 28 RANKING OF METHODS TO DETERMINE WHERE SIDEWALKS ARE IN THEIR SERVICE LIVES

Simple Program(s) for this Asset Broad-Based MMS, TIAMS, etc. Sidewalk Management System Percentage of Responses Workbook, Spreadsheet Other Products or Procedures 0 20 40 60 80 100 FIGURE 97 Types of analytic tools to support sidewalk management. MMS = maintenance management system; TIAMS = transportation infrastructure asset management system. 116 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No Response None of the Above Other Historical Database PMs, Dashboards, Accountability GIS Maps, Reports GIS Interface Est. Asset Impacts on Public Track Public Comments Cost Models for Treatments Other Optimization Procedures Benefit-Cost, LCC Decision Rules or Trees Inspector Recommendations Established Mntce. Schedule Deterioration Models Anticipated Service Life Dates of Inspections, Assess. Asset Age Usage, Traffic Volume Photograph Current Condition, Performance GPS Coordinates Location (e.g., Rte-Milepost) Number/Quantity of Asset Percentage of Responses FIGURE 96 IT capabilities to help manage sidewalks. GPS = global positioning system; LCC = life-cycle cost; GIS = geographic information system; PMs = performance measures.

117 transferred from the mobile computer to the office com- puter and the management system database. • At the office, the inspection data are entered into the central sidewalk database. Through a link to the tax data- base, the system obtains the name and address of the parcel owner, which is input to the inspection reports, condemnation letters, and assessment notices that are generated by the system for mailing. • The database analytic procedures automatically estimate bid quantities and repair costs based on measurements of defects recorded on the inspection form. Total payments due the contractor and property owner assessments for repairs are calculated from as-built measurements that are input for each defect. Quantities and calculations are automatically updated whenever these data are modified. • The office database can be queried to produce custom reports and maps of sidewalk network condition. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS Agencies at all governmental levels identified a number of knowledge gaps and resulting needs for research. These com- ments have been organized by topic area and compiled and summarized here. • General information—Several respondents identified the need for basic information on sidewalks; for example, inventory quantity, location, condition, and jurisdiction. One agency mentioned the need for performance data over longer time periods. In areas where sidewalk main- tenance is the responsibility of property owners, infor- mation is needed on the measures taken by subdivisions to enforce laws on sidewalk maintenance. There is a gen- eral lack of information on life expectancy of sidewalks. • Asset management—A city noted that they prefer to man- age sidewalks as an asset rather than respond to service needs. Several local and state agencies identified addi- tional information needs to develop a more comprehen- sive asset management approach. These ideas included more complete information on current sidewalk status (e.g., location, age, condition, and last maintenance per- formed), important attributes other than just the physical characteristics of the sidewalk—that is, a true walkability index—and development of an electronic sidewalk man- agement system with optimization capabilities. Others cited impediments, however, included lack of funding and competition for attention by other assets. • Engineering information—Agencies noted a need for additional or better engineering information on sidewalks, including field data collection devices, requirements for base materials under the sidewalk, better service-life information, and life-cycle analyses of alternative materi- als such as rubber (e.g., for textured surfacing to meet ADA requirements). • Institutional information—One agency suggested research on the uniformity of codes and practices throughout the country in assigning maintenance re- sponsibilities and related enforcement practices.