Street, Sidewalk, Curb, and Alley Assessment
Contributing Organizations:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA)
(Indiana University – Purdue University, Indianapolis)
Southeast Neighborhood Development, Inc (SEND)
Great Indy Neighborhoods Initiatives (GINI)
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..3
II. Street Assessment……………………………………………………………………………...6
III. Curb and Sidewalk Assessment…..………………………………………………………....16
IV. Alley Assessment…………..………………………………………………………………..30
V. References…..….………………………………………………………………………….....34
Appendix 1: Interview Template ……………………………………………………..……...….35
2
I. Introduction
Public infrastructure has commonly been identified as a catalyst in spurring economic
development. As access to a neighborhood and surrounding business centers is improved,
quality of life and increased employment opportunities for residents should follow.
As part of the execution of the 2007 Southeast Side Strategic Plan, the Southeast Neighborhood
Development Corporation (SEND) requested graduate students in a Public Affairs capstone
course in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) at Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis (IUPUI) conduct an assessment of streets, curbs and sidewalks, and
alleys in the Southeast Community Organization (SECO) neighborhood.
This project was done in the spring semester of 2008 by four students from the Master-level
SPEA capstone course and was coordinated by the Jennifer Rice, the Great Indy Neighborhoods
Initiatives (GINI) representative for the Southeast side. After completion of the project, the
SEND Public Space Committee chairperson, Jeff Miller, made the information available so that
neighborhoods across the city could use it to better communicate to the city their infrastructure
needs. For any questions, please contact Jeff at [email protected].
In order to accomplish this goal, the assessment uses the Indianapolis Department of Public
Works (DPW) methodologies as closely as possible. The SPEA students who piloted the study
identified Infrastructure Assessment Tools by conducting research and contacting public works
professionals to identify industry standards. They determined the appropriateness and feasibility
of industry accepted techniques and applied them to the assessment. Where the industry
standard was not feasible the team developed new assessment scales, relating as closely as
possible to the scales used by the DPW.
For street assessment, DPW uses the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to assess seven major
distresses. The distresses are rated depending on the identified severity. A slight alternative to
PCI was necessary due to the difficulty in acquiring and operating the DPW MicroPaver
software program.
3
To assess the condition of sidewalks and curbs, DPW recommends the Present Serviceability
Rating (PSR). This rating system grades each block and assesses priority levels using the
following scale: 1 is a high priority, 2 is a medium priority, and 3 is a low priority level.
There are also guidelines for assessing the alleys, but these are not as defined and alleyways in
general are considered lower in priority over streets and sidewalks.
Methodology
•
Identification of the Area: It is first necessary to break the area to be assessed into
segments. Each segment is a city block such as “Keystone Ave” from “Pleasant Run
Parkway” to “Woodlawn Ave”. Each segment is given a numeric “ID”.
•
Entering segments in the spreadsheets: Each segment is entered into the “Street
Assessment.xls” and “Curb and Sidewalk Assessment.xls” spreadsheets. In the “Curb
and Sidewalk Assessment.xls” spreadsheet, each segment is entered twice, to capture the
section of the sidewalk on each side of the segment (such as “North” and “South”, for an
East/West running road).
•
Training: If possible, it is always helpful to meet with a neighborhood that has done the
assessment before. However, the information provided in this document is thorough
enough that training is not necessary.
•
Field Assessment. The team canvasses the area, segment by segment on foot to visually
review the curbs, sidewalks and streets. Primary tools used for the assessment include a
pen and printout of the spreadsheets above for recording assessment and location
information, a tape measure to determine the depth, length and width of distress types to
properly grade severity and a camera for visually documenting each distress type.
•
Data Entry: The assessments are entered into the spreadsheets and the appropriate ratings
are generated, as well as graphs and pie charts. Additionally, pictures of the area are
helpful to serve as a reference.
•
Community Interviews: If desired, community leaders can be interviewed, to get more
perspective on the overall needs of the area. Appendix 1 has a sample interview to use.
•
Final Presentation: The results of the assessment should first be shared with the
neighborhood organization for feedback. After it is agreed upon that the assessment
4
reflects the needs of the area, the results of the areas in most need of repair should be
shared with the city county councilor for the district as well as DPW.
•
Additional Data: It is also helpful to note any other items that hurt the walkability or
drivability of the streets and sidewalks.
o
Collapsed or blocked sewer drains.
o
Street Signs missing
o
Regulatory Signs missing (such as a missing stop sign or dead end sign)
o
Potholes
o
ADA Ramps missing or not compliant
o
Stop lights or Cross walk lights out
o
Street Lights out
o
Utility cuts in the street
o
Overgrown alleys or street curbs (technically the owner’s responsibility).
As an example of why these items are important, deterioration along the edges of the streets can
be a result of water erosion from poor drainage. This impacts the quality of the curbs, sidewalks,
and alleys. Before major resurfacing of the roads should take place, an assessment of the
drainage is recommended so that lingering problems could be addressed to prevent any threat to
the integrity of new pavement. These items can also be turned in to DPW and can be addressed
fairly quickly in most cases.
The following sections of the document cover in depth how to perform the street, curb and
sidewalk, and alley assessments. Performing this assessment should give a neighborhood the
tools to be able to communicate with residents what the current situation is in the neighborhood
and allow for reaching consensus on which areas need the most attention. Then, the assessment
can be used to communicate with the city what those priority areas are and it can be done using
the “language” that the DPW uses. Conducting this assessment shows that a neighborhood is
being proactive and systematic in their attempts to address their infrastructure needs.
5
II. Street Assessment
A. Background
The Indianapolis Department of Public Works (DPW) generally selects pavement repair projects
based on two main factors, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating and the International
Roughness Index (IRI) rating (DPW, 2008). The PCI is a measure of pavement condition
developed by the Army Corp of Engineers and is the standard tool employed in the evaluation of
pavement distresses. Implementing PCI requires MicroPAVER software to convert inspection
data from field assessments into the numerical PCI rating of zero (fail) to 100 (excellent).
The IRI is the accepted measure of pavement rideability or smoothness developed by the World
Bank (American Concrete Pavement Association, 2007). The IRI measures pavement roughness
in terms of the number of inches per mile that a laser, mounted in a specialized van, jumps as it is
driven across pavement (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2008).
According to the DPW, $90 million is needed to repair all roads and sidewalks within the city of
Indianapolis. Unfortunately, only $2 million is budgeted by the City of Indianapolis for the repair
of streets. The street selection process is difficult and an assessment provided by the
neighborhoods provides very valuable information to DPW.
Due to the costs and limitations of obtaining MicroPAVER software and the equipment
necessary to measure pavement rideability using IRI, this assessment created an alternative index
to measure the condition of pavement for this project. The index and methodology used are
based on methodology recommendations from the DPW and the Pavement Management Distress
Identification Guide used in accordance with PCI and MicroPAVER (Powell, Sherry. Email
correspondence, 2/26/08).
Distress Identification. Specific distresses found in the pavement should be identified
and noted. Seven of the nine common distress types identified in the PCI index can be utilized.
The PCI definition of each distress should be maintained for consistency, but the grading scale
has been modified for better evaluation of collected data. The PCI grading of L=low,
6
M=Medium, or H=High severity has been translated to 0=Absent or no distress, 1=Low,
2=Medium, and 3=High severity of the present distress type. The distress types are listed in
Table 2.
The two distress types that are not measured by the current study are detailed below.
Table 1: PCI and Project Ratings
PCI Standard
Distress Types
Bumps
Joint reflection
cracking
PCI Definition
PCI Rating
Localized upward
Severity
displacement of
L, M, H
pavement surface.
Measured by ride
quality.
Only exists in asphalt
surfaces laid over
PCC slabs.
Project Rating
N/A
N/A
Condition Assessment. The average condition of the block is assessed. Team members
walk the length of each block assessing the pavement condition in the ordinary path of vehicular
travel and the condition along the curb where street parking and drainage occur. Each individual
makes an independent judgment based on the quality of the average or representative condition
of approximately ten percent of the block’s length. Finally, the two team members compare their
decisions and assign a score for the block. Photos are taken of each distress and severity type
with a digital camera to document visually an example for future assessment. Distress types are
defined and identified in Table 2.
7
Table 2: Distress Identification
Alligator Cracking
Interconnecting cracks form sharp angled pieces; Occur in wheel paths. Measured in sq. ft.
Low: Rating = 1
Fine, longitudinal hairline cracks running
parallel to each other with none or few
interconnecting cracks.
Medium: Rating = 2
Further development of light alligator
cracks into a pattern or network of cracks.
High: Rating = 3
Network or pattern cracking has
progressed; pieces are well defined
breaking down along the edges.
8
Block Cracking
Interconnecting cracks divide pavement into rectangular pieces caused by asphalt shrinking & daily temp.
cycling- not traffic. Measured in sq. ft.
Low: Rating = 1
Blocks are defined by low severity cracks
Medium: Rating = 2
Blocks are defined by medium severity
cracks
High: Rating = 3
Blocks are defined by high severity cracks
9
Longitudinal & Transverse Cracking
Cracks parallel to pavement's centerline from poor construction, temp. cycles & cracks beneath surface.
Transverse cracks extend at right angles to centerline. Measured in linear feet.
Low: Rating = 1
Nonfilled crack width is less than 3/8
inches, or filled crack of any width
Medium: Rating = 2
Nonfilled crack width is 3/8 to 3 inches
High: Rating = 3
Nonfilled crack over 3 inches.
10
Patching & Utility Cut Patching
Area of pavement which has been replaced with new material to repair existing pavement. Measured in sq.
ft.
Low: Rating = 1
Patch is in good condition and satisfactory
Medium: Rating = 2
Patch is moderately deteriorated
High: Rating = 3
Patch is badly deteriorated
11
Pothole
Potholes are small, bowl shaped depressions in the pavement surface, growth is accelerated by moisture
collection inside the hole
Low: Rating = 1
Size is 4-18 inches in diameter & depth is
1/2-2 inches
Medium: Rating = 2
Size is 4-18 inches in diameter & depth is
greater than 2 inches
High: Rating = 3
Size is 18-30 inches in diameter & depth is
greater than 2 inches
12
Rutting
Surface depression in wheel path due to traffic loads. Measured in sq. ft. Severity is measured by mean
depth of rut.
Low: Rating = 1
Mean rut depth of 1/4-1/2 inch
Medium: Rating = 2
Mean rut depth of 1/2-1 inch
High: Rating = 3
Mean rut depth of greater than 1 inch
13
Weathering
Weathered pavement surface caused by asphalt or tar loss binder, dislodged aggregate particles. Measured
in sq. ft.
Low: Rating = 1
Aggregate or binder has started to wear
away
Medium: Rating = 2
Aggregate or binder is rough and has worn
away
High: Rating = 3
Aggregate or binder has been considerably
worn away, is rough and severely pitted.
Pitted areas > 4 in. are potholes
14
Data. Data for the field assessment, including the distress types present and the severity
level of each distress, is recorded for each city block. The data set is entered into Microsoft
Excel©. The index rating for each block is automatically calculated to reveal the city blocks
with the most damage and therefore in most need of repair.
A priority level rating of one (red), two (yellow), and three (green) is assigned to each block. A
priority level rating of one (red) represents an index rating of 8-21; a priority level rating of two
(yellow) represents an index rating of 5-7; and a priority level rating of three (green) represents
an index rating of 0-4. Based upon the data, recommendations for pavement repairs are
formulated.
If a road is composed of something other than asphalt (examples include concrete, brick, cement,
etc), it is marked as such in the non-asphalt column and it is removed from the rating system of
one, two or three because it would not be part of the standard repaving program.
C. Street Findings
There are several recommended ways to display the results of the assessment. They include:
•
Color Coded Map: Create a map of the streets by priority level rating. This can be done
by capturing a screen print from mapquest and then using Microsoft Word to lay down
red, yellow and green lines indicating the priority level. This can then be printed out on
posterboard. See the “Street and Alley Map.doc” file for an example.
•
Distresses: This pie chart shows the most common distress type found. This chart can be
generated directly out of the Excel spreadsheets.
•
Priority Rating: This pie chart shows the breakdown by priority rating, giving a visual
aid indicating how many blocks are in each condition. This chart can be generated
directly out of the Excel spreadsheets.
•
Block Rating: For the blocks assigned a priority level rating of 1, shows the index rating
of each of the worst blocks. This chart can be generated directly out of the Excel
spreadsheets.
15
III. Curb and Sidewalk Assessment
A. Background
Based upon an interview conducted with Rick MeKeon of the Indianapolis DPW Engineering
Division, the DPW typically selects sidewalk repair projects based upon the number of
complaints received by the Mayor Action Center (McKeon, Rick. Interview 2/19/08). Residents
call the Mayors Action Center (MAC) to report curb and sidewalk problems, and the Customer
Service Department creates work orders to substantiate claims. Small service jobs, up to three
panels of curb and sidewalk repair or replacement, are typically completed by the DPW
Operations Division. Larger projects are given to the Engineering Division to prioritize and
recommend during the annual budget.
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) is the main factor used by the DPW when grading curbs and
sidewalks. PSR is an index of the sidewalk condition ranging from zero to five. A score of zero
indicates the curb and sidewalk are completely deteriorated or do not exist; five indicates the
curb and sidewalk are or appear to be brand new. A score of two and a half is the average rating
for all curbs and sidewalks assessed by the DPW (McKeon, Rick. Interview 2/19/08).
Every observed sidewalk distress is assigned a priority level based on the observation of the
Service Technician (Powell, Sherry. Email correspondence, 2/26/08). The DPW acknowledges
the method of assigning a priority level is a subjective method of rating infrastructure and is not
a functional relationship to distress occurrence. However, this is the method used consistently by
the City of Indianapolis. Sidewalk priority levels are:
1- High Priority
2- Medium Priority
3- Low Priority
Based on the priority level designated by Customer Service, the location is put on a waiting list
for work to be completed (Powell, Sherry. Email correspondence, 2/26/08).
16
The selection of sidewalks for repair is not only determined by PSR and priority level, but other
factors including:
•
High pedestrian areas, such as schools, churches, hospitals, public facilities, and main
thoroughfares
•
ADA ramps and sidewalks
•
IndyGo bus connectivity
•
Balancing the repair needs across City-County Council Districts, and need areas
•
Economic development or other commitments made
To date, outstanding sidewalk repair or replacement projects total $90 million. In the last five
years, Larry Jones, DPW Engineer, has recorded $25 million in inventoried requests to be
completed from citizen complaints and DPW field observations (DPW, 2007). Unfortunately,
only $1 to $3 million is budgeted by the City of Indianapolis for curb and sidewalk repairs each
year, which includes design, inspection, labor, materials, and associated costs (McKeon, Rick.
Interview 2/19/08).
Positively, the Department of Public Works does ask for input from neighborhood groups to
assist them in street selection by providing a neighborhood priority list of street segments in need
of repair. This assessment will assist in creating requests to the DPW (Powell, Sherry. Email
correspondence, 2/26/08).
B. Curb and Sidewalk Methodology
The established method of grading the quality of the curbs and sidewalks was based on
information provided by the DPW. Primary tools used for the assessment included a pen and
notebook for noting all assessment and location information and a digital camera for visually
documenting each block.
Location Identification. Block-long segments were used as the distance unit of
measurement. The DPW inventories curb and sidewalk condition and repairs curbs and
sidewalks in one block sections—regardless of the length of the block. Each block has two
sections: an east and a west, or a north and a south side. Special consideration is given if there
17
are diagonal streets in the area. As a result, a block entry might be listed as: “Spruce Street, west
side, from Spann Avenue to Fletcher Avenue.” Refer to Table 4 for an example of how this was
documented.
Table 4: Sample Block Entry
Street
Side Cross St 1
Cross St 2
Spruce St
W
Fletcher Ave
Spann Ave
Distress Identification. Specific curb and sidewalk distresses are identified and noted.
Five curb distresses are utilized, as well as six sidewalk distresses. These distress identifiers
were provided by the DPW, designed by the Army Corp of Engineers, and used as standard
industry-used terminology. The DPW is available to train the team on how to identify distresses,
and utilize the scale and rate conditions.
Table 5: Curb and Sidewalk Distress Descriptions and Examples
Curb (C)
Distresses Description
C1 No curb distress found
Example
18
C2 Low fault/heave/crack on
curb
C3 High fault/heave/crack on
curb
19
C4 Loss of curb face from asphalt
overlay
C5 Surface distress (scale or
deterioration on curb)
20
Sidewalk
(S)
Description
Distresses
S1 No sidewalk distress found
Example
S2 Narrow sidewalk cracks
21
S3 Wide sidewalk cracks
S4 Small vertical sidewalk
displacement
22
S5 Large vertical sidewalk
displacement
S6 Surface defects
23
Table 6 demonstrates how distresses were documented. The following explains main points
within the data set and how certain conditions were indicated:
•
No distress found: If the sidewalk is present and no distresses are found, the “C1” and
“S1” columns are marked, and an appropriate PSR and Priority Level is determined.
•
Marking a distress as present: A “1” indicates that the distress indicated at the top of the
column is present at any point in the block.
•
All distress fields blank: If all distress fields are blank, the sidewalk is missing, and the
block receives a PSR rating of 0 (PSR Rating is explained in the section “Condition
Assessment” immediately following).
Table 6: Sample Distress Entry
Street
Side Cross St 1
Woodlawn
Ave
N
St. Paul St
Cross St 2
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
St. Peter St
1
1
1
1
Condition Assessment. The average condition of the block is assessed. This is based on
looking at the ratings assigned based on the distresses. A PSR rating is then assigned, which is a
condition-related scale the DPW uses. PSR range is 0-5. Typically only blocks with PSR ratings
of 0 to 2.5 are addressed by the DPW.
24
1
Table 7: Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) Description and Example
PSR Rating
Description
Example
0
Totally deteriorated or
nonexistent
1
Poor condition
25
PSR Rating
2
Description
Below average to average
condition. 2.5 is
considered average
3
Good to above average
condition
Example
26
PSR Rating
4
Description
Very good condition
5
Brand new or excellent
condition
Example
27
Due to the subjective nature of condition assessment, it is recommended that the team
independently rates each curb and sidewalk, and then reveals and explains their rating to each
other. After negotiating a rating, the PSR rating is assigned and recorded.
Priority Rating. The priority rating is indicated through the priority level scale,
explaining the urgency of repairs. The DPW utilizes a scale ranging from one to three. A
priority level one indicates an immediate need for repair; priority level two indicates a moderate
need for repair; priority level three indicates little to no need for repair. This rating considers the
distresses identified, the PSR rating, and also the geographic location—proximity to a church or
school, for example. Priority assessment is a subjective function of PSR; PSR is only one of
several factors considered when assigning a priority rating. Similar to assigning a PSR rating, it
is recommended that the team independently assigns a priority level to each block section,
reveals and explains their rating, negotiates a final rating, and records the final determination.
Location Notes. Location notes should be made to provide insight into the surroundings
of each block segment. These notes should include reference to residential, retail/business,
churches, schools, and vacant buildings or properties. These notes will supplement the priority
assessments given.
Recommendations. Condition, not related to curb and sidewalk distresses, should be
surveyed for each block segment. This results in a recommended action. Examples of
recommendations include: weed or litter removal, scraping debris or dirt and leaf buildup,
cleaning overgrown bushes and vines, or mending a fence that obstructs the sidewalk. If
negative conditions were not prominent on the block section, no recommendations may be given.
Pictures. Pictures should be taken to document each block’s condition. The primary
focus should be placed on blocks with one or more distresses present, or blocks with a priority
level of one or two. These photographs will supplement the assessments by providing visual
support for the recommendations.
28
C. Curb and Sidewalk Findings
There are several recommended ways to display the results of the assessment. They include:
•
Color Coded Map: Create a map of the streets by priority level rating. This can be done
by capturing a screen print from mapquest and then using Microsoft Word to lay down
red, yellow and green lines indicating the priority level. This can then be printed out on
posterboard. See the “Curb and Sidewalk Map.doc” file for an example.
•
Distresses: The Curb and Sidewalk distress charts are pie charts showing the most
common distress type found. These charts can be generated directly out of the Excel
spreadsheets.
•
PSR Rating: This graph chart shows the breakdown of the PSR rating. This chart can be
generated directly out of the Excel spreadsheets.
•
Priority Rating: This pie chart shows the breakdown by priority level, giving a visual aid
indicating how many blocks are in each condition. This chart can be generated directly
out of the Excel spreadsheets.
•
Block Rating: For the worst rated blocks, these two graph charts break down the curb and
sidewalk assessments for these blocks. These charts can be generated directly out of the
Excel spreadsheets.
29
IV. Alley Assessment
A. Background
With its limited budget, the Indianapolis Department of Public Works (DPW) is unable to fully
support the maintenance of alleys in the city. In collaboration with the Department of
Metropolitan Development, Animal Care & Control, and the Marion County Health Department,
the DPW has recently taken steps to improve the condition of the area in impoverished and highcrime areas by hosting “blitzes” to clean alleys, reducing debris, removing trash and graffiti,
patching potholes, and replacing signs (Smith-Simmons 2007). In 2006, twenty such blitzes
occurred, and in 2007, seventeen occurred (Smith-Simmons 2007).
B. Alley Methodology
In order to assess the alleys, the team should conduct a general observation of all alleys in the
entire area under review. It is admittedly a highly subjective assessment, but the goal is to
identify the most problematic areas. Instead of assessing every alley with a rating, it is probably
best to highlight the alleys that the team judges to be in the most disrepair. Alleys are defined as
throughways that connected two streets and run behind homes or businesses.
The team’s evaluation of the alleys should be based on the following conditions:
•
Accessibility
•
Pavement condition
•
Trash
•
Weeds
•
Overgrowth
General observations should be conducted by driving through the area to select the worst alleys.
By driving through alleys and observing the overall condition, select the worst alley. The team
should walk the worst alleys to conduct a more detailed assessment. The observations from the
walking assessment result in recommendations to improve the condition of each alley. Table 8
shows examples of how these observations can be recorded.
30
Table 8: Examples of Alley Priorities in Detail
Quadrant/Area Quadrant
Condition
Northwest
•
•
Southwest
•
•
•
Northeast
Northeast –
Highest Priority
Alley
•
Good
conditions
overall
Minimal
trash,
overgrowth,
and weeds
Good
conditions
overall
Most alleys
well-kept
Minimal
trash, weeds,
and
overgrowth
Varied
conditions,
ranging from
good to poor
Quadrant/Area’s
Highest Priority
Location
Between Hoyt
and Lexington,
running from
Spruce Street east
to State Avenue
Quadrant/Area’s Quadrant/Area’s
Highest Priority Highest Priority
Condition
Example
Poor pavement
condition, thus
limiting
drivability
Between
Woodlawn
Avenue and
Prospect Street,
running from
Spruce Street East
to State Avenue
Numerous surface
distresses,
limiting
drivability and
accessibility
Between Hoyt
Avenue and the
railroad tracks,
running from St.
Paul Street east to
Keystone Avenue
Has a number of
surface distresses,
as well as natural
debris that
impede
accessibility and
drivability
Between English
and Spann
Avenues and St.
Paul Street and
Keystone
Avenue; two
alleys running
north and south,
connected by one
running east and
west in a “H”
pattern
All characteristics
were present,
including
substantial
amount of trash
on the east to
west portion.
Trash included a
television,
mattress,
discarded
containers, and
carpet.
Accessibility was
limited,
31
particularly on the
southwest end of
this section,
where the alley
was not paved,
narrow, and had
overgrowth.
Pavement
condition was
poor, and in some
areas, individuals
had filled in
potholes and
other surface
distresses with
broken concrete
and brick chips
Southeast
•
•
•
Fair
conditions
Many alleys
had large
surface
distresses in
the
pavement
Most alleys
were free of
trash, weeds,
and
overgrowth
Between
Woodlawn
Avenue and
Prospect Street,
from St. Peter
Street east to
Keystone Avenue
32
Pavement
condition was
poor, making
drivability and
access difficult.
Debris, including
fallen branches
and leaf buildup,
as well as trash
were present in
this alley
C. Alley Findings
Rather than creating new graphs and charts, it is recommended that the street assessment color
coded map be updated as described below:
•
Color Coded Map: Update the street map to show blue areas which indicate the alleys in
most need of repair. This can be done by capturing a screen print from mapquest and
then using Microsoft Word to lay down red, yellow and green lines indicating the priority
level. This can then be printed out on posterboard. See the “Street and Alley Map.doc”
file for an example.
33
V. References
American Concrete Pavement Association, (2007), Current perspectives on pavement surface
characteristics, retrieved January 16, 2008 from http://www.pavement.com.
City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works, (2008) Sidewalk Repairs, retrieved January
26, 2008 from http://www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DPW/Road/Sidewalk/home.htm.
City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works, (2007), 2007 Resurfacing and Curb and
Sidewalk Program, retrieved January 26, 2008 from
http://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/87EAD20E-5BEF-48B8-8B5A25448498C49B/0/ResurfacingCurbSidewalkEvaluationProcedure.doc.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, (2008), International Rideability Index, retrieved
January 16, 2008 from http://www.penndot8.com.
Smith-Simmons, M., (2007), City crews to clean-up SECO neighborhood area during
neighborhood blitz. retrieved April 22, from
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/PR/2007/9/2007108b.htm.
Southeast Neighborhood Development, (2007), SEND Strategic Plan.
Southeast Neighborhood Development, (2008) About SEND, retrieved January, 13, 2008 from
http://www.sendcdc.org/aboutsend.html.
34
Appendix I
Infrastructure Assessment Interview
1. Sidewalks
a. Do you regularly use the sidewalks in the SECO area (define area if needed)?
i. If yes, for what purpose?
b. What do you think of the general condition of the sidewalks in SECO?
c. What sidewalk/area of SECO do you think most needs repair?
d. In the sidewalk/area you identified, do you think the condition creates a safety hazard?
i. If yes, how?
2. Streets
a. Do you drive in the SECO area?
i. If not, do you ride the bus or have an alternate form of transportation?
b. What do you think of the general condition of the streets in SECO?
c. What street/area in SECO do you think most needs repair?
d. In the street/area you identified, do you think the condition creates a safety hazard?
i. If yes, how?
3. Alleys
35
a. Do you utilize alleys in your daily routine?
b. What do you think of the general condition of the alleys?
4. Action
a. Have you ever taken action to improve the condition of the sidewalks, streets, or alleys in
this area?
i. If so, what action have you taken?
36