Paths and kerb ramps are required to ensure access is available to strategic destinations for pedestrians, cyclists and for people with mobility issues.

We manage:

The below image slider shows the different condition ratings of our paths.

Condition ratings (refer to images above);

Condition 1 – New Constructed Path.
Generally constructed within the last 5 years. Smooth surface with no trip hazards

Condition 2 – Path in good condition.
Generally, 5-20 years old. The path is generally flat with no trip hazards. These paths may have some discolouring and some minor grinding undertaken to them.

Condition 3 - Serviceable Path.
Paths in sound condition with some major elements of grinding and patch repairs. The path has a flat surface but some different colour panels along the path where Council have undertaken defect repairs. Paths are still free of trip hazards and have a flat surface. This is our current service level and we aim to keep all paths in a condition 3 or better.

Condition 4 – Poor condition path
Major trip hazards and potentially dangerous to path users. Paths are not flat and are unsafe.
Our service level ensures no paths reach this point

Condition 5 –Unsafe path.
Our service level ensures no paths reach this point

What about paths in good condition with only isolated trip hazards?

A path condition audit was completed in 2019 to assist with developing the Transport AMP.

The audit identified that paths are generally in an acceptable condition but identified a large amount of isolated path defects. Our field team is working through the City to target these defects and ensure paths that are in the ‘acceptable level’ of service (3) don’t have major trip hazards. This is our targeted defect maintenance program for paths.

Why is the service level at a condition 3 for paths?

Our current service level is to keep paths in a condition 3 or lower. This is the optimal point to replace path assets and fits with best practice asset management principles. This ensures that paths do not reach an unsafe condition but are also not replaced too early so many years of asset life are wasted.

Why don’t we replace paths earlier based on condition?

Condition 1 and 2 paths are in good condition and fit for use. If Council did increase the service level to keep the path network in a condition 2 or better, it would cost the community an additional $2.6 million per annum over the next 10 years. This would roughly be an additional increase of 2.6% to rates above the standard Charles Sturt rate increase.

If we did this, we would be replacing paths well before they would be due to be replaced based on best practice asset management principles.

Why don’t we let paths get past a condition 3?

Paths in condition 4 and 5 pose as a safety risk to path users and don’t meet industry standards. Although less community funds will be required to undertake renewal paths will be unsafe and not fit for purpose.