For the first time, the Federal Supreme Court considered whether removing a pedestrian crossing that forms part of a municipality’s walking network creates a legal obligation to provide an alternative crossing, pursuant to Article 7 of the Federal Act on Foothpaths and Hiking Trails (FWG).
After the Canton of St. Gallen removed a pedestrian crossing in the municipality of Niederhelfenschwil without first considering a renovation or replacement measure, the Federal Supreme Court ruled on the dispute.
In March, the Federal Supreme Court upheld Niederhelfenschwil’s appeal. The Court found particular fault with the failure to consider a replacement measure pursuant to Article 7 of the Federal Act on Foothpaths and Hiking Trails (FWG), as well as the failure to assess improvements to the crossing pursuant to Article 6a of the Road Traffic Act (SVG).
In doing so, the Court indirectly criticized the common practice in many cantons of removing pedestrian crossings that do not fully meet technical standards instead of upgrading them to improve safety and compliance.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the view of Pedestrian Mobility Switzerland that the same participation rights must apply when removing a pedestrian crossing as when introducing this type of traffic regulation measure.
