Facts
Parties and instances: The political municipality of Niederhelfenschwil (appellant) contested the setting aside and removal of pedestrian crossing No. 1375 in Lenggenwil by the Department of Security and Justice of the Canton of St. Gallen (SJD/SG) as well as the related decisions of the cantonal police and the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen. The Federal Supreme Court (FSCA) heard the appeal in public law matters with a judgment dated 14 March 2025 (1C_119/2024).
Facts of the case:
As part of the rehabilitation of the village street in Lenggenwil, the cantonal police of St. Gallen ordered on 1 June 2021 the setting aside of pedestrian crossing No. 1375 and removed the road markings. The municipality of Niederhelfenschwil initially unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the police command of the cantonal police and the SJD/SG. The Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen partially set aside the decision and referred the matter back for further clarification. Subsequently, the SJD/SG conducted pedestrian and vehicle counts and, in its decision of 3 July 2023, concluded that the crossing posed a safety risk due to insufficient usage and that its removal was lawful. The Administrative Court dismissed a further appeal by the municipality on 16 January 2024. The municipality of Niederhelfenschwil then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the setting aside of the administrative court decisions and a reassessment including new pedestrian and traffic counts.
Core issue: The municipality argued that the lower courts had not sufficiently considered local conditions and had failed to examine appropriate replacement measures for the removed pedestrian crossing. The crossing connected the 'Klosterwis' district with public facilities such as schools and a bus stop and was part of the municipal pedestrian network. The lower courts based their decisions primarily on the failure to meet the ordering requirements under ToySO Standard No. 40241, without examining replacement measures under Art. 7 para. 1 FHTA or considering the priority of road rehabilitation under Art. 6a para. 3 RTA.
Considerations
Legal framework and examination by the lower courts: The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had correctly applied the statutory provisions of the Pedestrian and Hiking Trails Act (FHTA) and the Road Traffic Act (RTA). Under Art. 7 para. 1 FHTA, appropriate replacement measures must be provided when pedestrian networks or parts thereof are removed, taking local conditions into account. Pedestrian crossing No. 1375 was part of the municipal pedestrian network and connected the 'Klosterwis' district with public facilities. The lower courts should therefore have examined whether replacement measures, such as relocating the crossing or creating alternative crossing options, were possible before ordering its removal.
Priority of road rehabilitation under the RTA: Under Art. 6a para. 3 RTA, the Confederation, cantons and municipalities are required to analyse their road network for accident hotspots and hazardous locations and develop measures to address them. The rehabilitation of a pedestrian crossing takes precedence over its removal. The lower courts should therefore first have examined whether the crossing could be rehabilitated before deciding to remove it. The incomplete file, however, did not allow for a definitive assessment of whether rehabilitation would have been possible.
Assessment of pedestrian frequency and safety deficiencies: The lower courts based their decisions on the failure to meet the ordering requirements under ToySO Standard No. 40241, which requires a regular crossing demand of at least 100 pedestrians during five hours with an average daily…