HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced SafteyU.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
A Guide for Maintaining
Pedestrian Facilities
for Enhanced Safety
Guide for
Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities
for Enhanced Safety
October 2013
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administ ration
1 . Report No .
FHW A -SA-13-037
4. Title and Subtitle
2 . Government Accession No.
Guide for Maintain ing Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
3. Rec ip ient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
Octo ber 2013
6 . Performing O rganization Code
7. Author(s) 8 . Performing Organization Report
Tom Huber, Kevin Luecke, Michael Hintze, Virginia Coffman, Jennifer Toole, Matt No.
Vano o sten
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Vanasse Hangen Br ust li n, Inc.
8300 Boone Blvd ., Su ite 700
Vienna , VA 22182
1 2. Sponsorin g Agency Name and Address
Federa l Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave ., SE
Washington, D.C. 20590
15. Supplementary Notes
10. Work Unit No . (TRAIS)
11 . Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-10-D-00022
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Guid ance
14. Spon soring Agency Code
FHWA -HSA1
The con t ract manage r for this re port was Tamara Redmon (FHWA Office of Sa f et y). The proj ect team gratefu lly ack nowledges the
input provided by the report and guide's pane l of ex perts. These pane l members are :
• Paula Reeves , Washington Department of Transportatio n, Olympia, W A
• Sean Harbaugh, Columb ia Association, Co lumbia, MD
• Donna Gard in o, Fairba n ks M PO, Fairbanks , AK
• Mike O'Mea ra, Wisconsin Department of T ransportation, Wisconsin Rap ids, WI
• Tom Fisc her, City of Tuscon, Arizona
• Arthu r Ro ss, City of Mad ison, WI
• Mary Anne Koos, Florida DOT-Roadway Des ign Office, T all ahassee , FL
• Marni Ratze l, Cit y of Bo ul der, CO.
• Kevin Farri ngton, City of Pl attsburgh, New York
• Dan Bauer, City of Minneapol is, MN
• Yon Lambert, City of Ale xandria, VA
Meliss a Anderson of the U.S . Access Board , Wash ington D.C. is ac knowledged for both her participation on the panel and for her
tire less assistance and guidance on accessibility issues . FH WA st aff membe rs w ho provi ded initial and on-goi ng d i rection i nclu de
Gabe Rousseau, Candace Groudine, Jody McCullough, Brooke Struve, Michel le Noch, Kristie Johnson, Hi l lary lsebrands, and Peter
Eun.
Ima ges were provi d ed by Toole Design Group, Ci t y of Charlotte, City of Itha ca, and pane l members Paula Reeves, Tom Fis her,
Melissa An derson, an d Sean Har baugh .
16. Abstract
A Gui d e for Mainta ining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safe t y provides gu idance for mai ntaining pedestrian facilities w ith the
primary goal of in cr easing safety and mobility . T he Guide addresses the needs for pedest rian facility maintenance; common
maintena nce issues; inspection , access i bili ty, and comp liance; mai ntenance me asurers; fu nding; and construct ion techni que s to
reduc e f uture mainte nance .
17. Key Wo rd s:
pedestr ian, facility, maintenance, sidewalk, path, crosswalk,
signal , funding, repair, concrete, asphalt, safety ,
acce ssib ility, access , patching , curb ramps , ADA, hazard,
crack, inspection
18. Distribution Statement
19. Security Classif. (of th is report) 20. Security Class if . (of this page)
Unclassified Unclass ified
21. No. of Pages
157
22 . Price
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
•1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... i
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv
1 I Purpose and Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 I Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 I Audience for Guide ........................................................................................................ 2
1.3 I Types of Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................... 2
1.4 I Overview of Pedestrian Maintenance Programs in the United States ............................. 3
1.5 I Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 4
2 I The Case for Pedestrian Facility Maintenance ............................................................. 6
2.1 I Pedestrian Facilities -A Part of the Transportation System .......................................... 6
2.2 I Maintenance is Critical for Safety .................................................................................. 6
2.3 I Maintenance Improves Mobility .................................................................................... 8
2.4 I Maintenance is Critical for People with Mobility Restrictions ........................................ 9
2.5 I Asset Management ....................................................................................................... 10
2 .6 I Liability Management ................................................................................................... 11
3 I Common Maintenance Issues ................................................................................... 12
3.1 I Surface T ypes ................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 I Concrete ................................................................................................................ 12
3 .1 .2 I Asp halt .................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 .3 I Bric k and Pavers .................................................................................................... 13
3.2 I Common Maintenance Issues ....................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 I Infrastructure Issues Leading to Increased Maintenance ....................................... 15
3 .2.2 I Sea sonal Maintenance .......................................................................................... 21
4 I Inspection, Accessibility, Compliance, Plans and Policies ........................................... 27
4 .1 I Inspecti on and Accessibility .......................................................................................... 27
4.1.1 I Impo rtance of Inspect ion ....................................................................................... 27
4.1.2 I Inspection Criteria ................................................................................................ 28
4 .1.3 I Inspe ction and Accessibility .................................................................................. 29
4.1.4 I Using Maintenance to Improve Accessibility ......................................................... 34
4.1 .5 I Inspection Types ................................................................................................... 37
4.1.6 I Documentation of Inspection Results and New Technologies ............................... 43
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
4 .2 I Compl iance ................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 I Pri nciples for Compliance ...................................................................................... 45
4.2.2 I Compliance with Sidewalk Repa ir and Replacemen t Ordinance s ........................ 46
4.2.3 I Compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ........ 48
4 .2.4 I Rout i ne Maintenance Supported by Laws and Ordinances .................................. 49
4 .2.5 I Types of Enforcement Efforts ............................................................................... 50
4 .3 I Policies and Ordinances ................................................................................................ 52
4 -41 Plans ..................................................................................................... ······ .................. 53
4.4 .1 I Inspection Criteria and Procedu res ........................................................................ 54
4.4.2 I Prioritization and Funding ..................................................................................... 54
4 .4 .3 I Communicat ion ..................................................................................................... 55
4 .4 .4 I Documentation ..................................................................................................... 56
4 .4 .5 I Equ i pment ............................................................................................................ 56
4 .5 I Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 57
s I Maintenance Measures ............................................................................................ 58
5.1 I When is Maintenance Necessary for Sidewalks, Paths, and Curb Ramps? .................... 58
5.2 I Maintenance Repair Methods for sidewalks and paths ................................................. 59
5.2 .1 I Patching ................................................................................................................ 63
5.2.2 I Cracking Repairs ................................................................................................... 65
5.2.3 I Wedging ................................................................................................................ 67
5.2 .4 I Grinding and Horizontal Cutting .......................................................................... 69
5.2.5 I Mud -jacking, Concrete Raising or Slab -jacking ..................................................... 71
5.2.6 I Sidewalk and Path Replacement ........................................................................... 73
5.2.7 I Bric k s and Pavers ................................................................................................... 76
5.2.8 I Repairs to Curb Ramps .......................................................................................... 78
5.2.9 I New Materials ...................................................................................................... 80
5.3 I Maintenance of Crosswalks ........................................................................................... 81
5.3.1 I Crosswalk Marking Material .................................................................................. 81
5.3.2 I Crosswalk Marking Considerations ....................................................................... 84
5.4 I Maintenance of Pedestrian Signals .............................................................................. 86
5.4.1 I Background .......................................................................................................... 86
5.4.2 I Maintenance Recommendations for Pedestrian Signals ....................................... 87
ii
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.5 I Maintenance of Pedestrian Signage ............................................................................ 89
5.6 I Seasonal Maintenance ................................................................................................. 90
5.6.1 I Vegetation Removal and Control ......................................................................... 90
5.6.2 I Sweeping ............................................................................................................. 92
5.6 .3 I Snow and Ice Removal .......................................................................................... 93
6 I Construction Techniques to Lessen Maintenance for Sidewalks and Paths ................ 105
6.1 I Subgrade .................................................................................................................... 106
6 .2 I Pavem e nt Thickness ................................................................................................... 106
6.2 .1 I Conc rete .............................................................................................................. 106
6 .2 .2 I A sphalt ................................................................................................................ 108
6 .3 I Draina g e ..................................................................................................................... 108
6.4 I Control Joints and Scoring Patterns ........................................................................... 108
6 .5 I Curb Ramps & Detectable Warning Fields .................................................................. 109
6.6 I Street Trees ................................................................................................................ 110
6.6 .1 I Soil Selection ...................................................................................................... 111
6.6.2 I Soil Volume ......................................................................................................... 111 ,
6.6 .3 I Tree Pits .............................................................................................................. 113
6.6.4 I Tree Placement ................................................................................................... 114
6 .6 .5 I Tree Selection ..................................................................................................... 116
7 I Funding ................................................................................................................ 119
7.1 I Methods of funding inspection and maintenance programs ....................................... 119
7.1 .1 I Community-Paid Repair and Maintenance Programs .......................................... 119
7.1 .2 I Property Owner Assessment for Repair ............................................................... 125
7.2 I Fundin g Summary ....................................................................................................... 126
8 I Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 127
Appendix A: Model Sidewalk Inspection Policy ........................................................... 130
Appendix B: Protruding Objects Summary Sheet ........................................................ 133
Appendix C: City of St. Michael Sidewalk and Trail Inspection and Maintenance Policy .. 135
Appendix D: Risk Management Information ............................................................... 137
Appendix E: Eau Claire, Wisconsin Sidewalk Ordinance ............................................... 143
Appendix F: Des Moines, Iowa Sidewalk Ordinance ..................................................... 147
iii
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
List of Figures
Figu re 1: Sidewal k s and pedestrian area s sh ould be accessible to a l l users ................................ 9
Figu re 2 : Concrete is the most widely used m aterial for sidewalks i n the Un ited States ........... 12
Figu re 3 : Asphalt is commonly used for share d use pat h s ......................................................... 13
Figu re 4: Porous pave rs i n downtown Denve r ........................................................................... 1 3
Figure 5: Rubbe ri zed pave r s al low for modu la r instal lat ion ...................................................... 14
Figu r e 6 : A c r umbl i ng surface on a walkwa y ............................................................................. 1 5
Fig ure 7: Spal li ng on a sidewalk ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 8: Crack i ng of sidewalk sect ions can lead to accessibility issues .................................... 18
Figu r e 9: Heaved sidewalk ........................................................................................................ 18
Figu r e 10: Damaged detectible warning field s .......................................................................... 19
Figu r e 11: A st r eet is prepared forthe installat ion of ne w crosswal k i n -laid m arki ngs ............... 20
Figu r e 12 : Mean annual snowfall and days that snow remains on the ground ........................... 22
Fig ure 13: Sno w and ice should be prompt ly removed from side w alk s and p aths ..................... 23
Fig ure 14: Asphalt pushed up against cur b ra m p ..................................................................... 2 4
Fig ure 15: New markings tracked over already ........................................................................ 2 4
Figu r e 16 : Soil accumulat ion across a sidewa lk ......................................................................... 2 5
Figu r e 17: The ma x imum extension of this object is lim ited to 4 inches .................................... 33
Figu r e 18: Sidewalk inspection ex amples and criteria from a Mid w estern city .......................... 36
Figu r e 19 : An accessible detour ............................................................................................... 4 8
Figu r e 20 : M iss i ng areas of conc r ete have been marked for repa ir ........................................... 63
Figu re 21: Areas have been temporari ly repa i red with asphalt patches .................................... 63
Figu re 22 : Cracking can cause trip ha zards ............................................................................... 65
Figure 23 : Wedge has been placed to mit igate the ha zard ....................................................... 67
Figure 24: A small wedge may create a haza r d ......................................................................... 67
Figu r e 25: A raised sidewalk bloc k has been ground down to prov ide a smoother t ransition ... 69
Figu r e 26: An unevenly ra ised slab can be ground to prov ide a sm oother tra n sition ............... 69
Figu r e 27: The m ud-jack i ng process .......................................................................................... 7 1
Fig u re 28: These panels were mud -jacked more than 20 years ago .......................................... 71
Figu r e 29: Damaged pavers have been repa ired w ith asphalt to al lev iate a hazard .................. 76
Figu r e 30: Porous pavement in Washington D .C. ..................................................................... 80
Figure 31: Relative comparison of crosswalk marking materials .............................................. 82
Figure 32: Old crosswalk markings removed for new crosswalk ma r king tape ......................... 84
Fig ure 33 : City of Boston fines fo r non-compl iant sno w remova l ............................................ 101
Fig ure 34: Five i nches of concrete sidewalk ............................................................................ 107
Fig ure 35: Inadequate shoulders on a path result ing i n edge damage ..................................... 108
Figu r e 36: Tree size to soil vo l ume r elat ionsh i p ...................................................................... 112
Fig u re 37: Modula r plast ic pavers near a tree .......................................................................... 114
iv
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Figure 38: City of Seattle standard specification for street tree plant ing ................................ 116
Figure 39: City of Seattle partial list of approved street trees ................................................. 117
v
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
1 I Purpose and Background
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety provides guidance for
maintaining pedestrian facilities with the primary goal of increasing safety and mobility. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the Guide as one of several means of
reducing the approximately 4,000 pedestrian fatalities and tens of thousands of pedestrian
injuries occurring in the United States annually . This Guide is based on a research report
completed as a part of developing the guide. The report is available online and includes a
literature review, review of local maintenance programs including discussions with 50
municipalities and state agencies, and an overall assessment of the current practice of
pedestrian facility maintenance .
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools solve/
1.1 I PURPOSE
FHWA works toward reducing pedestrian fatalities and injuries by providing tools and
technology to assist practitioners in improving pedestrian safety . One way pedestrian safety
can be improved is by encouraging state, local and municipal governments to provide and
maintain accessible sidewalks along streets and highways where there is pedestrian activity
such as near school zones, transit locations and
other locations with frequent pedestrian activity .
Although there are guidelines and standards to
aid in the design of pedestrian facilities, it can be
difficult to adequately maintain facilities once
they are in place so they remain safe and
accessible. Federal funding is not available for
maintenance activities, and many state and local
government agencies have severely constrained
resources for monitoring, inspecting, and
maintaining sidewalks and other pedestrian
facilities. Not only does this problem relate to
walkability and accessibility, there are also
liability consequences related to poor,
inadequate, or infrequent inspection and
maintenance of pedestrian facilities.
The purpose of the guide is to identify effective
and ex ceptional practices, along with barriers for
pedestrian facility maintenance: what works and
1
Who is responsible for facility
maintenance?
Many jurisdictions have laws or
ordinances addressing pedestrian
facility maintenance, which often
require the adjacent property owner to
repair deteriorated sidewalks adjacent
to their property. More often ordinances
require property owners to remove
snow and ice and vegetation
encroaching onto sidewalks. However,
property owner requirements and
enforcement of these regulations may
vary widely from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction . Maintenance of shared use
paths is more complicated still, because
the agencies that are responsible for
them do not always make a practice of
monitoring them and making sure they
are in safe and passable condition.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
what does not work based on ex perience from state and local agencies. The gu ide will provide
exemplary and effective practices for maintaining pedestrian facilities and infrastructure.
1.2 I AUDIENCE FOR GUIDE
This guide is intended for any agency or organization that builds and maintains pedestrian
facilities . Most commonly this includes government bodies at the state, county or local level,
but it may also i nclude homeowners associations, private land management orga n izations and
other groups . Any government entity, group or organization that builds or maintains sidewalks
or shared use paths will benefit from the material contained in this guide.
For the purpose of brevity, these groups will often be referred to as "agencies,"
"municipa lities " or "communit ies" in this document, even though the group may i nclude non-
governmental entities such as homeowners associations.
1.3 I TYPES OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
In this guide maintenance is defined as inspecting, preserving, repairing, and restoring a
pedestrian facility and keeping it in condition for safe, convenient, and accessible use .
Maintenance includes repairing surface defects and changes in level (e.g., heav i ng) as well as
snow/ice, debris, and vegetation removal.
This Guide will focus on the following categories of facilities used by pedestrians:
• Sidewalks, walkways and curb ramps
• Shared use paths
• Crosswalks, signals and other treatments of facilities for crossing streets
• Signs
Sidewalks or walkways (a slightly broader term that also includes walks that do not parallel a
street) will receive the greatest attention in this Guide as they comprise the vast majority of
the pedestrian system in the United States. Shared use paths will often have the same
maintenance needs as sidewalks, and where a discussion can cover sidewalks and paths, the
guide does so. The guide includes discussions on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
including curb ramps, detectable warning fields and sidewalk surface materials. Pedestrian
facilities used to cross streets, such as crosswalks and signals, and their associated
maintenance issues are also discussed. Other sections of the report include funding and
techniques to e longate the ma i ntenance life of pedestrian facilit ies . All of the sections include
a discussion of ex emplary maintenance practices from around the United States and
2
l
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
recommendations for maintenance. In some cases, a discussion of a practice or set of practices
to avoid is provided.
1.4 I OVERVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
Although there are strong similarities among some areas of the country, the maintenance of
pedestrian facilities varies widely across the United States. This is due to a variety of factors
including different management structures for maintaining agencies, different legislative
requirements, and different climates that require varied approaches to maintenance. Although
pedestrian facilities are not subject to the wide variation in traffic volumes and vehicle loads as
roadways, in some ways maintenance of them is more challenging than roadway maintenance .
For instance, the repair of sidewalks is fairly labor intensive, regularly requires specialized
treatments, and is difficult to maintain with heavy equipment. The situation is complicated by
the wide variety of parties responsible for pedestrian facility maintenance (e.g. different local
agencies, individual property owners, state departments of transportation, and community
and homeowners associations).
As part of the research conducted for this guide, dozens of local agency programs were
identified and profiled . Follow-up discussions were arranged with 50 communities and state
departments of transportation. A review of an equal number of community maintenance
programs were also conducted, but without discussions with agencies. Based on this work,
several patterns emerged:
• In the vast majority of states, local and municipal governments can and do require that
adjacent property owners perform day-to-day maintenance of sidewalks including
snow/ice removal, vegetation removal and trimming, and sweeping. Jurisdictions may
be ultimately responsible for this type of maintenance, but at least initially, that
responsibility is shifted to the property owners. In the absence of the adjacent property
owners providing the maintenance, local jurisd i ctions may have to step in to do the
maintenance, although they will most often charge or fine the adjacent property owner
for that service.
• Based on the research conducted for this guide, it appears that the majority of state
and local governments are either initially or ultimately responsible for the repair and
replacement of sidewalks and shared use paths. In many cases the community will
either carry out the repair work or notify the property owner that the work will be done
by city or village crews at partial or full cost charged and/or assessed to the property
owner. It is less common for communities to initially enlist or obligate an adjacent
property to perform this work themselves only to later intervene if the work is not
3
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
undertaken in a short timeframe (often 30 to 60 days). In a small percentage of cases,
comm u nities require that the adjacent property owners conduct the work themselves
or hire a contractor to complete the work. A list of approved contractors is often
supplied to the property owner, but the city, village, or county will not arrange for any
of the repair work. The property owner will likely be fined for non -compliance.
• Curb ramps, crosswalk markings, and pedestrian signal maintenance are all part of a
jurisdiction's maintenance program . The maintenance of crosswalk markings presents
significant problems for continued upkeep because of the excessive wear caused by
motor vehicles driving over them .
• The maintenance of shared use paths is typically performed by local governments,
although state governments, homeowner associations and other groups are also
involved in maintenance. Based on the research performed for this guide, in many
communities shared used paths are not cleared of snow and ice by the local
government or maintaining authority . This often contrasts with winter sidewalk
maintenance where the local government or maintaining authority either performs
snow and ice removal or requires abutting property owners to do so. There are
exceptions to this, and some communities do clear snow and ice from shared use paths,
but research indicates that this is rare . However, communities are beginning to make
changes to this approach, and winter maintenance is increasingly more commonplace.
1.5 I CONCLUSION
There is no simple way to explain how and to what extent pedestrian facilities ar e maintained
in the U.S. The quality and timing of maintenance, inspection standards, fund i ng, and even
ownership of facilities varies considerably across the country. This is one of the first national
guides of this type that focuses entirely on maintenance with an emphasis on safety. There
were many examples that were identified in the research that placed a municipality or a state
agency as the maintaining authority for all pedestrian facilities . When the maintenance
becomes the responsibility of adjacent property owners the dynamic changes and
enforcement processes now have to be put in place to ensure consistent and timely
maintenance because another constituency is accountable.
There is considerable overlap between maintaining pedestrian facilities and accessibility. Later
in this guide this relationship is explained in more detail, but it is important to establish this
connection in the first chapter . The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities .
Within the pu b lic right-of-way, sidewalks are considered an important part of the pedestrian
4
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
access route, as are crosswalks, paths, curb ramps, traffic signals, and signs . Maintenance
projects do not automatically require simultaneous improvements to pedestrian accessibility
under the ADA and Section 504. For example, the spot repair of a heaved sidewalk does not
require re-engineering a steep cross-slope. Nevertheless, because pedestrian facilities are
required to be accessible, maintenance activities may also provide an opportunity to improve
conditions and move agencies closer to meeting their accessibility obligations.
5
A Guide for Mainta i ning Pedestrian Faci lities for Enhanced Safety
2 I The Case for Pedestrian Facility Maintenance
2.11 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES-A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Sidewalks, shared use paths and other pedestr ian facilities are important components of the
transportation network. Rega r d less of the primary means of transportation chosen (auto, bus,
r ail), nearly eve ryone is a pedest ri an at some point i n nearly eve ry trip and pedest ri an facil it ies
serve nearly ev eryone . Because of this, it is important to prov ide dependable pedestrian
fac i lities that are usable year rou nd by people of all abilities.
Sidewa l ks are an integra l part of the transportation system and should be regard ed as such. In
the same way that the maintena nce for a street or roadway is considered , it is al so important
to consider ma i ntenance for an y adjoining sidewalk or path. In many states the d efinition of a
street or highway is inclusive of everything within the public right-of-way i nclud i ng all of t he
pedestrian faci li ties contained wi thin that r ight-of-way. Maintenance of the street or highway
should automatically cover the maintenance of the pedestrian facilities -sid ewalks, curb
ramps, pedestrian signa ls, and crosswalk markings .
Pedestrian facilities provide a relatively low cost mobi li ty option that is available to nearly
everyone if properly designed and maintained. Pedestrian facilit ies are also relied upon
d isproportionately by a signi fi ca nt segment of the public who cannot drive. Once constructed,
it is important to maintain pedestr ian facilities for varieties of reasons that are deta iled below.
2.2 I MAINTENANCE IS CRITICAL FOR SAFETY
There are man y safety issues that are directly attributable to poorly maintaine d pedestrian
faci l ities. Improved safety through proper maintenance can be considered in two ways -
reduction of crashes with motorists and the reduction in trips, slips, and fa ll s.
In 2008, the FHWA Office of Safe t y produced a l ist of nine proven safety counte r measures that
was revised in 2 012 .1 These cou ntermeasu r es have the potentia l to significantly reduce traffic
fatalities and i njuries. The 2008 li st included walkways as a proven countermeasure to improve
pedestr ian safety . The 2012 list i ncludes three measures that are related to pede strian safety:
pedestrian hybrid beacons, road diets and medians/pedestrian crossing is lands. A ccording to
the findings of the studies, the presence of a sidewa l k or pathway on bot h sides of the street
corresponds to approx imately an 88 % reduction in "wa l king along road" pedest r ian crashe s.
Provid i ng raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at mark ed
1 Furst , Tony . Memo to Div ision A dministrators. "Promoting the Implementa t io n of Proven Safety Co unterme asures ." Federal
Highway Ad m inistra t ion . Jan 1 2 , 201 2 . http://safety.fhwa .dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pc memo .pdf.
6
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
cross w alks has demonstrated a 46% reduction in pedestrian cr ashes . To fully real ize the
potential for cr ash reductions for these facilities, routine maintenance is critical . Pedestrians
will walk in roadways to avoid improperly or unmaintained sidewalks or w i ll stand in the middle
of i ntersections waiting for traffic to break when crossing islands are not accessible.
Another countermeasure is marked crosswalks . A lthough this i s not specifically promoted as
pa rt of the n i ne countermeasures by FHWA, crosswalks are a known and effect ive
countermeasure in most urban and subu r ban env i ronments . Poorly ma i nta i ned crosswal k
mar k ings may not provide the visibility necessary to w arn motorists of the street crossing .
Safety issues also relate to the prevention of trips and slips that cause falls . Unfortunately,
these incidents are not recorded in the same way that crashes between pedest r ians and
motorists are recorded . However, based on hospital records and claims made to state and local
governments for injuries, these incidents can be very harmful and on occas ion fata l. The
ser iousness of falls tends to disproport ionately impact older adu lts .
The Center of Disease Control (CDC) profiles the seriousness of falls for older adults, although
they are not profiled specifically for sidewalk or walkway incidents . According to the CDC2 one
out of three adults age 65 and older falls each year . Twenty to thirty percent of older people
who fall suffer moderate to severe injuries such as lacerations, h i p fractures, or head traumas.
Most fractures among older adults are caused by falls . Falls are a lso the most common cause of
trau m atic bra i n injuries for older adults . The li kelihood for serious injury increases
ex ponentially as people age past 65 . One of the most common and serious fractures for an
olde r adult to recover from is a hip fracture . About half of people who could walk before a
broken hip cannot walk as well afterward, even after treatment and rehabilitation . There are
many ex amples where months after the fall people have died from complications brought on
by the injury .
There are other longer term effects of a fall that d i rectly impact a person's willingness to
cont i nue to walk within their community . People who have fallen may develop a fear of fall i ng
that reduces their confidence and causes them to g ive up walk i ng . Because of the inact iv ity,
joints can become stiff and muscles can become weak . These worsening physical conditions
are the very ones that can further increase the risk of falling . Independent living becomes more
difficult because older adults are often those most dependent on walking options because a
sig ni ficant percentage of this population does not drive . Given these obstacles, the si mple
ma i ntenance of pedestrian facilities can have a very positive effect of encou r aging walk i ng
'"Falls Am ong Older Resu lts : A n Overview ." Centers for Disease Contro l and Pre vention . September 201 2012.
http ://www.cdc .gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls .html
7
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
among older adults. Icy or uneven surfaces are very dangerous for pedestrians using walking
aids such as canes, crutches, and walkers . Furthermore, where sidewalks have virtually no
separation from the street, crowds, rain, snow, or ice, all increase the chance of falls or slips .
Grades become more dangerous with inclement weather and debris.
At the other end of the age spectrum are youth. Crash involvement rates (crashes per 100,000
people) are the highest for 5-to 9 -year-old males, who tend to dart out into the street . This
problem may be compounded by the fact that speeds are frequently a problem in a reas where
children are walking and playing . It also underscores the need to have sidewalks i n place that
are in walkable condition. Using Safe Routes to School programs provide an ex cellent means of
developing walking audits that identify hazards or otherwise poorly maintained pedestrian
facilities.
2.3 I MAINTENANCE IMPROVES MOBILITY
Access and mob i l ity are inextr icably linked . It is difficult if not impossible to have m obility for a
significant segment of the population without providing overall access to pedestri an facilities .
Just as the last section on safety revea led the link between safety and mobility, poor
pedestrian facility maintenance can have an equally profound impact on overall pedestrian
mobility. Any break in the pedestrian network or disrepair can potentially eliminate walking or
transit option for people or force a choice to drive instead of walking . At its worst, it may
prevent a trip altogether for a segment of the population that has few or no travel options
other than walk i ng . Oddly, in some cases, pedestrian safety m ight actually appear to improve
as access is reduced. With fewer trips being made because of poorly maintained pedestrian
facilities, overall pedestrian exposure will be reduced and the injury numbers themselves may
indicate a safer environment for pedestrians . However, what is really occurring is an overall
diminution in pedestrian mobility caused by a reduction in access.
The most obvious examples of compromised pedestrian facilities are of sidewalks and curb
ramps where snow and ice are blocking facilities for days or even weeks at a tim e. However,
sidewalk facility defects or malfunctioning pedestrian signals can also have a more subtle, but
just as negative, year-round impact on pedestrian travel, especially for people w ho might be
more susceptible to being trippe d by surface problems or are at greater risk to injury if they
were to fall.
8
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
2.4 I MAINTENANCE IS CRITICAL FOR PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY RESTRICTIONS
At its core, accessible designs are significantly undermined if maintenance is neglected and
pedestrian facilities are allowed to degrade to a state where they cannot be used or are
avoided . There are generally two accessibility issues related to maintenance and both require
maintaining an "accessible path." First, proper and routine maintenance of walkways allow
access between intersections. Secondly, the maintenance of transition points -curb ramps,
medians, crosswalks, etc. -ensures access at intersections. These are linked to form an
accessible path .
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
address how transportation facilities should accommodate people who have mobility
restrictions. When pedestrian facilities are built, the essential accessibility requirement is to
create an accessible pedestrian route within the
public right-of-way to link access points and
destinations. Within the public right-of-way,
sidewalks are considered a pedestrian access
route, as are crosswalks, shared use paths, traffic
signals and other pedestrian facilities. Seemingly
minor maintenance issues can form a significant
barrier to people with disabilities .
As part of maintenance operations, public agency
practices must ensure that day-to-day operations
keep the path of travel open and usable for
persons with disabilities throughout the year . This
includes snow and debris removal, and
maintenance of pedestrian traffic in work zones
Figure 1 : Sidewalks and pedestrian areas should be
accessible to all users .
with only isolated or temporary interruptions in accessibility . According to FHWA, "In
accordance with 28 CFR §35.133 1 a public agency must maintain its walkways in an accessible
condition, with only isolated or temporary interruptions in accessibility. Part of this
maintenance obligation includes reasonable snow removal efforts."3
The need for relatively expensive paratransit increases when facilities become inaccessible
because of poor pedestrian facility maintenance . The U.S. Department of Transportation's
ADA regulations provide three categories of paratransit eligibility and one of these three
relates directly to inaccessible sites . People who have a specific disability-related condition
3 Wlasch in , Butch. Me mo to Directors of Field Services Division Administrators. "Snow Remo val on Sidewalks Constructed
with Federal Funding ." Federal Highwa y Administration. August 27 , 2008. http://www.fhwa.dot .gov/preservation/082zo8 .cfm .
9
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
that prevents t hem from tra vel i ng to a boarding locat i on or fr om a disembark i ng locat ion are
considered el ig i ble for paratra nsit. Environmental barriers, such as snow and ice that prevent
an individual from traveling to or from the boa r ding or disemba rk ing locations may form the
basis for their eligibility .
2.5 I ASSET MANAGEMENT
Asset management has bee n defined by the American Association of Highway and
Transportatio n Officials (AASHTO) as a st r ategic and systematic process of operating,
maintaining, upgrading, and ex panding physical assets effect ively throughout their lifecycle .
Through asset management better dec ision-mak i ng occurs based on the quality of information
and the defi ned objectives. The maintenance of pedestrian facilities falls squa rely within this
definition and is no different than other components of the transportation system .
Sidewalks are known to last well over 50 years i n most environments . The recent drive for asset
management for transportat ion facilities has called attent ion to how the maintenance of
sidewalks fits into an asset management approach. For sidewalks and other pedest r ian
facilities to last for that length of time maintenance is critical as a means of p rotecting and
extending th e initial investment . Although a new name and a more sophisticated process has
been applied to managing transportation assets, commun it ies that have been carefully
maintaining pedestrian facilities have already learned the benefits of asset man agement. Here
are few examples of how asset management and pedestrian fac i l ity maintenance are linked :
• Protect initial investment. The initial construction of sidewalks requ ire s a significant
outla y of capital. A maintenance program continues to protect th at investment .
Relat ively small outlays of maintenance funds can elongate the life of pedestrian
fac i l ities and in some cases avert significant future outlays .
• Level of service. The ma i ntenance of pedestrian facilities is inextricably t ied to the level
of service they offer. Asset management practices focus not only on the simple
funct ion of a facility, but on the level of service or performance they provide .
• Information management and analysis. An important aspect of the maintenance of
pedestrian facilities -and asset management -is the on-going inspection of the
facilit ies. Careful mon itoring of the condition of pedestrian facilities can lead to the
timely repair and the day -to-day maintenance of the facilities . This not only protects
the i nvestment, but keeps the facilities in a safer condit ion for users .
10
'
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
2.6 I LIABILITY MANAGEMENT
The objective of maintenance programs is to keep facilities accessible and safe for users and to
efficiently extend the lives of these facilities through routine and preventative efforts. When
there is a breakdown in maintenance of pedestrian facilities the outcome can result in an
injury. A related objective of pedestrian maintenance programs is to manage liability. Based on
research conducted for this guide, l iability varies from state to state and community to
community . There is a complex web of interactions within some states that make it difficult to
point entirely to public agencies for tort liability. According to the limited research on liability
conducted for this guide, some agencies have liability for mishaps stemming from
maintenance problems. This is especially common when agencies are aware of a defect or
actually have caused the defect themselves . Even if a community has ordinances that require
adjacent property owners to maintain facilities on a day-to-day basis (snow removal,
sweeping, vegetation trimming) it may still have ultimate responsibility for maintaining the
facilities. It is strongly recommended that agencies comprehend their own exposure to liability
by fully understanding their state's statutes, local ordinances, and related case law.
Having a sound maintenance program can significantly reduce an agency's exposure to
liability. Having a written policy is better than having an informal, unwritten policy. If a
community establishes and follows a policy and a mishap occurs, it can help prove that the
municipality or community provided reasonable care in the maintenance of its facilities. If a
jurisdiction has limited resources, it cannot simply ignore sidewalk maintenance. The
jurisdiction still needs to formulate a policy that effectively utilizes the resources it does have .
To limit exposure to liability even during times of budget reductions, a community may need
to alter its inspection schedule or re-prioritize sidewalk repair projects, but should not
eliminate its maintenance practices. Communities that document maintenance decisions and
continue to consider complaints and concerns from the public will be in a more defensible
position from a liability standpoint.
It is important to emphasize that reducing mishaps through proper pedestrian maintenance
has two important outcomes -first and foremost it will improve pedestrian safety. Secondly,
when this occurs, there is a commensurate reduction in the occurrence of legal actions taken
against a maintaining authority for injuries.
11
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
· 3 I Common Maintenance Issues
3.1 I SURFACE TYPES
Sidewalks and shared use paths are the main types of pedestrian facilities that accommodate
pedestrians. The surface material used for these facilities can have a significant effect on how
and how often maintenance is performed. Of the hard surfaces, concrete is the most common
surfacing type for sidewalks while asphalt is commonly used for shared use paths . However,
there are communities that rely entirely on concrete surfacing fo r shared use paths and others
that rely on asphalt for sidewalks . Furthermore, asphalt pavement is often used as a temporary
pavement for patching concrete sidewalks.
Bricks and pavers are also used for pedestrian facilities. In some communities these materials
are used to preserve a traditional material and appearance in a downtown or histo r ic district. In
some settings pavers are used to border concrete sidewalks. Although these materials tend to
be very durable, they do have some unique maintenance issues which will be discu ssed in more
detail later in this guide .
Surfaces can also be "soft" and composed of loose stone, compacted stone dust, or wood
chips. Since wood chips are not considered a firm and stable material type under ADA and are
very rarely found in the pub l ic right-of-way, they will not be discussed in this guide . Stone
surfacing, especially crushed stone, is sometimes used for paths and sidewalks. It is more likely
that stone or gravel will be used for sidewalks as a temporary fi x before a more permanent
surface material ultimately replaces it.
Here are the main types of sidewalk materials with a brief discussion of their maintenance
characteristics .
3.1.1 I Concrete
Concrete is by far the most common form of
pavement material used for sidewalks in the
United States . It is a mixture of cement, water,
aggregate, and sand . It is very durable and has a
lifespan between 40 and 80 years . It is poured
material and within 30 minutes or less a smooth
finish is applied to the surface followed by a
broom finish to help with traction. Because of its
semi-fluid state when it is poured, it is an
especially suitable material to use when there Figure 2 : Concrete is the most widely used material for
are multiple grades and cross slopes such at sidewalks in the United States .
12
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
corners and curb ramps. New paving equipment in the past thirty years now enables the paving
of long stretches of sidewalk without the use of form works. Finishing of the material requires a
rapid pace when formless paving equipment is used because the concrete ex creted by the
machines is very stiff. Repair and replacement of sidewalks in concrete is still performed the
same way it was 50 years ago, with forms and skilled finishers.
3.1.2 I Asphalt
Asphalt is the most common material used for
shared use paths in the United States. Asphalt is
a less common material for sidewalks than
concrete and typically has a significantly shorter
life than concrete. However, the initial cost to
install asphalt is typically significantly less than
concrete. Asphalt consists of a petroleum base
(tar) and aggregate. Asphalt must be compacted
soon after it is applied to the surface preferably
by heavy equipment. This makes it an attractive
material for long stretches of sidewalk or path
where a roller can be used. Asphalt can be used
in other tighter settings, such as corners and
Figure 3: Asphalt is commonly used for shared use
paths, but is le ss commonly used for sidewalks in the
United States . Above is a section of shared use path
after a repair in Madison, Wisconsin .
curb ramps, where a hand mechanical tamper is used, but results typically do not match that of
concrete. Often when asphalt is used for a path or sidewalk, concrete is used for the curb
ramps . Asphalt is commonly used as a temporary patching and wedging material for concrete
sidewalks.
3.1.3 I Brick and Pavers
Brick is a traditional sidewalk material type that has been used for centuries in the United
States . Bricks offer a high level of durability and can be reused and easily replaced . Bricks differ
from concrete pave rs in that they are made from
formed clay which is then fired in a kiln . Bricks
and concrete pavers are considered a
"segmental material" because each paver is
separate and is often not tied or bonded
together the way a concrete slab is formed.
Bricks have unique maintenance requirements
and most communities consider bricks to be
more costly and problematic to maintain than
concrete. However, bricks and pavers can be Figure 4: Porous pavers in downtown Denver allow
storm water infiltration into tree planting areas .
13
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
individually replaced by ex perienced personnel with a smaller amount of effort than replacing
entire sections of concrete sidewalks. Some communities use bricks and concrete pavers to
highlight sidewalks in commerc ia l areas or plazas . This approach often reduces maintenance
costs and potential tripping hazards within the accessible path because the bricks ar e often laid
over a solid concrete surface. Bricks are primarily rectangular and are manufactured in a wide
range of colors. More recently, brick s and pavers have been manufactured and plac ed to create
a more permeable surface and reduce surface runoff, but this requires more spacing between
the materials.
Concrete pavers are also used for sidewalks and for sidewalk border applications . They consist
of a mixture of cement, sand and water and function much like bricks when they are set in
place as sidewalks or walkways . Like bricks, concrete pavers can be produced in many shapes,
sizes and colors. They are durable, versatile and can be reused . Like all oth e r sidewalk
materials, attent ion to proper construction can reduce maintenance problems and costs in the
future .
One of the shortcomings of bricks and pavers is that they can pop out of place and present a
tripping hazard more easily than concrete or asphalt slab sidewalks. Both concrete and asphalt
can also be horizontally cut or ground to mitigate tripping hazards, whereas brick s and pavers
can be r eused, b ut often have to be removed and repositioned so the base mate rial can be
modified to effectuate the leve ling of the sidewalk.
Rubberized Pavers
Pavers made from recyc led rubber and plastic have recently been introduced as a substitute for
traditional sidewalk pavements. These pavers are modu lar systems similar to large concrete
pavers. They are linked together with tabs . Communities have been attracted to these pavers
for applications around trees where tree roots have caused concrete sidewalks to heave,
although they can be used in most environments where sidewalks need to be placed in a
relatively straight alignment . They are typically
half the depth of concrete sidewalks and are
more expensive than concrete .
3.2 I COMMON MAINTENANCE ISSUES
There are a number of specific maintenance
issues that commonly occur for pedestrian
facilities. These issues can be sorted into two
broad groups -those that are directly related
to the pedestrian facility infrastr ucture itself, Figure 5: Rubberized pavers allow for modular
installation.
14
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
such as sidewalk surfacing deficiencies, and those that relate to seasonal or day-to-day
maintenance which require keeping the facility clean and free of nuisance materials. This
involves removal of vegetation, snow, ice, sand, and other materials. An effective pedestrian
facility maintenance program needs to address both sets of issues. The responsibility of day-
to-day maintenance is often addressed by communities that then relegate the duties to
adjacent property owners. This section will lay out the common types of issues associated with
these two broad categories while later sections discuss inspection of these conditions, and a
range of solutions to address them .
3.2.1 I Infrastructure Issues Leading to Increased Maintenance
Infrastructure problems can be broadly categorized into two groups for sidewalks and paths -
surfacing problems and structural problems . Both sets of problems cause maintenance issues .
Most structural deficits will ultimately affect surface conditions, but there are certain surface
conditions that are not caused by structural conditions.
Infrastructure deficiencies also exist for curb ramps, traffic signals, and crosswalks and are
covered below.
Surfacing defects
Surfacing defects lead to a multitude of problems impacting maintenance. Certain defects
cause concrete surfaces to crumble, including spalling, scaling and popouts. Poor curing and
concrete quality or finishing techniques can all contribute to surface defects. Often these
defects appear in the first several years after application. Minor defects may only affect
appearance, but moderate to severe conditions will ultimately become a safety hazard and
may significantly affect the usable life of the sidewalk . Often even minor defects will become
moderate to major defects as more deterioration occurs over time because of the
compromised surface.
Other surfacing deficits include raveling and
cracking. Raveling is caused by high air voids in
the material due to poor compaction or late
season paving. Cracking can lead to series of
problems for asphalt and concrete surfaces
overtime. Cracking is caused by underlying
structural defects below the surface .
The surface of bricks and concrete pavers
occasionally exhibit surface problems . The Figure 6: A crumbling surface on this walkway can
lead to accessibility issues and tripping ha z ards .
15
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
quality of material is generally and consistently
good because it is produced through a
controlled and stable manufacturing process .
The major maintenance problems with pavers
and bricks usually are associated with
displacement of the material itself and not the
surface deterioration of the material.
Deformation forces causing structural
problems for sidewalks and paths Figure 7: Spa/lin g on a sidewalk
The most common maintenance problems with hard surface materials result from structural
conditions such as those caused by cracking, heaving, tilting, gaps (often at concrete joints),
and sidewalk and path sections that either are depressed or ra ised. The Institute for Research
in Construction of the Canadian National Research Council has undertaken an extensive study
of concrete sidewalk issues and has defined the following fou r major deformation actions
leading to structural damage to sidewalks. These same condit ions cause failure s in asphalt, as
well as bricks and pavers. With the exception of cracking and gaps (which can be just a surface
condition), al l of the problems listed below are structural in nature and result from a series of
structural fai l ures from deformation forces described below. Many of the forces that cause
damage to sidewalks are related to freeze and thaw action of the subbase . Photographs are
provided whi ch illustrate the potential aftermath of the forces at work .
Rigid Body Uplift or Settlement J
The tendency for a concrete si dewalk slab to
rise, subside or tilt as a resu lt of ex pansive
native soil, frost action (freeze and thaw) or
thermal expansion of the concrete slab . This
could also be due to non-uniform compaction
of the subgrade. Since asphalt has a high
tensile strength compa r ed to concrete,
deformation around the uplift will occur often
causing a crack or a mounding of the material,
but typically not a break characterized by a
rift or fault of the material as seen with
concrete. Also commonly known as "vertical
uplift" or "projecting edge."
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Deformation resulting from tensile stresses
during the shrinkage of underlying soil from
decreasing moisture content .
The unequal movement of the slab as a result
of the center of the sidewalk or path having a
larger thaw settlement than at the edges, or
native soil conditions where clays swell
significantly at the edges. This leads to
longitudinal cracking.
Note : The term sagging is commonly used to
describe sidewalks that subside and entire
slab or set of slabs drop below the initial
grade . The forces that contribute to that are
accurately explained as tensile
e described above.
Unequal movement of the caused by
frost heave or upward vertical movement due
to swelling of clay native soils being greater at
the center than at the edges . This will often
lead to longitudinal cracking .
Raised pavements are also commonly caused
by tree roots.
All of the above conditions will cause sidewalks and paths to deform, shift, heave, or buckle .
When this occurs the surface of the material is affected and maintenance is necessary often
involving spot repair of small or large sections of sidewalk or path .
17
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Cracking and heav i ng are the t w o main results
of the deformation forces at wo rk. Cracking can
occur in every d i rection of a surface when
concrete is used . Since any given length of
concrete will eventually crack, methods are used
to control it. T he main method of avoiding
surface problems is to direct the cracking at
joints which are placed in the concrete by either
manually finishing them into the surface or
Figu re 8: Crac king of si dewalk section s can lea d t o making cuts with concrete saws as the surface is access ibility iss ues .
curing. Most of the maintenance problems stem
from uncontroll ed cracking, although sidewalk panels do heave at the joints. The o nes mostly
closely impacting sidewalks and paths are edge, alligator, and long itudinal cracking .
Alligator cracking is character ized as typically fine, longitudinal hairline cracks running parallel
to each other w ith none or fe w i nt erconnecting cracks. Longitudinal cracking occurs along the
length of the si d ewalk, usually i n the middle third of the sidewalk, usually in the m id dle third of
the sidewalk, and can extend through several ex pansion or control joints . Unl i ke alligator
cracking, they are often larger. Transverse cracks occur across the width of the sid ewalk due to
non -uniform su bgrade compact ion, especially where sidewalks are subjected to h igh vehicle
loads such as where driveways cross sidewalks .
Heaving of concrete sidewal k panels is a
common problem that causes a significant
number of tripping hazards . Heaving is also
called vertical uplift, vertical displacement,
faulting, and changes in level. Several of the
deformation fo r ces described above can lead to
heaving. Becau se sidewalks are built with j oints
to control crac ki ng, heaving most often occurs
at these locations .
Figu re 9: Hea ved sidewalk
Other Pedestrian Facility Infrastructure Problems
Maintenance of pedestrian fac i l ities is often associated with just sidewalks and sometimes
paths, but other pedestrian facilities also incur problems w h ich increase t he need for
maintenance. These facility types include curb ramps, crosswalk markings, pedest rian signals,
and signage.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Curb Ramps
Curb ramps provide the transition between
sidewalks and street crossings and allow
pedestrians to reach street level at corners
without stepping up and down at a curb . They
are required by accessibility laws . Most of the
same maintenance issues impacting sidewalks
also impact curb ramps . All of the forces
outlined above also deform curb ramps. All new
curb ramps are required to have detectable
Figure 10: Damaged detectible warning fields . warning fields which provide indications to
people who are sight-impaired or blind to that they are about to enter a street. Although many
different forms of detectable warnings have been used over the past 40 years, only truncated
domes are now acceptable for use. They can be inserted into concrete as cast iron or stainless
steel plates, applied as a glued-on material, or formed in place as the concrete ramp is finished.
Each of these processes may lead to special maintenance problems. For example, the plate
could become displaced causing a tripping hazard, adhesive may weaken for glued-on domes,
or the concrete domes are likely to chip off when plowed . Additionally, the truncated domes
must provide a color contrast to the ramp. Especially for formed-in-place domes, this requires
an agency to periodically repaint the warning field. Chapter 7 of Designing Sidewalks and Trails
for Access-Part II provides guidance for the current recommended design of curb ramps:
http://www.fhwa .dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/sidewalks2
07.cfm
Crosswalk Markings
The most frequent maintenance problem with crosswalk markings is durability. Painted
crosswalks have to be repainted several times a year based on the volume of traffic and the
severity of the weather. Two other marking materials -epoxy and thermoplastics -are far
more durable, but are significantly more ex pensive . In cold weather climates where salt and
sand is used, the abrasiveness of the materials causes more rapid deterioration of the
markings .
Another durability-related maintenance problem is the conspicuity or retroreflectivity of
pavement markings. Glass beads or other reflective materials are added to marking materials
to enhance nighttime conspicuity. When the markings wear, the reflective quality of the
material is compromised .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Another area of concern with crosswalk
mark i ngs is slipperiness of the mark i ngs .
Manufacturers of these materials have taken
steps to sign ificantly improve the friction factor
of their materials, but as the material wears,
sometimes it becomes slicker causing a need for
reapplication . Slippery mark i ngs make it
necessary for municipalit ies to replace the
markings sooner .
Signals
Figure 11: A stree t is prepared fo r the installation of
new cros swa lk in -lai d marking s.
Based on the research conducted for this guide, communities consider thei r signals to be
durable with the most serious maintenance problems being signal "take-downs" related to
vehicle crashes. Other significant problems requiring maintenance include push buttons and
signal heads that are malfunctioning . The replacement of signal heads with l ight emitting
diodes (LEDs) has significantl y reduced the need for replacement of light fi xtures. LED lights
last for approx imately 100,000 hours, many times the life of i ncandescent bulbs. Filaments in
incandescent bulbs burn out i n approximately 10,000 hours. However, LEDs do not produce as
much heat as i ncandescent bulbs and can become snowed ove r in blowing snow conditions .
Another set of hardware problems relates to the controller for the signal system . The
controller is t he device that manages the entire signal system for the intersection. Occasionally
problems wi t h the controller cause a pedestrian signal to malfunction.
Pedestrian signal systems have become more comple x w ith the advent of Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (APS). APS devices work with ex isting traffic signal controllers . Some APS
devices requ i re no additions to equipment in the signal controller cabinet for i nstallation and
operation depending on the type of equipment that is already i nstalled .
APS devices will require additional wiring most often between the pedestrian signal head and
pushbutton which on occasion have cause maintenance problems . However, most of the
servicing needs are related to initial set -up including attention to pushbutton placement and
alignment, and careful adjustment of sound volumes . APS devices offer considerable benefits
to people who are disabled and most of the servicing needs can be resolved within the first
several weeks or months of the initial installation.
20
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Sign age
Signs that act as wayfinding devices for pedestrians are no exception to this on-going
ma i ntenance problem . Unlike markings, signs have a much longer life -quite often more than
10 years. Several factors tend to lessen the life of signs -ultraviolet radiation and airborne
pollutants can dramatically reduce the sign 's useful life. Vandalism to signs is also a significant
maintenance problem for signs in general. Signage replacement for pedestrian-related signage
tends to take a lower priority to the maintenance of regulatory signs purposes (i.e. stop and
yield signs).
3.2.2 I Seasonal Maintenance
The conditions of sidewalks for safe, comfortable and accessible travel are influenced not only
by i nfrastructure problems, but also by seasonal events such as snowfall, the accumulation of
leaf debris and the overgrowth of vegetation . Maintenance activities to remove obstacles to
safe w alking are needed to keep sidewalks accessible and hazard-free year-round . Often these
seasonal conditions are the cause of problems people most assoc iate with maintenance or lack
thereof.
Meeting the obligations to keep sidewalks accessible is reinforced by the Americans with
Disabilities Act . The act requires that pedestrian facilities in the public right -of-way be
accessible to people with disabilities. The federal act acknowledges that there may be isolated
or temporary interruptions in accessibility, but otherwise walking surfaces must be kept clear
of snow, debris, and any obstructions to a minimum passage width of 48 inches according to
the proposed draft of the ADA Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Snow and Ice
The removal of snow and ice for many U.S. communities presents the most significant
maintenance challenge they confront. Following a snowfall, snow and ice must be cleared from
sidewalks, paths, curb ramps and crosswalks to provide safe and accessible passage for
pedestrians . Common challenges exist to resumption of pedestrian travel after snowfalls .
These i nclude street plow i ng that pushes snow onto sidewalks or blocks crosswalks, clogged or
obst r ucted drains that create puddles at curb ramps, patches of ice that create slip hazards,
and failure to remove snow and ice completely from sidewalks . The need for winter
maintenance is impacted by the amount of snowfall, the mean winter temperature, the
amount and intensity of sunlight and a host of other issues in urban and suburban areas .
Expectations and preparedness for snow and ice removal range significantly based on the
factors listed . The snowfall maps displayed in Figure 9 indicate where snow is most plentiful
and for how many days on average snow remains on the ground, but these are just two factors
in establishing the need for winter maintenance. It is possible for communities with relatively
21
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
smaller amoun t s or drier (flu ffi e r) snow, such as Fa i rbanks, Alas k a, to have more significan t
maintenance p roblems because their average temperatures and sun penetration do not allow
for the melting of snow and ice the same way it would occur in a place like Ohio . On the other
hand, there are many southern U.S. communities that receive snow and ice so infrequently
that they rely pr i marily on temperatures and sun to melt the maintenance problem away.
The l i kelihood of snow accumu lations i n the U.S. are better ex plained by climate type than
how far north a community is located. Based on climate types, even cities in the most northern
latitudes of the U.S. (not includ i ng Alaska) are pr epared differently for snow and ice remova l.
For ex ample, Seattle receives mostly rain during the winter months while Minneapolis (located
further south) ex periences snow . Minneapolis is better prepared for snow and ice removal than
Seattle and the ex pectations among residents for prompt snow and ice removal ar e set higher
than cities i n more
temperate regions . Where
snowfalls and ice storms
are infrequent and
temperatures rebound
quickly, snow and ice
removal maintenance
needs are low due to the
temporary presence of the
snow. Jurisdict ions should
still have pol icies and an
action plan in place that
addresses these key
maintenance issues even
though snow and ice are
i nfrequent.
these more
Even within
temperate
areas, snow and ice
accumulations during the
months of December and
January have a far greater
chance of lingering than
when inclement
conditions occu r i n other
months.
for the lhitedStates
for the period 1961-1990.
MHn numt..< old~
per y.a111 on.tneh
or mot• o( snow on
ground too It.. 1361-B'IO~riod.
Figure 12: Map s dis pl ay the mean annual snowfall and mean num ber of day s t hat
snow remains on th e gro und befo re melting from 1961 -199 0 . Pe rmiss ion to use
maos aranted bv Co lorad o Climate Center.
22
iiiii
-~
= -~ -~ --!!!
!!'
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
The maintenance issues with snow and ice are fairly straightforward . The accumulation of
snow causes difficulty for people to move through it. More importantly, snow is obviously
slippery and becomes even slipperier as the water content of the snow increases. As snow
melts, it can refreeze as ice causing increased difficulties in removing it and greatly worsening
conditions for pedestrian travel. It can also pool and then refreeze on sidewalks and in curb
ramps causing unexpected and adverse conditions for pedestrians especially during nighttime
hours when visibility is compromised. On their own, ice storms or ice accumulations are very
serious for safe pedestrian movement. Rain that freezes on contact presents the most serious
of all maintenance problems depending on the amount and duration of the accumulation.
Adding complexity to how communities respond to these ice and conditions is the fact that
often each one of the identified snow and ice accumulation problems calls for a different
maintenance approach or technique and level of resources .
Curb ramps and median crossing islands present particular problems for accumulations and
remova l. They are often depressed and near gutters where water (and ice) can accumulate.
Because of the presence of truncated domes in
newly constructed ramps and crossing islands,
removal of snow and ice is more of a problem
than other detectable warning devices.
Shoveling out curb ramps of snow is often the
best way of controlling the snow and ice
problem. However, very few communities have
personnel that use shovels. If the curb ramps
and median cut-throughs are not easily
accessible by a skid steerer, pick-up truck, or
snow plow, snow removal and ice control is
often delayed if provided at all.
While the ADA PROWAG specify that sidewalks
have 48 inches of clear passageway, different
municipal ordinances have varying degrees of
detail for how best to achieve a safe clear zone
for pedestrians after a snowfa ll. For example,
most ordinances specify that snow be removed
from the edge of sidewalk to the edge of
sidewalk, while others do not require this but
specify the use of gravel, ash or salt on ice to
prevent slip hazards . Some ordinances specify
23
Figure 13 : Snow and ice should be promptly removed
from sidewalks and shared use paths to maintain
usability and reduce hazards during the winter.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
the ma x imum al lowable height of snow banks a nd where sno w cannot be p ile d to insure
proper visibility of pedestrians . Some jurisdictions require snow removal from spe ci f ic features
such as fire hydrants, benches, driveways and curb ramps. Of the communities co ntacted, the
most successful programs spec ify clearance ex pectations in detail by ordin ance and in
education materials provided t o the public about their responsib i l ities.
Extreme Heat
Just as snow a nd ice can create outstanding
problems for ma i ntenance, so can extreme heat
which is espec ially common in the southwest
U.S. Most of the problems caused by extreme
heat manifest t hemselves as serious structural
problems and a re presented in t he first part of
this chapter in 3.2.1 . One of the most serious
problems is wh e n concrete ex pands and causes
the sidewalks to buckle or heave. Asphalt is
rarely used as walkways in these areas because
of its problems with high air temperatures .
However, asphalt used elsewhere leads to
problems . For instance, the ex pa nsion of asphalt
on streets at concrete curb ramps at higher
trafficked intersections causes maintenance
problems . When the asphalt gets heated up,
heavier vehicle s rounding the corner push it out
and up which cr eates a 1" to 2" high asphalt lip
ne xt to the ramp . This causes problems for
wheelchair use rs who cannot travel across the
street and requires that maintenance crews to
shave off the lips to make the transition smooth
again.
Figure 14: Asph alt pushed up agai nst curb ramp .
Photo by Tom Fisher
Figure 15: New markin gs tra cke d over already. Phot o
by Paula Reeve s
Another problem in hot clima t es is associated with mark i ngs . Markings on newly paved streets
can be degraded with vehicles tracking over them . Manufacturers recommend not putting the
markings in pla ce until a numbe r of days to a week after new asphalt has been la id, but often
this is not a via b le option for busier streets . This is a more serious problem in hot ter climates
where a higher percentage of paving projects are completed and marked durin g a relatively
long construction season much of it with high tempertautures.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Vegetation overgrowth and debris accumulation
Street trees and other plants adjacent to the sidewalk are a beneficial amenity for a variety of
reasons including provision of shade, carbon dioxide reduction, increased property value,
stormwater control and visual interest . However, vegetative growth encroaching upon
sidewalks or paths is a serious condition that requires maintenance. Sightlines to driveways
and intersections must also be maintained for pedestrian safety. In addition, the surface of the
sidewalk must be kept free of debris. Many communities require adjacent property owners to
keep a sidewalk free of vegetation or property owners are doing so on their own without any
prodding. Here are the main problems with vegetation:
• Vegetation overhanging into the pedestrian path
• Vegetation growing at sidewalk level narrowing the effective width of the sidewalk and
causing a tripping hazard
• Discarded vegetation building up on sidewalks, including leafs and branches
• Tree roots upheaving sidewalk sections
Vegetation that overhangs sidewalks and paths often presents serious and unexpected
hazards to pedestrians . At its worse, this problem can completely close down a pedestrian
facility . When that occurs, pedestrians will need to use adjacent streets presenting a safety
issue. Vegetation growth at the sidewalk level can effectively narrow the width of a sidewalk or
path. With asphalt, vegetation intrusion at the edges can break up the pavement . Narrowing of
sidewalks and paths are an acute problem when the widths of the facilities are already at their
minimum width.
In communities with street trees and large amounts of street vegetation, management of
leaves and branches can be a significant seasonal factor. When leaves are left unintended on
pedestrian facilities several problems arise:
pedestrians cannot make out the pedestrian
path below the leaves or are unable to spot
tripping hazards or surface irregularities below
the vegetation and the vegetation itself can
become wet creating a slip and fall hazard.
Other debris can also form on sidewalks often
carried by water or wind . This includes sand and
other fine material. By the same token, many
communities will use these materials to improve
traction during ice or snow conditions. When
25
Figure 16: Soil accumulation across a sidewalk has
allowed for thick vegetation overgrowth which limits
the use of the sidewalk by people with some
disabilit ies.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
these materials collect o r reach a certain concentration they become a hazard when wet .
Jurisdictions should have policy and action plans that address these key issues.
Other materials collecting on pedestrian facilities can also become proble m s. This includes
rubbish tha t is simply discarded by people such as bottles and cans. Most communities sweep
streets clean of debris, but do not extend that same level of care to pedestrian facilities. As
with other maintenance practices, sweeping and dealing with the collect ion of debris is
commonly made a responsib i lity of the adjacent property owners . The prese nce of debris on
shared use paths presents the same issues with broken glass be i ng an especially acute problem
for bicyclists especially those with higher pressure tires.
26
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
4 I Inspection, Accessibility, Compliance, Plans and
Policies
The work of maintaining pedestrian facilities should be guided by an inspection and by a repa ir
regimen, supported by policies and ordinances. A community's desire to comprehensively
address the pedestrian environment should be ex pressed in a plan and policies that help the
maintenance staff do their jobs and helps adjacent landowners and other residents understand
what is ex pected of them and what they can ex pect.
The use of inspection and criteria that spark action are hallmarks of a well-ope r ated
maintenance agency. One size does not fit all in how an agency conducts inspections.
Capabilities in part relate to in-house resources and every community is a little different with
varying amounts of on -hand resources . There are many ways to proceed with an inspection
program from the personnel being used for inspection to how much new technologies will play
in measuring and documenting conditions .
Plans provide both short range and long range direction for communities . They help manage
the resources available for maintenance of pedestrian facilities and contain a range of
recommendations covering good practices associated with policies, ADA compliance,
inspection, prioritizing maintenance activ ities and funding. Plans should also include an
inventory and assessment of sidewalks, curb ramps, and path conditions to help establish a
basis for repair.
Policies addressing maintenance of pedestrian facilities are more commonly provided as
standalone documents than as part of a plan. Policies act as the supporting materials for
municipal ordinances and agency directives . All agencies responsible for the pedestrian
facilities have maintenance policies; sometimes simply writing them down is an important first
step. Formal adoption of policies by agencies or elected officials helps head off problems when
controversy arises. Policies should cover the funding of sidewalks, inspection procedures and
criteria, responsibilities of property owners and the community, and problem reporting
methods.
4.1 I INSPECTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
4.1.1 I Importance oflnspection
In order to make pedestrian facilities safe and accessible, the maintenance problems identified
in Section 3.2 must be addressed. But at what point does a sidewalk, path, or curb ramp
27
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
become a hazard, inaccessib le, or impassable? Even facilities bu i lt to the tighte st tolerances
will have irregularities or suffer some displacement during freeze and thaw cy cl es. Criter ia
needs to be established and used to assess in quantifiable terms when faciliti es become a
hazard or inaccessible for pedestrians . There are national guidelines and criteria (p ro vided later
in this section) which communit ies are advised to use for their own adopted inspec t ion criteria.
Sidewalk and path inspection criteria serve many useful purposes, especially t o reduce or
eliminate slips and falls based on avoidable sidewalk and path hazards . Damaged su rfaces and
defects can make facilities impassable for everyone and also limit accessibility of people with
disabilities or mobility impairments . Other reasons include providing guidelines to agency
employees, conveying information to res idents, and preventing and/or minimi z ing lawsuits
and liability exposure . Section 4 .1.5 below summarizes the actual thresholds or m easurements
that should trigger a response from a main t aining authority. Inspection results will help guide a
program and are integral to a community's maintenance program .
4.1.2 I Inspection Criteria
Every community that has a maintenance
program in place uses criter ia to evaluate
ex isting conditions and trigger repairs .
Community and agency officials contacted for
this guide indicated the criteria they use are not
always published, are often discretionary and are
not always applied equall y across the
community. Additionally, man y communities
contacted had established criteria on ly for
sidewalk displacements (faults, heaves, changes
in level, steps) and their inspection protocol d i d
not extend beyond that level of assessment even
on a long term basis . Many other agencies
responded tha t they follow the ADA guidelines
and their criter ia is consistent with that .
Communities should develop and adopt sidewalk
inspection and maintenance criteria. At a
minimum, inspections should consider
displacements (heaving, faults, changes in level),
changes in grade, cross -slopes (including cross
slopes at driveways), vert ical clearances,
Other ADA Standards
The 2010 ADA Standard s are the
measure of accessibility for buildings
and sites and can be enforced at the
Federal level. Some agencies will use
these standards for the public right of
way to the extent they seem to fit
because PROWAG is not yet a federal
standard. While this may work in limited
circumstances, the 2010 ADA standards
do not address the situations commonly
found in the public right of way such as
steep terrain and the con straints of
being located next to roadway . They
also do not address additional features
such as pedestrian signals, crosswalks,
refuge islands, on street park i ng and the
need for detectable warnings at street
crossings. The Access Board also
establishes the guidelines for buildings
and sites, so there is consist e ncy where
it is reasonable to use the sa m e criteria .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
maximum running grades, minimum clear width and the distance protruding objects extend
into the pedestrian path.
4.1.3 I Inspection and Accessibility
Pedestrian facilities are meant to be used by everyone, including people with disabilities.
Therefore, accessibility obligations are generally considered when establishing the minimum
criteria for maintenance inspections. Identifying those criteria can be difficult due to the lack of
an established Federal standard for pedestrian facilities in the public right of way accessibility,
as of the time of publication of this document. The current document establishing the criteria
is the proposed Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2011.
Generally, there are two broad accessibility categories related to maintenance and both
require maintaining an "accessible path." First, proper and routine maintenance of walkways
allow access between intersections while the maintenance of intersections -including curb
ramps, medians, crosswalks, etc. -ensures access at street crossings. In combination, they
form an accessible path and both sets of pedestrian facilities have to be maintained equally.
ADA and Section 504 Relationship to Maintenance
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities . Section 504 applies to agencies
receiving Federal funds and Title II of the ADA applies to State and Local agencies and requires
all programs, services and facilities to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
Title Ill of the ADA may apply to homeowner associations whose facilities are available to the
public and requires accessibility and readily achievable barrier removal. Pedestrian routes
within the public right-of-way link access points and destinations. Within the public right-of-
way, sidewalks are considered an important part of the pedestrian access route, as are
crosswalks, paths, bridges, railroad crossings and curb ramps. Traffic signals, parking and bus
stops and other pedestrian facilities are also important parts of an accessible pedestrian
network. Just as minor changes in facilities can greatly improve accessibility, seemingly minor
maintenance problems can form a significant barrier to people who are disabled or even able
bodied.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the U.S. Access Board) has
recommended accessibility guidelines for the design, construction and alteration of pedestrian
facilities in the public right-of-way. These ADA accessibility guidelines -the proposed Public
Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines -address new and altered pedestrian facilities . Minimum
criteria are developed by the US Access Board with input from the public and other federal
agencies. Although PROWAG is still a draft guideline, for the meantime, the Federal Highway
29
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Administratio n has endorsed the use of PROWAG as a best practice where the build i ng
standards do not apply . Since PROWAG includes guide li nes that can and are used as minimum
accessibility criteria, they have considerable significance for this section of the guide. In
addition, shared use paths are covered under a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) which covers shared use paths in the public right of way that are not associated with
a street or highway. The guidance for shared use paths is intended to ultimately be contained
in PROWAG.
The ADA and Section 504 do not require public agencies to provide pedestrian facilities, or to
build new facil ities in response to an ADA complaint . However, where pedestrian fa cilities exist
they must be accessible. Furthermore, when public agencies alter facilities affecting access for
pedestrians, the completed project also must meet accessibility requirements for persons with
disabilities to the maximum extent feasible.
As part of maintenance operations, public agencies' standards and pract ices must ensure that
the day-to-day operations keep the pedestrian path of travel open and usable for persons with
disabilities throughout the year. According to federal code Title 28 CFR35.133 "Maintenance of
Accessible Features:"
1) A public entity shall maintain in operable working condition those feature s of facilities
and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities by the Act or this part.
2) This sec ti on does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access
due to maintenance or repairs.
Both of these requirements are examined in more detail below.
Alterations
The distinction between maintenance of pedestrian facilities and the alterat ion or new
construction of facilities is central to the provision of accessible facilities. The determination of
what falls into each category should be considered carefully . This guide addresses the
maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Technically, maintenance activities do not trigger
accessibility upgrades. Alterations which occur to pedestrian facilities o r streets impacting
pedestrian facil ities are more significant and offer considerably more opportunities to
incorporate ADA compliant features . When facilities are altered there is an expe ctation that
the facility be "accessib le to the extent practicable within the scope of the project." Typically,
alterations to sidewalks occur as a result of alterations to the adjacent roadway.4 Since
4 See Kinney v . Yerusa l im , 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993)1 cert . de n ied, 511U.S.C.1033 (199 4).
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
alterations are defined as changes to a fac i lity in the public right-of-way that affect or could
affect access, circulation or use by persons with disabilities, it is conceivable that a
maintenance project that replaces long segments of sidewalk or path could rise to the level of
an alteration . The replacement of significant sections of sidewalks associated with a street
reconstruction or intersection reconstruction would be considered altered facilities .
Day-to-Day Maintenance and ADA
As part of maintenance operations, public agency practices must ensure that day-to-day
operations keep the path of travel open and usable for persons with disabilities throughout the
year . This includes snow and debris removal, and maintenance of pedestrian traffic in work
zones with only isolated or temporary interruptions in accessibility. According to FHWA, "A
publ ic agency must ma i ntain its walkways in an accessible condition, with only isolated or
temporary interruptions in accessibility . 28 CFR §35 .133. Part of this maintenance obligation
includes reasonable snow removal efforts (g -12-06)."5
Maintenance and Repair under ADA
Maintenance projects do not require simultaneous improvements to pedestrian accessibility
under the ADA and Section 504 . For ex ample, the spot repair of a tripping ha zard does not
require re-engineering a steep cross-slope. Nevertheless, as the scale of the repair or
replacement grows, the adherence to acceptable standards become more feasible and
ex pected. And because pedestrian facil ities are required to be accessible, maintenance
activities may also provide an opportunity to improve conditions and move agencies closer to
meeting their accessibility obligations . The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the courts
have not ruled on what defines an alteration vs . maintenance when sidewalks are affected by
various types of projects. FHWA has considered common maintenance activities associated
with roadways as those that are intended to preserve the system, retard future deterioration
and maintain the functional condition of the roadway without increasing the structural
capacity.
DOJ and FHWA have released guidance that states that the following types of pavement
treatments are considered maintenance of streets or roads :
• Painting and Striping
• Chip Seals
• Crack Filling and Sealing
• Diamond Grinding
5 "Questio n an d Answ ers Ab o utADA/Sec ti on 504." U.S. Dep art me nt of Transpo rtat ion , Federal Hi ghway Admi n is tration .
Ac cess ed Janua ry 23, 2013. http://www.fhwa .dot.gov/civ i lrights/programs/ada sect504ga .cfm .
31
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Dowel Bar Retrofit
• Fog Sea ls
• Joint Crack Seals
• Joint Re pairs
• Pavement Patching
• Scrub Sealing
• Slurry Seals
• Spot High -Friction Treatments
• Surface Sealing
All other pavement treatments and surfacing are considered an alteration that triggers
simultaneous improvements to pedestrian accessibility, including the installation of compliant
curb ramps.
Based on this g u idance for streets, surfacing treatments for sidewalks such as fill i ng holes and
cracks, wedging, grinding and horizontal cutting are considered maintenance. The
replacement of short segments of sidewalk to repair surface irregularities is also maintenance
in nature; however, communities and states must strive to meet ADA standards on these types
of projects to t he extent possible -even with small sidewalk replacements -given the scope of
the repair and t echnical feasibility . Most of the communities who were contacted for this guide
indicated that they are meeting ADA standards when doing routine maintenance work .
Accessibility Criteria
The ADA Draft Guidelines for the Public Right of Way provide the following guidance to insure
accessibility for walkways and shared use paths . The guidel i nes for accessible routes are
summarized be low.
Firm and Stable: The guides state that surfaces of public sidewalks and paths be stable, firm,
and slip-resistant, and shall lie generally in a cont i nuous plane .
Displacement/Changes in Level (includes faults and heaves): Surface discontinuities sha l l
not ex ceed a half inch (13 millimeters). Vertical discontinuities between a qua rter inch (6-4
millimeters) and half inch (13 m i llimeters) shall be beveled at 1:2 minimum. The bevel shall be
applied across the entire level change.
Maximum Running Grade: Where pedestrian access routes are contained within a street or
highway right-of-way, the grade of the pedestrian access route is permitted to equal the
general grade established for the adjacent street or highway, ex cept where pede strian access
32
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
routes are contained within pedestrian street crossings a maximum grade of 5 percent is
allowed. This is consistent with the AASHTO "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets" which recommends that the sidewalk grade follow the grade of adjacent roadways,
and also recommends maximum cross slopes for roadways. Where pedestrian access routes or
paths are not contained within a street or highway right-of-way, a maximum grade of 5
percent is established.
Cross-Slope Grade: A maximum cross slope of 2 % is specified for pedestrian access routes,
except for pedestrian access routes contained within certain pedestrian street crossings in
order to allow for typical roadway geometry. A 5% maximum cross slope is specified for
pedestrian access routes contained within pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop
control to avoid any unintended negative impacts on the control and safety of vehicles, their
occupants, and pedestrians in the vicinity of the intersection.
Minimum Clear Width: The continuous clear width of pedestrian access routes (exclusive of
the width of the curb) must be 4 feet (1 .2 meters) minimum, except for medians and
pedestrian refuge islands where the clear width must be 5 feet (1.5 meters) minimum in order
to allow for passing space.
Protruding Objects: Objects with leading edges between 27 inches (685 millimeters) and 80
inches (2 meters) above the finish surface must not protrude into pedestrian circulation paths
more than 4 inches (loo millimeters). Post-mounted objects such as signs that are between 27
inches (685 millimeters) and 80 inches (2 meters) above the finish surface must not overhang
into pedestrian circulation paths more than 4 inches (loo millimeters) measured horizontally
from the base of the post. The post base must be 2.5 inches (64 millimeters) at a minimum .
Where objects are mounted between posts, and the clear distance between the posts is more
than one foot (305 millimeters), the lowest edge
of the object must be 27 inches (685 millimeters)
minimum or 80 inches (2 meters) maximum above
the finish surface . The requirement is consistent
with the MUTCD which requires the bottom of
signs installed on the sidewalk to be 7 feet
minimum above the sidewalk, and the bottom of
secondary signs (i.e., signs mounted below
another sign) that are lower than 7 to project not
more than 4 inches into the sidewalk (see MUTCD
section 2A.18). See Appendix B for more
discussion and illustrations.
33
in co
<O ...
fl "' x
100 max
I
E
N
i\I i6
x
Figure 1J: The maximum extension of this object is
limited to 4 inches .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
4.1.4 I Using Maintenance to Improve Accessibility
Section 3.2 of this guide characterized maintenance problems with pedestrian facilities that
often caused the facilities to ex ceed the acceptable standards. Not every sidewalk, path and
curb ramp within a community is going to simultaneously meet all of the guidelines listed
above. Howe v er, communities need to have a multiple prong approach to meeting the criteria.
First, communities should respond to and eliminate immediate hazards to pedestrians such as
tripping hazards as soon as possible . Most of these hazards are related to displacements in
sidewalks and paths, especially around trees and utilities, but serious hazards could also result
from cracks, holes, and damaged surfaces or from objects protruding into walkways .
Inspections using the adopted criteria should uncover these problems which must be
addressed immediately.
Second, communities should address other deficiencies in an ADA transition plan. This plan,
required for communities that have more than 50 employees, should lay out a timeframe for
replacing pedestrian facilities that fail to meet any of the ADA criteria listed above, but may
not present an immediate hazard. For instance, a community may have sidewalks that cross
driveways at a 4% grade. This fails to meet the criteria above, but replacing long segments of
sidewalks at driveways is beyond the scope of maintenance, needs to be funded through a
longer range capital budgeting plan, and does not present a defect in the same way a tripping
hazard or obstacle does .
Finally, ano t her recommended means of addressing all of the maintenance needs is with a
zone-by-zone sidewalk repair and replacement program. This approach may ta ke a longer view
on correcting and preventing maintenance problems . Communities can respond quickly to
sidewalk hazards community-wide while a more robust sidewalk repair and replacement
program -applying all criteria -is working zone by zone in a community addressing problems
that are not necessarily related to urgent defects which might require immediate treatment .
Many communities contacted or researched for this guide had good inspection programs
including d escriptions of defects and the thresholds they use for triggering repair and
replacement of sidewalks. However, many communities were using criteria that failed to meet
the above criteria established for accessibility, such as a displacement threshold that exceeded
the quarter to half inch displacement limit.
Several co m munities had photos on their website clearly depicting sidewa l ks that failed to
meet inspection criteria. This is a recommended practice, because as an information tool, it
provides illustrative examples of maintenance problems and establishes clear expectations for
34
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Figure iB: Sidewalk inspection examples and criteria from a Midwestern city (some criteria fail to meet ADA).
Stub Toe (S): The vertical misalignment along any part
of the seam between two slabs, or between section of
a cracked slab, of 1/2" or more, or deemed hazardous
by en ineerin ·ud ment
Traverse Slope (T ): Any individual slab or portion of a
slab shall not slope toward the street or the adjoining
property at a rat io of more than 5/8 " pe r foot (1 :20)
Spalling (Pitted) Slabs (P): Slabs whose surface is
granular or a chunk of the sidewalk surface greater
than 2" in width has broken out, and the result is a hole
1/2" or deeper
Longitudinal Slope (Sunken/Raised Sections) (L):
Any sidewalk pa nels that have lifted to a pea k or
sunken such that the slab or portion of a slab deviates
from the average line of the sidewalk surface level at a
rat io of more tha n 1 inch per foot
Cracked Slabs (C): Slabs fragmented by cracks into
four or more sections, and/or where any one of the
gaps is greater than 2 inches and prohibit the sidewal k
from function in as desi ned
Gaps (G): Opening in between sidewal k slabs greate r
than 2" in width, o r those caused by th e absence of a
fra mented section of sidewalk exceed in 2" in width
Tree Root Damage (R): Any deficienci e s in a slab o r
part of a slab that are deemed to be caused by t ree
roots from a tree in the city right-of-way will be the
responsibility of the city .
Public Utility Damage (0): Any defic ienc ies in a slab
or part of a slab that are deemed to be caused by
public infrastructure (sewer and water mains, sewer
manholes, catch bas ins, etc.). Damage deemed to be
caused by public infrastructure will be the
responsibility of the city .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Temporary Closures
If an inspection reveals areas where a sidewalk or path is not up to the established inspection
standards, the pedestrian facility must be brought up to the standard and a planned course of
action should be laid out for ultimate repair. If the facility presents a hazard a temporary repair
should be made as soon as practicable. In some cases where alternate pedestrian facilities can
clearly serve the same adjacent land uses and destinations, a temporary closure can be
considered. Temporary closings can give staff more time to return the pedestrian facility to
sufficient conditions often associated with weather-related events, but they are rarely effective
at keeping pedestrians from key destinations .
4.1.5 I Inspection Types
Inspections can be conducted on a community-wide basis, by zones, or simply on the spot after
a complaint. There are reporting mechanisms that are important components of these three
main approaches.
Community-wide Inspection
A community or agency may conduct an initial inspection of every sidewalk, path, and curb
ramp within a defined period, such as a six-month window. This can also be done "system-
wide". For instance, a state transportation agency may decide to inspect its entire sidewalk
system in an area thus extending beyond a community. Community-wide or system -wide
inspection often requires significant resources, and commonly involves more than simple
maintenance issues. This approach is often associated with conducting an ADA Transition Plan
(described later in this chapter) or is in response to outstanding needs that have not been
addressed over a long period of time. Some smaller communities or communities with
relatively few sidewalks can inspect all of their sidewalks annually, but this is difficult for larger
communities with extensive sidewalk systems.
Several communities contacted for this guide used an initial inventory of sidewalk conditions
as basis for a prioritization plan. Sometimes this was done when pedestrian facilities had fallen
into such a state of disrepair that funding and staff had been marshaled to begin to correct the
problem by first doing a comprehensive inspection.
In other cases, a community-wide effort to assess sidewalks often acts as the planning phase to
develop an operational plan aimed at making repairs by zones. This was the approach used by
Boulder, Colorado . The inventory was conducted using a van to video the sidewalk condition
and identify defects. The city established zones and a list of criteria that enabled them to
prioritize the most critical needs by zone and guide an annual schedule for repairs. This
37
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
particular ex ample demonstr ated how a community can mov e from a community-w ide
inspection to a zone inspection (zone inspection addressed belo w ).
Zone Inspection
Another approach is for a city, v illage or town to segment the i r community i nto zones to
implement a repair program. By having the community split i nto three to ten zones, efforts
and funds can be targeted in more manageable areas -zone by zone. Costs can al so be further
controlled by keeping crews w it h in in a tighter geographic area, r educing mob i li zation and
coordination costs. Although i nspections are made in a proact iv e fashion on a zone-by -zone
basis, often the same inspectors are used to respond to immed iate inspection issues in other
areas of a community if a hazard has been reported.
Many communit ies are using th is process of inspection and repair and it is a recommended
practice. About half of the communities who were contacted for this guide use this zone-by-
zone approach or a variant of it. For instance, the City of Minneapolis has org anized the i r
sidewalk inspections and repair program into ten geographic zones, and targets their annual
sidewalk repair budget into one of these zones each year, thereby i nspecting and maintaining
their public sidewalks on a ten year cycle . Similarly, almost all of these communities had either
i nformal or fo r mal arrangements to focus inspection and repairs in their downtown areas
where pedestr ian traffic is most common. The commun ity that took that effort to the greatest
length was Rochester, Minnesota. The central
downtown area around the Mayo Clinic is
examined on a monthly bas is and the greater
downtown area is inspected on a yearly basis .
The rest of the city, which is primarily single-
family resident ial (but some areas of multi-family
use as well), is i nspected at s percent per yea ri
the city will also respond to any compla i nts or
safety hazards on a community-wide basis . The
targeted hosp ital area is roughly one quarter of a
mile in radius w hile the greate r downtown area is
roughly one half to three quarters of a mile in
diameter. The city is cognizant of the need to
create a safe and ADA-compliant pedestrian
ex perience, particularly for the many new v isitors
to the hospital area and downtown .
Statewide Inspection
The Florida DOT is one of just a few
State DOTs that maintains nearly all
sidewalks on its highway system. Their
Office of Maintenance has one of the
most detailed inspection standards for a
state DOT. Its Maintenance Rating
Handbook is intended for field inspection
and covers all facets of maintenance .
For sidewalks, 99 .5% of a sidewalk must
be free of vertical misalignments greater
than 114 inch, horizontal cra c ks greater
than % inch, or spalled areas greater
than l/2 inch in depth, and no visible
hazards. The manual has detailed
instructions and photos of how
measurements should be made and
computed.
----iiii :;:
~ -~
--~
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Spot Inspection
Nearly every agency that has pedestrian facilities has a variation of a spot inspection program .
Spot inspection occurs when a hazard is identified and reported by the public or staff. This type
of inspection also occurs when a fall or slip is reported due to a hazard. Before any repair is
made, an employee of the agency needs to verify that a problem exists. In many smaller
communities the repair crews are authorized to inspect the reported problem and follow-up
with an immediate repair based on their inspection. Several communities researched relied
entirely on spot inspection and the subsequent repair of sidewalks and paths . Upon completion
of inspection and determining the extent of a problem, some form of work order is usually
issued leading to one of the following repairs: wedging, grinding, patching or sidewalk
replacement. It could also lead to sweeping, vegetation removal or trimming. For a path, an
asphalt patch, crack filling, or overlay may also be considered .
Communities invo lved in zone-by-zone inspection also conducted spot inspections, and were
better equipped to do so because they already have trained inspectors and/or inspection
teams.
Actions Following a Complaint or Injury
Depending on state and local laws and ordinances as well as general exposure to liability, it
may be prudent for a community to establish standard operating procedures when handling
inspection of a pedestrian facility in the event of an injury. The following steps are
recommended, but certainly a community should keep its attorney aware and involved in
these instances.
• An incident report should be completed by the injured person or agency employee. The
report should include the incident location, what occurred, and the presence of any
identified defects.
• Ownership and maintenance of the pedestrian facility should be verified . Often there
are several different agencies having control over pedestrian facilities within a single
community .
•
•
Inspect the pedestrian facility immediately after the incident becomes known and
details are made known (through the incident report). An inspector should describe the
condition of the pedestrian facility including any defects, take photographs, take
measurements, and compare the post-accident sidewalk condition with the condition
at the last inspection.
At the same time, the inspector should determine if the defect causing the mishap met
the criteria for a spot improvement using the adopted inspection criteria . A spot
improvement includes a temporary repair or even minor sidewalk replacement .
39
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Documentation is important and should
include strong and clear support for a
decision when no repa i rs are made.
There should be communication with the injured
party. According to the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust the community can
acknowledge the mishap, but should not admit
fault or liability. The community should inform
the injured pa rty what action has been taken in
the past (inspection and maintenance policy) and
will be done i n the future i n response to a
complaint or in j ury. A community should keep its
staff (including its attorney) i nvolved in the
process especially if there was a defect that was
associated with the injury.
Documentation, discussed below, is a guard
against liability . In the event of a claim or lawsuit,
the community can use these documents to
prove the existence of its inspection practices
and adherence to adopted practices and policies.
Documentation can also show that the city
ex ercised reasonable care in inspecting and
Using Volunteers for Inspections
Hoboken, New jersey
A unique approach to sidewalk
inspection involves the use of
volunteers. Hoboken, New Jersey has an
annual inspection program in which the
city enlists trained voluntee rs to walk
the sidewalks and record any problems.
The volunteers tend to be younger
students and elderly residen t s, and are
given some training in how to recognize
and document pedestrian facility issues.
Currently, the volunteers note the
location of damage to a specific
sidewalk slab and rate the severity of the
disrepair. The City of Hoboken has
enlisted college student volunteers to
develop a smartphone application
(separate from Hoboken311 described
separately) that their volunteer
inspectors can use so that the whole
sidewalk inventory would be digitized
instantly.
maintaining its sidewalks . Although there are some agencies that are not liable for injuries if
there was no prior written notification of a maintenance problem, documentation of problems
and when they were addressed is always a recommended practice. The League of Minnesota
Cities, who maintains excellent information sheets on this topic, cautions that sometimes
communities will have the m istaken notion that if they do not document policies or problems,
there will be no paper trail to hurt them later on (see appendix B for information sheet).
However, judges and juries can draw negative inferences from a lack of documentation .
Documentation shows that a community took deliberate action to inspect a nd maintain
facilities .
Reporting by the Public
Every commu n ity should have more than one means of learning about problems. In addition to
staff inspections, the public should be enlisted to help identify hazards and offered multiple
reporting methods. Research conducted for this guide found that the most common form of
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
reporting was by phone to the public works, transportation department, or parks department
(particularly for paths). The ne xt most common form was electronically through an agency's
website . PEDS, a metropolitan Atlanta advocacy group, has established an online hazard
reporting system now checked by the City of Atlanta and many Atlanta suburbs. People are
encouraged to report broken sidewalks, dead walk signals, faded crosswalks and other
pedestrian hazards .
The City of Hoboken, New Jersey has a program called Hoboken311, which brings together all
manners of reporting issues into one system . Along with phone and website reports, the
program includes a smartphone application (also called Hoboken311) that can be used to
report any number of public nuisance problems including snow removal issues, needed
sidewalk repair, burnt-out pedestrian lighting, damaged pedestrian signals, etc. The
applicat ion allows the user to take a picture of the problem to send in with the complaint and
the system will automatically send the user status updates until there is a resolution to the
problem. Several communities also have developed similar smartphone applications, including
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, Louisville, Kentucky, and Charlotte, North
Carolina .
Preferably, all types of inspections and hazard reports will go to one person or unit. In the
absence of that, it is important to have a unit responsible for overall coordination of reporting.
Comple x ity grows when various reporting methods are used and cover all types of pedestrian
facilities because reports may be received by the Parks Department for path problems, the
Public Works Department for sidewalk hazards, and the Streets Department for crosswalk and
signal problems. As noted above, a "311" program can bring together all manners of reporting
issues into one system . Many communities have a "report a problem" section to their website.
This will allow a commun ity to easily sort through the pedestrian problem reports .
Choosing an Inspection Program
The type of program selected depends largely on the resources available: community-wide
inspection requires the most resources, while a spot inspection program requires the least; a
zone inspection program falls between. The resources required to carry out an inspection
program vary not just with the type of program selected, but also with the age of the sidewalks
being inspected . In newer communities, it may be possible to inspect large areas very quickly,
as sidewalk systems have been built to current guidance, and have not had extensive damage
from tree roots . Inspection and recording of problems of older sidewalk systems can take
considerable time, especially in areas where curb ramps have not been brought up to ADA
standards, or mature trees have damaged sidewalks.
41
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Chapter 11 of Designing Sidewalk s and Trails for
Access -Part 1/6 has an ex cellent discussion laying
out a complete sidewalk assessment system .
This is used for more extensive inspect ion
processes for community -w ide assessments and
often for ADA transition p lans and sidewalk
replacement programs be i ng conducted on a
zone-by-zone basis w ith i n a community.
Features of such an assessment go beyond
routine inspect ion procedures with the following
measurements being involved: sidewalk cross
slopes (including cross slopes at driveways and
ma x imum cross slopes), runn i ng grades, changes
in level, changes in grade, m i nimum clear width,
surface defects, minimum vertical and horizontal
clearances and the distance protruding objects
intrude into the pedestrian pa t h.
Of commu n ities contacted and profiled for this
report, the majority lacks a coordinated sidewalk
Inspecting Shared Use Paths
Madison, Wisconsin
Of the communities contacted for this
guide, Madison, Wisconsin, had the
most extensive path inspection system.
All paths are visually inspected on a
regular basis, and individually rated for
pavement condition on an annual basis .
Condition reports are reviewed every
year and a number of paths are selected
for resurfacing or repav ing based on
condition rating, path usage and other
factors. Between major resurfacing
projects, surface problems are
addressed based on reports of hazards,
with pothole patching or other repairs
being completed as necessary and
priority given to problems with safety
implications .
and path inspection program and typically responds to prob lems that could be caught ea r lier
with inspect ions. Creating such a program can be an early prior ity for a sidew a lk maintenance
plan. At a bare minimum, a basic inspection system should consist of spo t inspections as
described above. This is certainly the least formal and robust approach to inspection, but is
necessary to respond to immediate maintenance problems caused by a variety of factors.
When sidewalk and path conditions deteriorate, one of the following factors will exceed an
acceptable threshold. Rout i ne inspections should consider, at a minimum, ch anges in level or
grade, ex cessive cross -slopes and vertical clearances. Additional factors are co nsidered in more
comprehen sive inspections such as those conducted zone-by-zone or community-wide .
Unlike sidewalks, nearly al l shared use paths are uniformly owned and maintained by the
communities contacted for this study . There appeared to be little ambiguity about who's
responsible for maintaining paths. Despite this, only a few communities contacted had any
formal and proactive inspection process for shared use paths, even though they may have had
a robust inspection and repa i r program for sidewalks. Most communities relied on reports of
6 De sig ning Side w alks and T rai ls for Access -Part II of II. U.S. Departmen t of Tra nsportation , Fe deral High w ay Ad ministrat ion.
200 1. http://www.fh w a.d ot .g ov/en vi ronm ent/bicy cle _pe des trian /pub lic ations/s ide w alk2/i nde x .cfm
42
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
hazards from users; almost all of whom were bicyclists . However, when path inspection and
repair was discussed with communities, nearly every community in dicated that their attention
to repairs on paths was as good or even better as the efforts they were making for sidewalks.
Several indicated that they paid more attention to deficiencies in paths than sidewalks,
because of the sheer volume of users (often citing heavy bicycle traffic) on paths compared to
sidewalks. Several communities indicated that they do visual inspections when their staff is on
the paths, but it did not constitute a formal inspection process . When there is an opportunity
to coordinate the inspection of paths with street inspections it is worth considering since the
inspection for asphalt paths is often very similar to that conducted for street surface ratings
and inspections.
4.1.6 I Documentation of Inspection Results and New Technologies
An important aspect of sidewalk and path inspection is the management of collected data .
Inspection of all types -from spot inspection to comprehensive assessments -should be
documented . During an inspection a form is typically completed for each property. If a spot
inspection is conducted due to a reported problem, only one or two properties may be
inspected. For more comprehensive inspections, notes and forms are completed assessing the
defective sidewalk sections, the types of defects found, and the lengt h and width of the
anticipated repair. These field notes are then used to generate inspection reports, which are
sent to the adjacent property owners in communities where they are required to pay for all or
part of the sidewalk repair or replacement.
Communities can streamline and benefit by use of sophisticated data collection and
management systems for sidewalk inspections . Specific sidewalk and path inspection tools
that can be used include check sheets, smart levels and GPS and GIS programs. Since there are
specific criteria related to prevent tripping hazards, a profile gauge is often used to measure
small changes in level and a smart level or digital inclinometer is used to measure cross slopes
and runni ng grades . A new and innovative approach to inspection makes use of sensor and
data acquisition components mounted on a Segway HT scooter. The inspection device,
supported through the Federal Highway Administration, allows a single person to inventory
sidewalks and convert the data into a city's GIS system at a rate of nearly si x miles per hour. It
is based on an inertial profiler system that had been in use since the 1970s to measure defects
on highway and airport pavement surfaces. The device's laser measurement system, three
accelerometers, and gyroscope measure the sidewalk profile at a rate of 10,000 records of data
per second. Together, these devices enable the capture of highly accurate location-specific
information about sidewalk slope and even small surface variations.
43
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Higher tech but much less expensive
measurement devices are also being tested . In
Atlanta an Android App operates on a tablet that
records video, GPS, accelerometer, and
gyroscope data . The tablet is attached to a wheel
chair and automatically records the video and
collects the data necessary to identify sidewalks
that may need of repair or reconstruction . This
data collection system is low-cost due to the use
of a standard, m anual wheelchair and computer
tablet device. It is being tested and supported
through Georgia Tech College of Engineering,
Georgia DOT, and the City of Atlanta .
Many agencies are using electronic management
systems to record sidewalk, curb ramp, and path
data . Departments should keep in mind that data
collection and documentation efforts require the
use of limited resources so choosing the right
technology is an important step. One form of
technology that has caught on is the use of
handheld computers (or even smart phones) to
increase data collection effic iency and accuracy .
One of the maj or benefits is that these tools are
GPS-enabled a nd can record spot problems to
within three feet of the problem. Sidewalks can
be identified and cross -referenced by parcel
number and/or street address . This level of
sophistication is often used to conduct a
comprehensive sidewalk and curb ramp
inventory. Once in place, the inventory and the
same tools can be used by inspectors as they
respond to problems and update the inventory.
Using Technology to Aid Inspections
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
The City of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, was
one of the first communities in the
country to use a more sophisticated
data management system for sidewalk
inspections . Fond du Lac created a
custom database application using
computer software to help manage the
vast amount of data associated with the
city's sidewalk program. This database
application stores all of the sidewalk
data in one central location and
automatically generates several reports.
The electronic database allows the city
to not only manage the data in one
place, but to automatically calculate
quantities for estimating sidewalk
replacement costs and bid quantities.
A mobile GIS application consisting of a
handheld computer with GIS software
and a global positioning system (GPS) is
used in the field and synchronized with
the sidewalk database as inspections
occur. A GIS parcel map is used to note
defects in the sidewalk and create points
in the database using the inspector's
GPS location. Digital photographs are
also taken of the defects during the
inspection and are added to the parcel
information in the database.
Without an electronic inventory of facilities, it is still possible for inspectors to ma ke use of new
technologies. For ex ample, an inspector can issue work orders by address or parcel number
electronically from the field. Although that would be using only a small part of the available
44
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
technology, it may be just right level of technology for communities that have not gone
through an extensive inventory process .
Having trained inspectors is crucial to the delivery of a sound inspection program . This training
should be extended to all personnel making decisions i n the field and applying engineering
judgment when a spot repair is going to be made or a sidewalk section replaced . For smaller
agencies first line public works employees may be summoned to inspect and repair reported
sidewalk and path defects. In many communities there will not be a dedicated inspector, so
street or public works employees can be trained on standards and requirements. This produces
the benefit of having the same employees inspecting, documenting, and making or supervising
the repair. Empowering inspectors and other field personnel to make decisions on the spot is
often the most efficient and reliable means of dealing with reported defects.
4.2 I COMPLIANCE
In most places, maintenance and often repair of sidewalks is a cooperative effort between the
community and its residents. According to research conducted for this guide, the majority of
agencies require adjacent property owners to attend to year-round day-to -day maintenance of
sidewalks and even curb ramps. This includes sweeping, vegetation control, and snow and ice
removal. And in many communities, property owners are also held responsible for making or
paying for repairs on sidewalk segments in front of their homes and businesses. Jurisdictions
committed to ma i ntaining an accessible sidewalk network must create systems to ensure that
responsibilities are spelled out with property owners and they themselves hold up their set of
commitments. This usually involves inspection regiments and administrative and compliance
actions .
In communities where the governmental agency conducts and pays for all sidewalk repairs and
replacements, the main compliance issue is day to day maintenance. Compliance with
regulations on removal of snow, ice, debris still requires an inspection and reporting system
4.2.1 I Principles for Compliance
There are a number of principles that should be considered for the effective use of
administrative, compliance and enforcement measures . Laws, ordinances, and directives need
to be understandable, clear, and reasonable . Any enforcement actions arising from the
ordinances or laws must also be fair, prompt, consistent, and predictable. It does not help a
program to have enforcement practices vacillate from season to season or from year to year .
45
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
4.2.2 I Compliance with Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Ordinances
The most outstanding maintenance and public coordinat i on effort occurs when agencies
require adjacent property owners to make sidewalk repairs or fund agency-lead repairs. A clear
and consistent administrative effort is essential to the year-round safety and accessibility of
sidewalks and curb ramps .
In the series of discussions which were conducted with agencies as part of the r esearch for this
guide, several indicated they had difficulty in applying sidewalk repair ordinances . Many
communities ex pressed concern that enforcement of sidewalk repair ordinances could result in
untenable costs to residents and community backlash . This can be compounded when there is
a perception that the burden of sidewalk replacement fall more heavily o n lower-income
neighborhoods, or that higher-income residents are able to pressure city officials to avoid
citations . Others respondents mentioned that often the responsibility for sidewalk repair is
unclear (such as when city-maintained street trees crack sidewalks).
In some communities, this gap between the intent of an ordinance and effective enforcement
means sidewalks are falling i nto disrepair. A community that recognizes t his problem has
several options. The leadership of the public works department can request that the ordinance
be revisited and reaffirmed or revised; this is particularly helpful when simple changes would
help address the problems . Some communities are taking more responsibil ity for sidewalk
repair and replacement by lowering assessments and finding other funding sources for repairs.
In some cases, residents' groups are helping raise the visibility of the issue so that sidewalk
repair gets a higher priority . Most importantly, the public works staff should systematically
document the condition of the sidewalk network, and provide this information to the
community's leadership, so those leaders will have the tools to effectively address the
problem.
In communit ies that do enforce delinquent sidewalk repairs, common compliance mechanisms
include fines and assessment for work completed by an agency . For unpaid fines, communities
commonly assess the cost to a property .
According to the research for this report, the most common approach used by agencies was
the practice of making simple repairs (patching and wedging) themselves. But if sidewalks had
to be replaced, a set of procedures were set in motion requir i ng adjacent property owners to
pay for all or part of the cost of an agency to use its own crews or a hired contractor to replace
the sidewalks.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
It is important to note, that if a pedestrian facility is impacted by an alteration project (see
4.1.3), cost is not a reason for a public agency to refuse to bring a pedestrian facility in the
scope of the project within ADA standards. "Each facility or part of a facility altered by, on
behalf of, or for the use of a public entity in a manner that affects or could affect the usability
of the facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such
manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities, if the alteration was commenced after January 26, 1992." [ 28 CFR 35.151]
"Maximum extent feasible" relates to technical infeasibility only, not cost, when considering
how to meet ADA standards and determinations about what constitutes the "maximum extent
feasible" need to be documented.
Several successful local agency compliance programs were identified for sidewalk repair and
replacement as part of the research for this Guide . Most repairs are triggered by complaints,
requests, incidents, or by a sidewalk inspection program. An agency's sidewalk program will
then issue a sidewalk notice of repair or defect. In some cases an abutting property owner has
an option to repair or replace a sidewalk panel and will give the property owner 2 weeks to 60
days to repair the sidewalk. If the sidewalk repair is not made the agency will often do the
repair and charge the property owner for the work . Often if the charge is not paid within a
grace period, the charge becomes a lien against the property . Adjacent property owners are
provided opportunities to contest repairs and the costs associated with the repairs.
A much longer time period is established when a sidewalk has to be repaired or replaced to
provide time for the repair to be made. Very clear procedures should be in place if the repair
work is done by the agency, but assessed in full or in part to the abutting property owner.
Sidewalk repair supported by laws and ordinances
Federal or state laws or policies may govern local sidewalk maintenance compliance plans. For
example, current maintenance provisions of the U.S. DOT require that pedestrian facilities
built with federal funds be maintained just like other roadway facilities in the area.7 State
agencies often have some of the same conditions when they construct sidewalks along state
highways. In some situations, state agencies will provide maintenance for sidewalks along the
roadways they control, and will not expect this to done by the local agency .
Some jurisdictions that have adopted a complete streets policy or have otherwise reexamined
their commitment to improving their sidewalk infrastructure have concluded that they need to
take more direct responsibility for sidewalk repair and replacement. They see the sidewalk is
an important part of the right-of-way, rather than an extension of an individual property, and
7 FHW A Office of Asset Management Memo randum, 2008 . http :l/www.fhwa .dot.gov/preservatjo n/082108 .cfm
47
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
may have also found that putting the burden on property owners results in an uneven sidewalk
quality. While taking over such responsibility can be a major expense, some jurisd ictions, such
as Missoula, Montana, have created shared fee structures that ease the burden on individual
homeowners and move the community in the direction of a better sidewalk network.
4.2.3 I Compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
When pedest ri an facilities are impacted due to maintenance activities, pedestrian
accommodations should still be provided while avoiding detours . This issue will be especially
commonplace when sidewalk or path sections are removed and replaced . The Manual on
Uniform Traffi c Controls (MUTCD) provides standards and guidance on "temporary traffic
control (TTC) zones ." It is the national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic
control device s which applies to all streets and roads within the U.S. Temporary signs and
devices will need to be provided to direct pedestrians safely through work zones. The
standards from the MUTCD include several key provisions:
• The needs and control of all road
users (motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians within the highway, or
on private roads open to public
travel, including persons with
disabili t ies) through a TTC zone
shall be an essential part of
mainte nance operations. 8
• Where pedestrian routes are closed,
alternate pedestrian routes shall be
provided for maintenance . 9
• When existing pedestrian facilities Figure 19: An accessible detour
are disrupted, closed, or relocated in a TTC zone, the temporary facilities shall be
detectable and shall include accessibility features consistent with the features present
in the ex isting pedestrian facility.10
Additional gui d ance provided in the MUTCD includes:
• Whenever possible, work should be done in a manner that does not create a need to
detour pedestrians from existing routes or crossings.11
8 Parag raph 2 of Se ction 6A.01 in the MUTCD.
9 Paragraph 8 of Section 6G.05 in the MUTCD .
10 Paragraph 9 of Sect ion 6G .0 5in the MUTCD.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Pedestrian detours should be avoided because pedestrians rarely observe them and the
cost of providing accessibility and detectability might outweigh the cost of maintaining
a continuous route.12
• Bicyclists and pedestrians, including those with disabilities, should be provided with
access and reasonably safe passage through the TTC zone .13
• A smooth, continuous hard surface should be provided throughout the entire length of
the temporary pedestrian facility.14
Considerable guidance is provided in the MUTCD on the importance and support for providing
temporary pedestrian facilities and traffic controls within TTC zones.
4.2.4 I Routine Maintenance Supported by Laws and Ordinances
Any enforcement effort should be backed by an ordinance or law that is easy to understand
and provides clear direction to the people who are responsible for enforcement . Any lack of
clarity or need for alteration should be called to the attention of the elected officials who are
responsible for passing such ordinances . The ordinances and laws can establish a fine or fee
schedule for issuance to people for failing to comply. Often they will establish a short grace or
notification period in which the property owner can respond to reported problems especially
for vegetation removal.
Compliance for clearing snow and debris
A goal for any agency is to have compliance with little enforcement, particularly when it comes
to clearing sidewalks of snow and other debris. If an agency can keep sidewalks clear with little
enforcement, they will likely be saving money while avoiding potentially negative interactions
with residents. The jurisdiction can work to establish a community norm that supports the
importance of sidewalk maintenance among residents as part of good citizenship and
encourages people to help neighbors if they are struggling . A recommended approach is to
formally or informally organize volunteers to help keep sidewalks clear where older or disabled
residents cannot remove snow, ice, vegetation overgrowth, or sweep on their own . In larger
communities, this strategy is often part of a larger snow removal plan or program. Fort Collins,
Colorado, has an "Adopt-a-Neighbor" program which coordinates volunteers to shovel for
someone who cannot do so on their own. The Cambridge Department of Public Works will
clear the sidewalks at no cost if residents in need of assistance add their name to the annual
exemption list. In some smaller communities, especially those located in warmer climates that
have less severe snow events, informal volunteerism may be relied upon.
11 Paragraph 7 of Section 6G.05 in the MUTCD .
12 Paragraph 7 of Section 6G.05 in the MUTCD .
23 Item 2E in Paragraph 7 of Section 68.01 in the MUTCD .
24 Item C in Pa ragraph 11 of Sect ion 6D .01 in the MUTCD .
49
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Getting Organized
Working with property owners on sidewalk maintenance requ i res a clear a nd organized
approach. The jurisdiction should establish multiple means of r eporting problems, such as
through webs ites, over the phone, and by employees, but just one person or unit should be
responsible for responding to all of these reports . Just as impo rtantly, this same person or un it
needs to manage and monitor enforcement actions that are tak in g place.
4.2.5 I Types of Enforcement Efforts
When property owners are required by law to maintain pedest ri an facilities, enforce m ent
through fines or other punitive measures should be used as a last resort . Fines wi ll be one of
the tools for enforcement, but should not be viewed or portrayed as a means of raising funds .
The costs associated with a robust enforcement program are likely to be higher than the funds
raised through fines. There are a number of strategies that can help establish and retain an
effective enforcement effort . As with any enforcement effort, it is essential that enforcement
information and protocols be clearly communicated to the pub l ic and within the agency
including : which department (and contact person) within an agency is responsible for
accepting reported problems and monitoring enforcement, the fin es and not ific ation periods
for different types of maintenance, the standards ex pected for ma i ntenance, and the options
available for people who cannot perform maintenance .
In many commun ities a tiered enforcement approach is put into effect that m akes use of
warnings, but also cracks -down on chronic problems . For ex ample, in Boulde r a prope rty
owner is given a warning for the first incidence of non -compliance (per year/seaso n) and then a
ticket for the second non-compliance event . If the location is iden t ified as a chronic issue the
city may take more severe measures including conducting the ma i ntenance themselves (or by
contract) and billing the property owner for the wo r k . Although th is can work for many for m s
of property owner maintenance, providing a notification period fo r snow and ice removal is not
recommended because of the immediate ha zard confronted by pedestrians.
Enforcement for pedestrian main t enance can be aided by other e m ployees of the agency. Thi s
involves the identification of problems by a range of public employ ees and is cons idered to be
more proactive. Communities can train parking meter reade r s, parks employees or police,
public works staff, and inspectors to be alert to and to report sidewalk accessibil it y issues and
dangers . It is usually best if a public works employee -usually an i nspector -th e n visits the
property. The i nspector can make a decision in the field, talk t o the property owner, and
process the paper work for a citat ion or fine if necessary . There can also be mo r e proactive
inspections afte r a major sno w fall or on a schedule to ident ify problems that need an
50
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
immediate response. By using the range of employees and reporting mechanisms, hazards can
be reported and attended to sooner .
React iv e enforcement of problems is probably more common and involves just specified
employees being called upon to issue a citation or fine for a recently reported problem. This
often involves a two-step process when an inspector assesses the problem, and depending on
the problem, some time may be given for an adjacent property owner to address it. This is
especially true if a sidewalk needs to be repaired or replaced . Conversely, if a sidewalk is
impassable because of snow and ice, an inspector or a public works employee might issue a
fine on the spot.
Communication is a key element of an enforcement strategy . The strategy should contain
methods that enhance on-going communication on how citizens and employees will resolve
problems. Lines of communication can be formalized with neighborhood groups and business
assoc iations. The annual timing of messages is also important. For instance, communication
should begin in the fall of the year regarding snow and ice removal while repair of sidewalks
and vegetation control are subjects for the spring and summer seasons. This line and type of
communication will help to remind longer-term residents, but will also inform new residents
for the first time. The goal is compliance without instituting more time-consuming
enforcement practices or relying on fines to affect maintenance efforts. There is more on
communication in section 4.4.3.
Fines
A common enforcement tool for getting compliance from property owners is through the use
of fines and is used primarily with day-to-day maintenance efforts. Charges can accrue daily for
failure to comply with the order or it may be effective enough for the fine to simply cover the
cost of crews to clear the sidewalk or make a repair . In other cases, because the goal is to move
toward compliance; increasing fines over time can prompt residents to reason that they would
rather shovel snow or trim bushes than face higher fines . A fee structure can include different
fines for residential and commercial properties or for single family and multi-family housing.
Recurring charges resulting in a lien on the property can be an effective strategy for
encouraging property owners and managers to comply with requirements.
Snow removal compliance efforts are covered in more detail under 5.3.3, but in general
successful enforcement programs should treat snow removal enforcement much like parking
enforcement: v iolators are promptly fined and failure to pay the i nitial fee results in additional
penalties; warning tickets are not recommended since it can elongate the time the sidewalk
rema i ns impassable to pedestrians and creates additional work for the agency.
51
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Although enforcement is a key element for
compliance, agencies must make reasonable
exceptions and always tie education with
enforcement. For instance, exceptions and
longer compliance windows are especially
necessary for significant snowfalls or ice storms.
Communities that combine education efforts
with enforcement efforts are more successful at
having sidewalks attended to. See 5.3.3 of this
guide on examples of education programs
related to snow removal by adjoining property
owners.
4.3 I POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
It should be clear by now that the process of
inspecting pedestrian facilities, deciding on
actions to take, and working with (or issuing
fines to) the public, requires strong polic ies and
ordinances that clarify how facilities will be
maintained and if adjacent property owners will
be required to conduct maintenance on their
own .
Innovative Enforcement
Boston, Massachusetts
According to Keeping it Clear
Recommendations for Sidewalk Snow
and Ice Removal in Massa chusetts by
Walk Boston, even when there are
adequate laws and ordinances, overall
compliance might be negated by low
manpower. In the City of Boston, the
lnspectional Services Depa rt ment (ISD)
is responsible for issuing tickets for
uncleared sidewalks. However, there are
fewer than 15 code enforcement officers
on staff and they cannot cover the entire
city. As an example of a clever way to
use other personnel who spend much of
the day outside, the City of Cambridge
recently gave parking enforcement
officers the ability to ticket for uncleared
sidewalks and that has resulted in a
marked improvement in adjacent
property owners clearing sidewalks.
Most communities with pedestrian facil ities will have at least some written maintenance
policies, often through ordinances. The best way to develop policies is as part of writing a
maintenance plan, but policies can also be established independently. They should cover the
funding of sidewalks, inspection procedures and criteria, and responsibilities of property
owners and the community. The policies will establish the overarching principles with direction
to agency staff to carry out the specifics. It is likely that a complete set of adopted policies can
have the same affect at directing pedestrian facility maintenance actions as does a plan. The
City of St. Michael's sidewalk and trail maintenance policy is included in Appendi x C.
One of the most important topics to cover in a policy is the general criteria used to determine
when to repair and replace pedestrian facilities or address non-compliance of a standard level
of service. These criteria w i ll dictate when a repair should be made, a sidewalk replaced,
vegetation trimmed, or snow and ice removed . The policy should address who is responsible
for making repairs, and for regular chores such as clearing snow, ice, vegetatio n overgrowth,
and debris .
52
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
The strongest policy will be written into an ordinance for passage by the jurisdiction's
governing body; if the community is assessing property owners for installing or maintaining
sidewalks or ramps this will almost always require an ordinance . In fact, some state statutes
require the passage of an ordinance when special assessments are used . Ordinances carry
more weight than plans and policies . The policies as suggested above will cover more facets of
pedestrian facility maintenance than do ordinances. A plan will provide an even broader range
of topics, measures and analysis, such as an inventory of facilities and a suggested prioritized
scheme.
Sidewalk ordinances from the Cities of Des Moines, Iowa and Eau Claire, WI are included in
appendices E and F. These ordinances cover the placement of sidewalks, inspection,
construction standards, and obligations that these municipalities place on adjacent property
owners for maintenance . Ordinances will vary from state to state and in those communities
that have the responsibility of maintaining the sidewalks themselves, there will be no language
requiring day-to-day maintenance.
4.41 PLANS
Plans are the best way to cover all facets of pedestrian maintenance . They should be
incorporated as an essential element of general maintenance plans. However, plans that are
specific to just pedestrian facilities can provide important direction on timeliness, techniques
and priorities, are encouraged. ADA transition plans are another excellent opportunity to
incorporate the need for pedestrian facility maintenance. A community may also incorporate a
section on pedestrian facility maintenance as part of community-wide pedestrian plan . For
example, the City of Minneapolis' Pedestrian Master Plan 15 included a chapter of maintenance
of pedestrian facilities . All such plans need to be officially adopted by the jurisdiction that
completes them. Developing these plans will provide an excellent opportunity to involve the
public in the planning process including residents, homeowner associations, neighborhood
groups, and business development associations and interests.
Pedestrian plans which address facility maintenance at the municipal level will communicate
the agency's responsibilities as well as lay out what is expected of property owners .
Additionally, they will cover the coordination necessary between jurisdictions and agencies for
effective and timely maintenance. The following categories are recommended as the main
sections of a pedestrian facility maintenance plan . Each is described in more detail below.
• Prioritization and funding for maintenance
25 Cit y of Minneapolis Pedestrian Master Plan -2009
htt p://www.m inneap olismn.go v/www/gro ups /public/@p ublicw orks/do cuments/webcontent/convert_286i49 .pdf
53
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Goals, o bj ectives, perfo r mance measures
• Schedul e for improvements
• Commun ication and mechanisms for reporting problems
• Inspection procedures (included in more detail under 4 .1)
• Docum e ntation (addressed in more detail under 4.1.3)
• Proced u res for repair and r eplacement, including seasonal considerations
• Identification and recommendations of major pieces equipment necessary for
pedestrian facility maintenance
4.4.1 I Inspection Criteria and Procedures
It is critical for a plan to establish how inspections will be done. This includes criteria that will
be used to determine when to repair and replace pedestrian facilities, such as degree of
displacements, cracking, holes surfacing problems, etc. A plan should also address who will
inspect problems associated with snow, ice, vegetation overgrowth, and walkway and path
debris. It is ap p ropriate and helpful to identify the personnel (by job classification ) expected to
conduct the in spections and when and how it will take place -on a scheduled basis, in response
to problems, or when street work or tree trimming is being conducted, or some combination.
4.4.2 I Prioritization and Funding
Each commu ni ty will need to balance its needs and funding for maintaining pedestrian
facilities . It should have a clear policy for how it ex pects to schedule and fund walkways,
especially if special assessments will be used to repair or replace sidewalks . One option is to
identify specific sidewalk sections and curb ramps that need to be repaired or replaced, while
another approach is to create a system for prioritizing repair and maintenance of pedestrian
facilities .
If a plan is new, the first step is to conduct an inventory of fac i lities. The inventory should
collect and organize critical information on the condition of pedestrian facili t ies including
sidewalks, cur b ramps, paths, median crossings, and pedestrian signals . Such an inventory can
also be used to update or prepare ADA transition plans. Conversely, the development of an
ADA transition plan can be an ex cellent opportunity to conduct a comprehensive i nventory and
establish priorities for maintenance.
Communities use two main options for funding pedestrian facility repairs . T he preferred
method is to fund such repairs through general road repair funds or the general fund. If the
road in question is a state highway, the existence of a state complete streets policy can be used
to negotiate a cost-share or full-funding arrangement -with the potential use of federal
transportation funds -that brings pedestrian facilities into alignment with state maintenance
54
= ---~ -~ -
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
of the roadway. However, in most states, it is common for local governments to assess the
repair costs to adjacent property owners . This practice is grounded in English common law, but
has become a barrier for installation and maintenance of adequate pedestrian facilit ie s. Given
the financial burden of changing this system, many communities use a combination of the two .
For instance, a local government may pay for and conduct all of the temporary repairs to a
deficient sidewalk and pay 50 percent of the costs for sidewalk replacement. It is also likely to
pay for the entire cost of curb ramp replacement . If the option requires assessing the cost of
the repair or replacement to adjacent property owners, a community's procedures should
clearly cover the assessment procedures and provide a process for owners to dispute repairs
and costs . Additional options should be spelled out which could allow residents to do the work
themselves or hire a contractor. Funding priorities should be addressed in policies or
ordinances; plans can focus on details or can include details on plans to look for additional
funding. For more information on funding, see Chapter 7.
Transportation funds apportioned to a State to carry out the Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP) under MAP -21, may be used by a State to correct ADA and Section 504 (of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973) deficiencies in its public-rights-of-way (e.g., sidewalks and curb
ramps) identified in the State's ADA/Section 504 transition plan if the correction of ADA and
Section 504 deficiencies identified is part of the construction of any Federal-aid highway
project. The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), authorized under Section 1122 of
MAP-21 (23 U.S.C. § 213), provides funding for projects or activities, including: transportation
alternatives, as defined at 23 U.S.C. § 101(a)(29); the recreational trails program under 23
U.S.C. § 206; the safe routes to school program under section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU; and the
planning, design or construction of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way
of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways . 23 U.S.C. § 213(b).
4.4.3 I Communication
A plan can be an important way to communicate to the public and internally to its own
employees about the importance of maintaining pedestrian facilities, and who will do what
when. The plan will begin and should also enhance on-going communication on how residents
and employees will resolve problems . On-going communication should run in sync with the
seasons -begin in the fall of the year regarding snow and ice removal while repair of sidewalks
and vegetation control are subjects for the spring and summer seasons.
A plan should establish procedures that follow in logical order for the public to understand and
follow . This should cover how a community repairs facilities, pays for them (especially if
assessing them to property owners), informs affected residents, does inspections, establishes
projects annually, and schedules repairs. This is also an excellent document to address and
55
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
communicate to the public what is expected of them for clearing snow and removing
overgrown vegetation.
Finally, a good plan will establish a mechanism in how the jurisdiction deals with unforeseen
circumstances and changes in conditions. A common change may be brought on by a budget
shortfall . For example, resources might be stretched because of a severe winter that requires a
greater use of maintenance funds for snow clearance than anticipated. Rathe r than elim i nate
all repairs, a discussion and process should be followed to address these changes. The plan
could include a planned response, such as a reduction of sidewalk replacements coupled with
greater attention to temporary repairs (hole and crack filling, wedging, grinding, horizontal
cutting) to ensure the network remains safe until replacements can resume . The plan can also
include provisions for responding to more unusual circumstances by specifying when a public
works board or the city council itself should be called upon to make adjustments to the plan.
4.4.4 I Documentation
The plan should outline documentation procedures. It is always helpful and legally defensible
to docume nt the reasons why actions were taken the way they were. If a community
establishes reasonable procedures through a plan (or policies) and follows them only to have a
mishap occur, community employees or its attorney can argue that all the appropriate
procedures were in place based on the plan or set of policies established in the plan . Even when
cuts in funding or staff has led to a diminution of services, if appropriate documentation shows
a thoughtful and deliberate consideration of the re-prioritization of resources, this will serve
the community in a better way than if no documentation was made.
4.4.5 I Equipment
A plan is an excellent place to identify equipment needs for walkways and paths for the
following purposes: repair and replacement of pavements, and the removal of snow, ice,
vegetation and brush. This is especially important for communities that are taking on
responsibilities for removing snow and ice on paths and sidewalks, where specialized
equipment may be needed . Since equipment has an established expected life, and new
equipment can add significantly to a budget, a plan can establish the timing for replacement or
purchase of equipment that is not already in place . For example, often smaller -sized
equipment or pick-up trucks mounted with plows can be used for paths, but those purchases
(and the equipment to be attached to them) must also be identified and budgeted especially to
respond to a change in policy or an expansion of snow removal responsibilities .
56
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
4.5 I CONCLUSION
Communities must continue to make their pedestrian systems safer, more accessible and well-
maintained . These three goals are inextricably linked as discussed and presented as
recommendations in this chapter on inspection, compliance efforts, plans and policies .
Simultaneously, many of these recommendations will lead to improved efficiencies and often
cost savings for cities and other sidewalk maintaining authorities . Efforts to deal with funding
issues and any changes in maintenance operations should be documented and shared with the
community. The most effective way agencies can deal with a flat or declining budget for
maintenance is to prioritize sidewalk, curb ramp and path repairs . A sufficient amount must
always be kept available to respond to reported hazards that need immediate repair. Longer
term sidewalk, curb ramp, and path replacement projects can be prioritized. This is often done
by dividing communities into zones and working within a specific zone on an annual basis .
Compliance efforts are necessary when agencies require adjacent property owners to take on
the responsibility of maintaining facilities in the public right-of-way, for example, the removal
of snow and ice or the repair of sidewalks. In several sections of this chapter and guide,
practices within communities were highlighted where just the opposite was in place -property
owners not called upon to provide maintenance. Sidewalks are being viewed more and more
by society as public facilities that serve people just like streets serve motorists and bicyclists. In
the same way streets are being maintained, so should sidewalks. The time, cost, and effort
associated with compliance and enforcement efforts can be reduced or eliminated as agencies
assume more or all maintenance responsibilities for pedestrian facilities.
Clearly, agencies are obligated to make their pedestrian facilities accessible. Inspection criteria
should be based on the ADA guidelines. ADA compliance is triggered when alterations are
made, however, maintenance repairs may also present an opportunity to improve accessibility.
A pedestrian facility maintenance program can work hand-in-hand with a program aimed at
accessibility problems. Conversely, an ADA transition plan should also consider which
pedestrian facilities are priorities for repair or replacement based on maintenance issues. For
example, a transition plan should target and prioritize deficient curb ramps and sidewalks that
are in need of maintenance anyway .
57
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5 I Maintenance Measures
This chapter summarizes the common repair and seasonal maintenance practices for
pedestrian fac i lities based on r esearch conducted for the gu ide . The first sec ti on prov ides a
summary of t he repair methods, and how they are used for the range of pede strian facilities.
Part two includes common day-to-day seasonal maintenance method s along with
recommended practices. The t r eatments are presented in order from the eas iest to implement
to the more comple x and d ifficult .
5.1 I WHEN IS MAINTENANCE NECESSARY FOR SIDEWALKS, PATHS, AND CURB RAMPS?
Chapter 3 of th is guide outlined the problems that drive the need to maintain pedestrian
facilities . The range of potential needs requiring servicing is ex pansive. Infrastructure
maintenance needs involve the repair of sidewalk slabs or path segments by grinding, crack
filling, and patching. In man y cases the only solution is to replace sidewalks or re surface paths .
Generally when surface condi t ions degrade to a point whe r e tripping hazards ex ist or
worsening runn i ng or cross slope condi t ions are making routes inaccessible, maintenance
needs to occu r. Maintenance is also necessary to respond to seasonal conditions such as fallen
snow or overgrown vegetat io n. Every community should establish thresholds that trigger a
response to these problems . Those thresholds should be infor med by accessibility guidance
using the crite r ia developed by the Access Board. Section 4 of this Guide outlines the
thresholds, standards, and i nspection techniques that shou ld be in place . In summary,
maintenance is necessary for sidewalks, curb ramps, and paths when an acceptable threshold
is ex ceeded i n the following categories. Additionally, seasonal maintenance is also required
and is covered i n detail in 5.6 .
• Disp lacements
• Surfac i ng issues such as cracks, holes, surface deterioration
• Grades and cross slopes
• Othe r issues (detectab le warning fields, ramp problems, etc.)
A large percentage of commun it ies in many states employ a sidewalk rep lacement program
that cycle through a community, focusing on different neighborhoods over a number of years.
Over a period of years the entire community will be covered and the cycle beg i ns again . This
type of program often uses h ighe r standards and tighter thresholds than spot repair programs .
For example, a cracked sidewal k that currently ex hibits no tripping hazard or ot her form of
deterioration would not trigger a spot treatment, but would be addressed as part of a rotating
sidewalk replacement program .
58
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2 I MAINTENANCE REPAIR METHODS FOR SIDEWALKS AND PATHS
Maintenance practices involving infrastructure can be categorized into three main groups:
temporary; short term measures; and longer term measures lasting many years (in some
situations even over ten years). Temporary measures are made just to reduce tripping hazards
and last less than a year. Short term measures typically last one to five years and are intended
to extend the l ife of the sidewalk segment until it is replaced. Long term measures include
sidewalks replacement. When sidewalks are replaced as part of a street project, the work may
be considered higher order than simple maintenance, thus falling under the definition of
alterat ions under the ADA.
Temporary Maintenance Measures
Temporary repair meas ures may include wedging or patching a sidewalk with asphalt or a
quick-mix cement. The temporary repair should alleviate the most hazardous concerns until a
more permanent repair is performed later
Short Term Maintenance Measures (Repairs)
Several maintenance techniques will last one to five years for sidewalks and paths. These
include patching (5.2.1), wedging (5.2 .3), grinding and horizontal cutting (5.2.4), mud-jacking
(5.2.5), and overlays .
Long Term Maintenance Measures (Replacement)
The un iversally accepted long term maintenance technique is sidewalk replacement. However,
many communities have success with grinding (5.2.4) and mud-jacking (5 .2 .5) as longer term
solutions . Horizontal cutting (5 .2 .4) is a newer technique that is similar to grinding and should
have the same success rate as grinding. The problem in considering grinding, mud-jacking and
horizontal cutting as longer term solutions is that the underlying problems associated with
these fixes may continue to be an issue . For ex ample, if a sidewalk sags and mud-jacking is
used to correct the problem, the original unstable base may cause continued sagging . Also,
some repairs will degrade the overall quality of the sidewalk. For example, grinding and
horizontal cutting may be a lasting solution to a tripping hazard, but may leave one or two
sidewalk panels with a cross slope of greater than two percent or with warped transitions
between panels.
59
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Types of Maintenance
Defining maintenance is important and helps establish the point in which maintenance ends
and higher forms of project development take form. The distinction is essential for funding
and access ibility purposes. The ADA addresses maintenance activities and reconstruction
projects far differently and certain types of funds can only be used for non -maintenance
activities. The following are some broad definitions for maintenance . Practices which move
beyond these definitions are likely to be considered alterations. Using FHWA's standardized
definitions for project types do not fully clarify the issue, because the standard
classifications used for roadway projects produces significant overlap for sidewalk and path
repairs. At the lower end of the FHWA classification scheme is Routine Maintenance
"which consists of day-to-day activities that are scheduled by maintenance personnel to
maintain and preserve the condition" of facilities at a satisfactory level of service . This
definition encompasses short term and some long term maintenance as described above .
Another definition is Corrective Maintenance which is described as "activities that are
performed in response to the development of a deficiency or deficiencies that negatively
impact the safe, efficient operations of the facility and future integrity of t he pavement
section. Corrective maintenance activities are generally reactive, not proactive, and
performed to restore a pavement to an acceptable level of service due t o unforeseen
conditions ." The application to sidewalk repair and replacement is evident in this definition
where a tripping hazard exists. Temporary and minor repairs fit into this FHWA category, as
do smaller scale sidewalk and path replacements identified as long term measures. FHWA's
definition includes as examples rigid pavements where the full width and depth of a slab is
replaced at isolated locations, clearly encompassing sidewalk replacement .
And still another category is Preventive Maintenance which consists of treatments to
extend the functional condition of a facility. "Preventive maintenance is typically applied to
pavements in good condition having significant remaining service life" and is commonly
done by applying treatments to the surface or near-surface of structurally sound
pavements . Preventive measures fall into the short and long term maintenance categories
above with the best examples including mud-jacking, joint sealing, grinding, and horizontal
cutting for sidewalks; and chip sealing and slurry for asphalt sidewalks and paths.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement
Based on these definitions, surfacing treatments for sidewalks such as filling holes and
cracks, wedging, grinding and horizontal cutting are considered maintenance. The
replacement of short segments of sidewalk to repair surface irregularities is also
maintenance in nature, but as the number of consecutive sidewalk panels (separated by
joints) increases beyond a few, the definition of maintenance no longer applies.
60
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Provided below are the common maintenance responses to on-going infrastructure problems
along with recommendat ions for their use . Not every community will have the same toolbox or
use maintenance measures in the same way. Much depends on the current stock of facilities in
a community -brick sidewalks will require different repair methods than concrete . Secondly,
maintenance problems vary by community, state, and region and could be affected by
underlying soils and to climate . For example, southern Arizona does not use any asphalt
patching for sidewalks because of the extreme heat . This is especially true for seasonal
maintenance; while Miami may face problems with encroaching vines, Duluth, Minnesota is
more likely to be concerned with heavy snowfall. Additionally, many communities are focused
on sidewalk and path preservation . Different treatments and standards are used to try to
preserve pavements than are used to take corrective measures .
Recommended Maintenance Repair Practices -A Model for Communities
Not every agency will need to use every repair practice identified in this chapter to be
effective. In addition to using the above repairs methods appropriately, certain activities
form the nucleus for an exemplary approach to pedestrian facility maintenance . Below are
the main features of a model maintenance program for pedestrian facilities . Communities
with outstanding maintenance programs will use most of these techniques.
Quick response. When a tripping hazard or obstacle -or any hazard impacting pedestrians
-is reported, an agency makes note of the hazard and responds quickly. Multiple falls or
complaints about the same area require a city to place a particular sidewalk or street higher
on the schedule for repair or replacement. The first step is to inspect the problem location
to determine if there is a hazard (as determined by the community's inspection criteria). A
follow-up repair is either made on the spot (if a repair crew has been sent to the location to
verify it as a hazard and a repair can be made considering the weather and season) or a
repair should be scheduled if an inspector is sent and a legitimate hazard exists . A program
associated with a quick response is a spot improvement program intended to respond to
problems such as tripping hazards. These problems will be addressed through patching,
wedging, crack filling, or even sidewalk replacement. With this program in place, tripping
hazards can be responded to in the quickest possible fashion.
Circulating sidewalk replacement program. To address sidewalk issues in a manageable
and predicable fashion, communities should sponsor sidewalk replacement programs that
rotate or cycle through a community on a zone by zone basis . By concentrating sidewalk
replacement into zones, less expensive construction bids for replacement work can typically
be negotiated. Alternatively, smaller communities may be able to manage community-wide
inspection and replacement programs on an annual basis without a need to split the
community into zones.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Funding. Communities that fully fund repairs (no special assess ing of impacted properties)
have the advantage of being able to move quickly with those repairs . This is also a more
equitable way to fund repairs that does not rely simply on the residents that live adjacent to
older sidewalks in ne~d of repair .
Coordination. All requests for sidewalk work or reported hazards should go to the same
department and preferably the same person . Every commun ity employee who observes a
potential sidewalk or path problem condition should be directed to report it.
Documentation. It is always good policy to document reported problems and how they
were resolved . If, after a complaint is received, inspection reveals that a condition does not
meet the community's criteria for repair or correction, appropriate documentation should
note that.
Inventory and Inspection. Some communities are not aware of what pedestrian facilities it
owns. Without knowing that, it is difficult to accept ownership for repairs. Every community
should have an updated inventory of pedestrian facilities noting the general condition of
each facility .
Policies and Plans. Cities should adopt and follow their own plans and policies, and
ordinances for sidewalk inspection and repair. In any form, communities should d efine what
conditions are defective (with criteria) and establish an approach for repair including how
the repairs are going to be made and on what type of schedule . There may be times and
reasons that a community cannot follow its own policy. At that point, a commun ity should
explain and support why it is not following its own established plan or policy along with how
they are going to mitigate the i mpacts .
62
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.1 I Patching
Patching is a common and often effective repair when small sidewalk corners have broken off
or minor gaps have formed between sidewalk panels. It is temporary and most often done in
asphalt . When a concrete filler is used, it is best to undercut the hole to allow the patch to bond
more permanently with the existing sidewalk. As seen below, asphalt patching (as well as
wedging) leaves a lip that is at least as significant as the size of aggregate that is used in the
material. Choosing asphalt as a patching and wedging material is seldom done in the
southwest parts of the U.S. because of the incompatiability of the material with high sustained
temperatures.
I
Figure 20: Missing areas of concrete have been marked
for repa ir.
Figure 21 : The areas have been temporarily repaired wi th
asphalt patches . Note the patching material overlaid on
the concrete extending beyond the hole.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Asphalt, but sometimes a concrete-type filler (mortar o r composite
material consistinq of vinyl or epo xy mi x)
Most suitable: Small holes of less than one foot
Least suitable: Larqe holes or larqe surface areas
Durabil ity: Varies significantly based on repair method, material, depth of hole or
crack, and underly i ng stress placed on the sidewalk . Gene r ally less th a n
several years .
Cha racteristic s: Hot mi x asphalt is easy to use as a filler, but has a very short life . Cold
asphalt mix is an even mo r e temporary repair material most often only
suitab le for a winter to spring seasonal repa i r. Mortar o r concrete -type
filler has a longer life, but is time -consum i ng to apply and is rarely used
by muncipalities.
Recommenda t ions: Suitable as a temporary repair . Highly r ecommended as a quic k -
response corrective measure when tripp i ng hazards are reported until a
more permanent repair can be made.
Technique: Clean hole extreme ly well to provide the best bond. When using asphalt
or a concrete-type filler it is best to square off the sides of the hole . For
concrete-type filler, undercutting the sides of the hole is recommended
and w i ll elongate the life of the patch . A bonding material or concrete
adhesive such as a acrylic resin -a milky fluid -can be used to help with
bonding a concrete fi l ler or a mortar mi x to the existing concrete . The
material should be leveled-off and tamped down for asphalt and
finished smooth using a trowel for concrete . If a large hole is filled for a
sidewalk connected to a driveway apron and a concrete patch is used,
the mi x should contain aggregate to give the patch m o re compact
strenqth because of vehicle loads crossinq on top of the sidewalk .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.2 I Cracking Repairs
Cracking of concrete sidewalks can take many forms. Because of the deformation forces
constantly at work below the grade of sidewalks and paths (discussed in Section 3), expansion
joints are used to control cracking. But this is only partially effective . Common types of cracks
are edge, alligator, and longitudinal cracking. Alligator cracking is characterized as typically
fine, longitudinal hairline cracks running parallel to each other with none or few
interconnecting cracks . These are very difficult to treat with a filler unless a laborious routing
procedure is used. Longitudinal cracking occurs along the length of the sidewalk, usually in the
middle third of the sidewalk, and can extend through several expansion or control joints.
Transverse cracks occur across the width of the sidewalk due to non-uniform subgrade
compaction, especially where sidewalks are subjected to high vehicle loads such as where
driveways cross sidewalks. Longitudinal and transverse cracks are wider thus somewhat easier
to rout and fill than alligator cracking .
Evaluating the type of cracking and the cause will determine the success rate for crack repairs.
If a sidewalk has alligator cracking because of poor sub-base drainage or serious structural
damage, crack sealing is not a good option . Sealants used for other forms of cracking should
be thought of as only preventive in nature. Although new sealants have tremendous bonding
power, they will not hold two sidewalk segments togetheri they are only effective in keeping
water and moisture from descending into the void. If cracks are currently creating a tripping
hazard or will very soon, sidewalk replacement is a better and necessary option. Under the best
of scenarios, sealing cracks buys you time and helps defer more costly repairs.
Sidewalk cracks are rarely filled by agencies. This is in
contrast to crack sealing being quite common place for
concrete streets. There are several reasons for this, but this
is most attributable to the time consuming nature of this
repair, especially given that the cost and time it would take
to replace sidewalk sections altogether is fairly
comparable.
65
Figure 22 : Cracking can cause trip
hazards as well as hazards for bicyclists
and wheelchair users . This crack is on a
shared use path.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Polymer-modified and asphalt rubber sealants for concrete and asphalt
sidewalks and paths. Also, mortar mi x for larger cracks in concrete
sidewalks
Most suitable: Cracks that are a quarter inch or greater but less than a half inch
Least suitable: Large cracks of more than a half inch. Cracks w ith width s greater than
this ar e not in compliance with the ADA so if the crack material settles
or pops out, an accessibility problem is created.
Durability: Varies significantly based on repair method, depth of crack, and
underly i ng stress placed on the sidewalk. Generally lasts less than
several years and will only prevent water in filtration .
Characteristics: Crack i ng sealants themselves can last years, however, their efficacy is
based not only on the material life, but how well they hold their bond to
the concrete or asphalt. Sealants that are manufactured today for
roadway applications are highly engineered products formulated to
perform i n a range of climatic conditions -they need to remain solid in
the summer and still be fle xi ble in freezing temperatures. The Strategic
Highway Research Program tests materials and application devices.
Recommendations: Crack sealing and repair is rarely used by agencies for sidewalks .
However, crack sealing is more commonly used for asphalt paths. Costs
associated with routing out cracks to prepare them for mortar or a
sealant is expensive and temporary espec ially compared to the cost of
sidewalk replacement efforts.
Technique: Cracks are commonly routed to accept a sealant or a masonary
material, but the cracks must be completly clean and dry when a sealant
or masonary material is used. Two techniques are used . For deep cracks
a backer rod may be necessary. For sealants, the mate r ial is simply
applied to the clean, dry, and routed crack . The other way, for use with
concrete only, is to undercut the crack and use a concrete or masonary
material. This will help make a structural bond that could aid in the
shifting and uplifting of the concrete p ieces. Despite t he laborous
nature of these repairs, most often these repairs are only temporary and
are recommended only as such.
66
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.3 I Wedging
Wedging entails the placement of an asphalt or concrete filler placed in advance of a heaved or
displaced section of a sidewalk or shared use path to essentially provide a ramp and remove a
tripping hazard. This is most often applied where there is a formed or saw joint in a concrete
sidewalk and the concrete has uniformly lifted at the joint. If done properly to a sidewalk that is
not severely displaced, it can be made ADA accessible. The wedge on the left in the photo
(Figure 24) is just a few days old, while the wedge on the right is likely to be several years old
with significant deterioration illustrating the short term nature of this technique . Also note the
gradual grade with the wedge on the left consistent with a grade of 5% or less and in keeping
with the ADA draft guidelines for public rights-of-way.
Figure 23 : Wedge has been placed to mitigate the hazard Figure 24 : A small wedge may still create a ha zard or be
caused by a raised sidewalk slab . Note the extensive and difficult to navigate in a wheelchair. Thi s wedge had
appropriate ramping of the wedge . deteriorated over time .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Asphalt, but sometimes a concrete-type filler (mortar or composite
material consisting of vinyl or epoxy mix). Cold mix asphalt mix is
applied as a very temporary seasonal repair because the material often
lacks adequate bondinq capabilities .
Most su itable: For temporary repairs when sidewalks lifts by more than a half inch to
less than 2 inches.
Least su itable: As a long term repair or when sidewalks displace by less t han half inch.
Or when the sidewalk displacement is more than a co u ple of inches.
This will require a very long ramp (2 feet or greater) leading to the
displacement.
D urabi lity: Varies somewhat on repair method, material, how well the asphalt
material is compressed (hot mix), any continued shifting of the sidewalk
pieces, and winte r maintenance (especially plows mount ed on pick -up
trucks runninq over the wedqe).
Charact erist ics: Asphalt is easily to use as a wedge filler, but has a very short life and it
will be noticeable in appearance because the material has a texture and
color that will not match concrete. Cold asphalt mix is an even more
temporary repair most often on ly suitable for a winter to spring repair.
Mortar or concrete-type filler has a longer life, but is time-consuming to
apply and has a comparatively long set-up time . It is rarely used by
muncipalities.
Recommendations: Suitable as a temporary repair. Highly recommend ed as a quick
corrective measure when tripping hazards are reported until a more
permanent repair can be made later in the season o r within a year
dependinq on the slope and inteqrity of the wedqe.
Technique: The sidewalk area to be filled with the wedge material needs to be
cleaned of any loose material. Often a stiff broom or blower is used to
clean debris from the sidewalk . Level off and tamp down for asphalt hot
mix. A mechanical tamper should be used, but if the wedge is very small
in length (less than a foot), a hand tamping tool can be used.
68
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.4 I Grinding and Horizontal Cutting
Another set of treatments that can be used fo r heaved concrete sidewalk and path segments is
grinding and cutt ing . Displacement of concrete sidewalk and paths will often occur at the
joints . More and more communities are using grinding and cutting methods to make more
permanent repairs to these types of displacements.
Grinding and hor izontal cutting are similar treatments . New cutting technology is allowing
tighter tolerances with horizontal cutting saws . The photo on the left is of a horizontal cut at a
sidewalk panel d isplacement at a joint. Note that the panel has uniformly lifted allowing a
straight cut across the width of the panel. The panel be ing cut has not settled from one side to
the other, just lengthwise . Therefore, there is no change in the cross slope, making cutting or
grinding an appropriate treatment for this sidewalk displacement. The panels depicted on the
right show uneven settling, so grinding or cutting will eliminate the tripping hazard, but will
likely leave a warped cond ition. ADA draft guidelines accept grinding and cutting for
displacements of between % in and 1/2 in . If over a 1/2 in, the repair has to be at the grade of a
ramp -maximum of 8.3%. For instance, if the heaved sidewalk segment leaves a displacement
of % inch at the joint, the grind or cut would have to taper back appro x imately nine inches for
the repair to be ADA compliant and considered permanent.
Grind ing is also done to asphalt . On paths and sidewalks root pop-ups and minor heaves are
often ground down .
· ..
. . . .
Figure 25: A rai sed sid ewalk block has been ground down Figure 2 6 : The diagram show s ho w an unevenly raised
to pro vide a smoothe r transition . slab can be ground to pro vide a smoother transition .
69
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Gr i nding can occur with either asphalt or concrete, b ut is much more
common with concrete. Horizontal cutting occurs almost ex clusively
with concrete
Most suitable: For permanent repairs when sidewalks displace by a quarter inch to a
half inch or for a temporary repair when sidewalks displace between a
half inch and 1 inch . Repairs of a half inch or less can be provided at a
one to one taper.
Least suita ble: As a long term repair when sidewalks displace by more than 1/2 inch.
Any displacement of more than a half i nch wi ll require a longer ramp at
8 .3% (at least 6 inches).
Durab ility: The aggregate in the sidewalk is exposed and the thickness of the slab
reduced, but the sidewalk and cut will still maintain its integrity . Repairs
done appropriately and expert ly can be considered permanent fi x es .
Characteristics: A horizontal cut will leave the appearance of a very smooth cut surface
with ex posed aggregate (the saw will cut right through the stones in
concrete). Grinding will leave a much rougher texture and will show the
grinding pattern of the apparatus used .
Re comm endat ions: Suitable as a temporary repair and even permanent repair based on the
size and angle of displacement. H ighly recommended as a permanent
corrective measure when the displacement is betwee n a quarter inch
and a half inch .• The sidewalk being ground down should be maintained
at 2% or less cross -slope . Care should also be taken not to grind
concrete slabs past minimum recommended thickness so as not to
compromise the slab's integrity.
Tec hni q ue: This is a machine based operation . There are numerous pieces of
equipment on the market that will grind and cut, but t he technique is
straightforward -grind the lip of a heaved section down or use a
specially designed concrete saw to cut horizo nt al to the grade of the
sidewalk to lop off the offending sidewalk lip .
70
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.5 I Mud-jacking, Concrete Raising or Slab-jacking
This repair method lifts concrete sidewalk slabs back to their original position by pressure
injecting cement or non -cement material under the sidewalk. Holes are drilled through the slab
and grout is injected to raise the concrete slab or to fill the voids under them. It is important to
identify the reason for the voids so that mud is not inadvertently pushed into storm sewers or
other utilities . Although it is less costly than replacement, it is only effective on sunken
sidewalks. Of the communities contacted for this report, few were using this repair method,
even though it can have long term success . The photo in Figure 27 of a mud-jacked sidewalk
segment in Madison, Wisconsin, has been in good shape and in compliance to standards for
more than 20 years .
Figure 2J: Graphic detail of how the mud-jacking process Figure 28: These panels were mud-jacked more than 20
works years ago and are still in good condition so if done
properly this can be a permanent fix.
71
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Mudjacking is done only to concrete sidewalks and paths . A concrete
type "mud" or mi xture is used as the material injected under the
concrete slabs.
Most suitable: For sunken sidewalk segments where confidence is high that the slabs
will not simply sink again .
Least suitable: Whe n the sunken sidewalk segments have a short life and will need to
be replaced soon anyway or the underlying structural problem cannot
be counter acted.
Durability: Repairs done appropriately and expertly can be considered permanent
fi x es .
Characteristics: Small holes are detectable after mudjacking, otherwise the repair leaves
the sidewalk appearing at a constant running grade and cross slope
matching adjacent and untouched sections.
Recommendations: Suitable as a long term repair, but typically mudjacking is relatively
ex pensive often approaching the cost of sidewalk replacement so older
sidewalk segments should be avoided unless communities can use this
technique at a very modest cost . Recommended as a permanent
corrective measure when the sidewalk is sunken by more than 1/2 inch
and t he panel can be lifted back into place with the correct sideslope.
Care should be taken to identify the cause of settlement and ensure that
issue has been addressed prior to mudjackinq .
Technique: The concrete sidewalk slab is lifted back to its original position by
pressure i njecting a concrete -like material under the sidewalk . Holes are
drilled through the slab and the liquid material is injected to raise the
concrete slab or to fill the voids under them. It is also possible to
hydraulically lift sidewalk segments with a series of jacks .
72
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.6 I Sidewalk and Path Replacement
Although many repairs can provide temporary solutions to sidewalk and path problems,
especially tripping hazards, at some point it becomes necessary to completely replace
sidewalks or path sections (panels). This involves the entire removal and replacement of
sidewalk sections or small path segments . When individual sidewalk sections or perhaps even a
couple panels are being replaced at a time, this activity is considered as a maintenance effort .
It is imperative that agencies understand the underlying causes of sidewalk failure. Section
3 .2 .1 of this guide identified the deformation forces at work that cause sidewalk failures. Many
of the failures for sidewalks are caused by poor subgrade or tree roots. Without addressing the
underlying problems, the sidewalk being replaced will have a shortened life.
There are two basic approaches to replacement : zone-by-zone replacement and spot
replacement . Often communities will combine both into a replacement program . Based on the
research conducted for this report, the zone-by-zone approach to sidewalk replacement is
common in Midwestern states. It is typically cost-effective for moderately sized or larger
communities to manage an annual program for the replacement of sidewalk sections in sub-
areas or zones of their community. Communities often put this in action on a four-to ten-year
cycle. It has the added benefit of not only addressing all of the defects, but most of the
accessibility issues as well.
Another common way sidewalk replacement is used is to make spot repairs when hazards are
reported. In some communities the replacement of sidewalk sections (panels) is the only repair
that is considered . Fifteen percent of the communities contacted for this Guide's research
report were using this approach . Several in this group stated that they respond only to
reported hazards on a community-wide basis and did not have a formal program in place .
However, in these cases, their own city crews were replacing the sidewalks on the spot since
these communities were funding 100% of the repairs . Not having to levy property assessments
for these repairs significantly aided their ability to respond quickly to the hazards, and in some
cases, they were replacing sidewalks in as few as three days to a week after they were
reported.
Although a significant number of communities use sidewalk replacement on a spot basis, many
communities (and a slightly higher percentage in our research) combine this with the longer-
term zone-by -zone repairs. This way, problems outside the targeted zone(s) can be addressed
more immediately while a sidewalk replacement program is cycling through the community.
Some of the smaller communities studied in the research were able to manage such a program
73
A Gu ide for Ma intaining Pedestrian Facil ities for Enhanced Safety
over the entire community on an annual basis. This model requ ires a significant commitment
to inspection (see Chapter 4 o n in spection and inventory).
Near ly a l l of the comm unities reached for this study indicated that they take full advantage of
street reconstruction projects to replace sidewalk segments . When combined with street
reconstructio n, sidewalk rep lacement can generally be completed at a lower unit cost . Because
of the nature of these repairs -often involving the replacement of v ery long segments of
sidewalk usi ng tighter inspection standards -sidewa l k replacement fa l ls into rehabi l itation or
reconstr uction definitions, the same as the street .
Mater ial : T he replacement material used wi ll a l most always match the material
used for the connecting sidewalk or path segments. Replacement
material for most sidewalks is concrete and asphalt for paths .
Most suita bl e : Replacement is the best and longest term repair solution for displaced
sidewalks and paths. Although tem porary repairs can be used to de lay
sidewalk and path repairs, only r ep lacement ens u res the best method
for addressing displaced sidewalks and more easily perm its the use of
appropriate grades for the cr oss -slope and running slope of the sidewalk
or path.
Leas t suitabl e: Wh en simple repairs, such as grinding and horizontal cutti ng, can resu lt
in significantly elongating the l ife of the sidewa l k or path and are
considered effective .
Durability: Replacement of sidewalks and paths are considered permanent fi xes.
Characteri st ics: Smal ler segments of sidewalk, path, or curb ramps removed and
replaced with new concrete or asphalt (only concrete for curb ramps).
Recommend ations : The complete replacement of material for sidewalks and paths al lows
the best possible result for meeting standards and for providing the
longest lasting repair . It is recommended where sidewalks and paths
cannot be repaired through less expensive mea ns or the displacement
of the sidewalk or path is so significant that rep lacement is the only
feasib le measure. Replacement is also recommended where smaller
defects may appear (that may not present a tr ip p i ng hazard such as
surface cracking), but a circulating sidewalk replacement program is
targeting that area of the community for that year .
Te chnique : The damaged sections are removed either by ha nd or a small skid-steer
loader after t hey are broken up by a jack hammer. For projects w here
many concrete sidewalk pieces are being removed, a heavy piece of
equipment is used which makes use of a strong, te lescoping boom with
an attached digging bucket that can lift ind ivi dua l sidewalk panels from
t he sidewa l k grade. After remo val , steel or wood en forms are pinned in
p lace . The ex isting grade is adjusted and in some cases ad ditional fill is
used to level off the grade . Tree roots are very carefully cut if at all
74
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
necessary. The base surface is mechanically tamped if fill is added (with
sidewalk replacement programs, the sections of sidewalk removed are
too small to make use of a roller). Concrete is then poured into the
grade between the two forms and the existing functional sidewalks. A
strike-off board is used to level off the concrete from one existing
sidewalk to the other where the old sidewalk ex ists. Finishers will trowel
the surface of the concrete to push the aggregate from the surface and
to move more of the mortar or "slurry" to the top . This provides for a
smooth finish and aids in the final step of finishing which entails the use
of a broom to finish the concrete with light brush marks made
perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel.
When asphalt is used, the removal is similar, but if the size of the
removed section is limited, the replaced pavement can be completed by
hand using shovels and an asphalt lute to level the asphalt. A hand
tamping machine or roller is used to compact the asphalt. If the
segments are longer, as is often the case with paths, paving equipment
is used . This provides a far superior surface. Dump trucks are backed to
the paving equipment which has a hopper for the asphalt. When paving
equipment is being used, rollers will be used to compact the material.
75
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Sa f ety
5.2. 7 I Bricks and Pavers
Bricks and pavers are materials which are
considered a "segmental material" because each
paver is separate and is often not tied or bonded
together t he way a concrete slab is formed and
functions. When there is an underlying problem
in the sub g rade, it is not unusual to have just
one or two bricks become displaced creating a
localized tri pping hazard . In contrast, concrete
sidewalks might be able to withstand smaller
more locali zed pressures until a time the entire
slab faults or cracks. Gaps between bricks and
Figure 29 : Damaged pavers have been repaired with
asphalt to alleviate a hazard .
pavers might also cause problems in greater frequency than with concrete and asphalt
sidewalks simply because of the greater number of potential gaps that exist.
Bricks and pavers should be initially installed so they are easy to reset or replace . Of
importance from an accessibility standpoint, bricks and/or pavers can cause vib r ations that are
painful for pedestrians who use mobility aids such as wheelchairs. Again, the design of the
sidewalk can reduce this problem based on the pattern of the bricks/pave rs, the edges used for
the bricks/pavers, and the joint width that is used. Because of these issues, when the time has
come for sidewalk replacement many communities are replacing bricks and pavers with
concrete and then using bricks for sidewalk borders.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material: Bricks are made from fired clay and most pavers are made from a
concrete mix, but can also be made from clay. Bricks are commonly
used as a replacement material for ex isting sidewalks initially
constructed of bricks or pavers. Conversely, bricks or pavers are not
used even as a temporary replacement material when concrete or
asphalt sidewalks are being repaired. Often bricks and pavers can be
salvaged and replaced and this is a common spot maintenance practice
for brick and paver sidewalks . Occasionally asphalt is used to
temporarily fill a gap, but this is not considered a permanent solution.
Most suitable: Bricks and pavers are used in certain environments for their aesthetic
appeal. The best repair for minor displacement of one to a few bricks or
pave rs is to replace or reset them . This is one of the major benefits cited
for brick and paver maintenance . The grade will have to be adjusted
before the material is replaced. This is often more challenging than it
sounds for tightly placed bricks and pavers since they are difficult to
completely extract and even more difficult to replace.
Least suitable: Spot replacement and adjustment of bricks and pavers is not feasible
when the underlying grade is impacted by tree roots. Deformation
forces can also impact large segments of brick or paver sidewalks
necessitating a larger scale repair .
Durability: Repairs done appropriately and expertly can be considered permanent
fixes, but are very dependent on the stability of the subgrade and
avoidance of tree roots .
Characteristics: Bricks and pavers are replaced or reset. Temporary measures can
include asphalt ramps and wedges .
Recommendations: The replacement of bricks and pavers is strongly recommended when
they become a tripping hazard. When tripping hazards are reported, the
community may respond with a temporary fi x such as an asphalt wedge
or a patch if the brick or paver is extracted or missing . When bricks and
pavers have to be replaced, the subsurface should be regraded. In other
situations, vegetation may need to be properly controlled . Tree roots
will often lift bricks and pavers. The preparation of an adequate base
course is one of the most important aspects of installing and replacing
bricks and pavers and future maintenance needs can be reduced with
keen attention to this construction detail. Repair of bricks and pavers -
even the small maintenance tasks -require experienced workers. It is
not recommended that untrained laborers begin making these types of
repairs without proper training.
Technique: Small spot repairs can be made by resetting the material in place. This is
advantageous for repairing tripping hazards . Larger areas can also be
replaced, but the effort becomes much more involved. However, the
larger the effort becomes, the easier it is to address sub-base issues.
Another temporary measure is the use of asphalt as a patch or wedge.
77
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.8 I Repairs to Curb Ramps
Curb ramps are required to be i n place at every intersection whe r e an accessible route crosses a
curb to allow access to cross w alks for people with ambulatory d isabilities. On ce ramps are in
place, their maintenance is cr itical to enabling accessibility. Th is section discusses ramp repairs
while Section 5.3 provides gu idance on seasonal maintenance of ramps.
Curb ramps should meet the same general thresholds for repa ir as sidewalks. Complicating the
need for repa i rs for ramps ar e t ight tolerances for running g r ade and cross-slo pe (see Section
4). Curb ramps built to the m axi mum slopes can easily fall ou t of compliance wi th just a sl i ght
displacement . The repair methods for sidewalks are all appl icable to curb ramps -patching,
crack-filling, wedging, mud-jacking, grind i ng/cutting, and replacement.
The other un ique feature of curb ramps that separate them from sidewalks is the detectable
warning surface, which is used to alert people w ith visual d isab i lities that th ey are about to
enter a vehicular way as they descend into an intersection. Truncated domes are currently the
only acceptable form of detectable warning that should be used for curb ramps. Detectable
warning devices of the past and present often entail special repa ir solutions . De pending on the
initial type of detectable warning device put in place, further annual ma in t e nance may be
necessary. In many parts of the U.S. where the truncated dome panel will not be subjected to
plow blades or inclement winte r weather, a viable short term repair for the pan e l is to fasten or
re-fasten them with glue or sc r ews . This can be done with little effort and may hold up unti l the
ramp is reconstructed.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Material:
Most suitable:
Least suitable:
Durability:
Characteristics:
Recommendations:
Technique:
Replacement material for ramps is concrete with truncated domes as
the detectable warning field. Occasionally the ramp may have a brick or
paver border
Ramp replacement is the best and longest term repair solution for curb
ramps. Although temporary repairs are often necessary, only ramp
replacement ensures the best method of installing appropriate grades
for the ramp. It also allows for the inclusion of the latest forms of
detectable warning fields.
When simple repairs, such as grinding and horizontal cutting, can result
in significantly elongating the life of the ramp and the current
detectable warning is in place and considered effective.
Replacement of curb ramps can be considered permanent fixes .
Ramp is removed and replaced with a new concrete ramp .
Given the need to create a very predictable and workable transition
between a sidewalk and a street crossing, replacing problem curb ramps
with new replacement ramps is often the best long-term solution. This
may involve replacing the level landing and a few adjacent sidewalk
panels to bring the ramp into ADA compliance.
The damaged ramps are removed either by hand or a skid -steer loader
after they are broken up. A heavy piece of equipment that makes use of
a strong, telescoping boom attached to a digging bucket can also lift
individual ramps from the grade. Steel or wooden forms are pinned in
place. The existing grade is adjusted and in some cases additional fill is
used to level the grade . The base surface is mechanically tamped if fill is
added . Concrete is poured into the grade between the two forms and
the remaining pieces of concrete (back of gutter and the level landing).
A strike-off board is used to level the concrete as the void is filled where
the old ramp ex isted. Finishers often insert pre-manufactured truncated
domes into the fresh concrete and finish it in place or use specially made
forms to press in the domes (this method has created widely
questionable results). Finishers will trowel the surface of the concrete to
push the aggregate from the surface and to move more of the mortar or
"slurry" to the top. This provides for a smooth finish and aids in the final
step of finishing which entails the use of a broom to finish the concrete
with light brush marks made perpendicular to the direction of
pedestrian travel down and up the ramp.
79
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.2.9 I New Materials
Pavers made from recycled rubber and plastic
have been in use in the pub l ic right-of-way since
the year 2000 . They can be used as a substitute
for traditional sidewalk pavements. These
pavers are modular systems similar to large
concrete pavers and have uniform and tight
fitting joints which are more comfortable for
pedestrians. Some are linked together with tabs
and are pinned in place. They have no known
unique maintenance requirements. They are
swept and cleaned like conventional concrete
sidewalks.
Figure 30: Porous pavement in Washington D. C.
Photo by Meliss a Anderson
As a maintenance measure, some communities have been attracted to these pavers for
applications around trees where tree roots have caused concrete sidewalks to heave. They are
half the depth of concrete sidewalks and can be cut to fit around trees. They are typically more
expensive than concrete in most applications . One of the additional maintenance benefits is
that they can be reset just like other pave rs. If they begin to pitch because of tree roots or sub -
base problems, the base can re-graded or the tree roots trimmed and the pavers reset .
Additionally, if a panel needs to be replaced a new one can be clipped and pinned into place .
Manufacturers of these products have detailed specifications and directions on how the base
course should be prepared for the pavers and how the pavers should be installed . Since these
are relatively new, it is not known what their true life is, but the main manufacture r is providing
a range of limited warranties from s to 25 years on these products .
Other recently i ntroduced products include those that increase permeability of walkways. This
includes both porous concrete and asphalt and assorted pavers products that are either porous
themselves or divert water to gaps in the pave rs. They have un ique maintenance requirements
such as annual vacuuming to clean out the voids in the material that can be filled with fine
material such as silt or sand. Some these new surfacing types have special significance for
sidewalks especially around trees because they will often maintain their flexibility around roots
and allow excel lent water infi ltration to feed roots. These pavement types will be covered in
more detail in Chapter 6 on new construction practices to reduce maintenance.
80
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.3 I MAINTENANCE OF CROSSWALKS
Marked crosswalks indicate locations for pedestrians to cross and signify to motorists where
they need to yield to them . Crosswalk markings are often installed at signalized intersections
and other selected locations. It is critical that crosswalks be visible to motorists, particularly at
night. Ladder or continental crossings using wide strips of retro-reflective material are the
most visible. This also places a greater maintenance responsibility on agencies in charge of
maintaining crosswalks.
The focus of this section is on the maintenance of crosswalk markingsi however, it is important
to note that maintenance should include the actual street surface where crosswalks are
located, and not just the pavement markings. Crosswalks represent the accessible path within
the street and require a higher level of maintenance than the surrounding roadway because
pedestrians are less tolerant of defects than motorists . A minor pothole may not present an
issue for most motorists, but can present a significant issue for pedestrians. Surface defects in
crosswalks should be noted when crosswalks are inspected or re-marked, and repairs should be
completed quickly.
5.3.1 I Crosswalk Marking Material
Agencies use a number of different materials for marking crosswalks, including paint (water-or
oil-based), epoxy, polyurea, thermoplastic and pre-formed marking tape . Often these marking
materials are divided into two categories with paint being considered non-durable and all other
markings considered durable. Transportation agencies weigh several factors when
determining which marking material is most appropriate including costs, durability,
retroreflectivity, friction coefficient (avoiding slip hazards) and whether or not the material can
be applied using existing agency labor and equipment. Most communities contacted for this
guide use thermoplastic, which is recommended for its longevity. Many also frequently use
paint, particularly on existing roads or when there is an immediate need. Epoxy was also
mentioned by a number of communities . Thermoplastic and epoxy markings are used most
often on repaving projects. Those communities that use paint markings typically use city crews
and equipment to do the work while they commonly use contractors to install thermoplastic
markings.
The primary maintenance problem with crosswalk markings is durability. Often painted
crosswalks have to be re-striped several times a year based on the volume of traffic and the
severity of the weather. The other marking materials are far more durable, but are much more
expensive. In cold weather climates where the roads are salted and sanded, the abrasiveness of
these materials will cause more rapid deterioration of the markings. Agencies researched for
this guide also said snowplows often damage thermoplastic markings. Several agencies have
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
recessed thermoplastic mark i ngs to decrease the likelihood of snowplow damag e, but this is
very ex pensive .
Another durab il ity-related maintenance problem is the conspicu ity o r retrorefle ct ivity of the
markings. A large percentage of pedestr ian fatal ities occur in the ev ening when conspicu ity is
reduced . Crosswalk markings must retain their retroreflectiv ity, usually accomplished by
adding beads o r other retroreflective material to marking mate ri al. But when t he markings
wear, the retroreflective qual ity of the material is often lost first. Th is guide reco m mends that
agencies use the methods as es t ablished in the MUTCD and described on this web si te to chec k
for the proper retroreflectivity of crosswalks :
http ://safety .fhwa .dot.gov/roadway dept/night visib/pavementreg .cfm .
A problem w it h thermoplastic markings and some pre-formed marking tapes is that they
sometimes become more slippe ry with wear . Manufacturers of these materials have taken
steps to significantly improve t he friction factor of their materials , but slippery m a rkings make
it necessary to replace the markings sooner . Successful use of p r e-formed thermoplastic also
relies on apply i ng the materia l to a dry, clean surface nearly completely devoid of ex isting
crosswalk material . This can complicate applications on ex isting pavement.
Epo xy markings i nvolve a two-part system using a simple mi xture of two bond i ng components.
The most sign ificant downside is that its application requires specialized equipment with a
comple x process control system which is r equired to assure proper blend i ng of the two
components. In some states, only a handful of private vendors have the equipment necessary
for this appl icat i on. Sandblasting of the pavement is normally r equired to re m ove ex isting
materials and some epo x ies ha v e a relatively long cure time (up to 45 minutes depending on
ambient condit ions).
Figure 3 1: Relati ve co mparison of crosswal k marking materials
Material
Paint
Relative Cost
$=Low $$$S=High
$
Lifespan (months)
Retroreflectivity
*=Low ***=High
*
Epo xy Paint $$ 24-48 **
Thermoplastic (sprayed) $$$ 48 -72* **
Pre -formed Tape $$$$ 36 -96* ***
Note: Esti ma tes based on minimum standard crosswalk treatment and upd ated to reflect 2013 compara t ive costs.16
'
17
Ther mop lastic and tape have shortened life sp a ns in sno wy are as whe re th ey are often damag ed by snowplo ws. Inl ai d
thermoplastic or pre-formed tape may last significantly longer than standard surface appl ications.
16 Cuel ho, Eli, Jerry Stephens a nd Cha rles Mc Donald . "A Rev iew of th e Perfo rm a nce and Costs of Contemporary Pavement
Marking Systems ." We stern Transp o rtation In stitute . Boseman , MT. 2003.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Figure 31 displays characte ris t ics of four common
cross w alk mark i ng materia ls. It should be noted
that cos t s vary wi de ly across the country and the
ranges provided are approx imate. Simila r ly,
material lifespans are strongly impacted by the
volume of traffic pass i ng over the marking, and
the use of snowplows on streets . Depending on
the crosswalk ma r king material used, snowplows
can snag or cut i nto markings .
This gu ide includes a number of broad
recommendat ions fo r ma r k i ng crosswalks,
howeve r, there a re considerat ions that will affect
those recommendations wh ich are summarized
in the ne xt sectio n .
• To promote a longer lifespan when
High Visibility Crosswalk Markings
Brookline, Massachusetts
Many communit ies have general policies
that support highly visible and durable
markings . The Town of Brookline,
Massachusetts has a policy which states
"because it is h ighly reflective, durable,
slip -resistant, and does not require a
high level of maintenance, it shall be the
policy of the Town to install marked
crosswalks using inlay tape whenever
possible. To the maximum extent
practicable, inlay tape shall be used as
the preferred marking material
whenever crosswalks are installed on
new or resurfaced pavements."
using paint, a "h igh build grade " is recommended with glass beads for
retro r efl ectivity. H igh build uses an acrylic cr oss-link i ng emulsion that allows fo r
applicat ions of up to 20 mils.
• Accord i ng to the national Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center, t he most
durab le, and recommended, crosswalk mar ki ng material for new pavements is inlay
tape . It is highly retroreflective, long -lasting, slip-resistant and requ i res l ittle to no
maintenance . Although initially more costly than paint, both inlay tape (preformed
tape) and thermoplastic are more cost-effective in the long run . In lay tape is
recommended for new and resurfaced pavement wh il e thermoplast ic m ay be a
better option on rougher pavement surfaces. Both inlay tape and thermoplastic are
more vi si b le and less sl ippery than pa i nt when w et .
• Use a long -lasting marking fo r crosswalks at the t i me of new construct io n,
reconstruction , o r repaving using funding from the construction budget for the
project .
17 Montebello, David and Jacqueline Schroeder. "Cost of Pavement Marking Materials ." Minnesota Department of
Transportation . 2000 .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
5.3.2 I Crosswalk Marking Considerations
Life-Cycle Costs
Unit costs for crosswalk marking materials vary
considerably across the country. But g iven the
durability issues discussed above, life-cycle costs
are an essential consideration. A National
Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Synthesis 306: Long-Term Pavement
Marking Practices provides cost comparisons and
a life-cycle cost table . In general, thermoplastics
provide a life of two to three times that of paint
for long lines, however, costs averaged almost
five times that of paint (epoxy markings had a
Figure 32 : Old crosswalk marking s removed for new
crosswalk marking tape .
life of two to three times that of paint, but had a cost of four times that of paint). Thus, when
life-cycle cost was calculated, paint was half the cost of thermoplastic. It is im portant to note
that costs and durability ranged significantly in this study . There is a clear tra d e-off between
the durability of thermoplastic and the lower cost of paint. Communities that use paint to mark
crosswalks indicated that they must repaint crosswalks two to three times pe r year, whereas
thermoplast ic markings typically last 2 to 3 years .
Agencies should perform life-cycle cost analysis for different materials based on their local
product costs, labor costs, the cost of diverting traffic, and real-world observations of product
lifespans, given local maintenance conditions . The following factors will also affect such a local
analysis.
Traffic
Traffic has a significant i mpact on the longevity of crosswalk markings. Also, frequently
repainting cr osswalks in high-t raffic areas incurs traffic control costs that agen ci es should take
into accoun t as an important cost factor . Products that may be more expensi v e up front may
be less expensive over time if they need to be replaced less frequently.
Communities can minimize the impact of traffic by spacing the bars of a crosswalk ladder
design or a continental design so that the wheel wear occurs between the ba rs . Since turning
vehicles can significantly increase degradation of pavement markings, locating markings out of
turning areas, when possible, can reduce maintenance. However, this shoul d never be done
when it will compromise the appropriate placement of a crosswalk, thus this recommendation
may have limited applicability at most intersections .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Equipment and Labor
Costs will be dramatically affected by the
availability of equipment and labor . For instance,
if thermoplastic equipment has already been
purchased by an agency and in-house labor is
trained and available for crosswalk marking,
costs will be minimized. For communities that
want to avoid investment in such equipment,
some applications of markings are relatively
inexpensive, such as applying tapes (cold or
heated). Another equipment issue is whether a
community commonly uses snowplows.
Thermoplastic and pre-formed tape may not be
appropriate in areas using snowplows unless the
markings are inlaid in the pavement, which
makes it less likely that a plow blade will pull the
material off the street.
Pavement Type and Previous Markings
When considering the type of crosswalk marking
material, pavement type -asphalt or concrete -
is a consideration along with the type of material
that was previously used as the marking material
if an agency is simply remarking the crosswalk .
One of the benefits of restriping with paint is
that the new paint can sprayed on top of the old
paint after the surface is cleaned and any paint
Crosswalk Marking Material
Selection
Santa Monica, California
In early 2012, the City of Santa Monica
staff conducted an inspection of
crosswalk materials along the major
streets in the city. Conventional
thermoplastic striping appeared to
deteriorate much faster when applied on
concrete streets compared to asphalt
applications. Although pre-formed
thermoplastic tape cost on average 30%
more for the city than the conventional
thermoplastics, the city decided to use
the newer materials for concrete
intersections. City staff developed a plan
to restripe crosswalks on concrete using
pre-formed thermoplastic while
restriping asphalt crosswalks with the
conventional thermoplastic. By using
this approach, the less expensive
thermoplastics can be used on asphalt
while the more expensive pre-formed
thermoplastic tapes will be used on
concrete where increased longevity is
expected to outweigh the additional
costs.
flaking is removed . Liquid thermoplastics can generally be placed over worn paint or liquid-
applied thermoplastic markings. However, liquid thermoplastics cannot be easily applied over
tapes unless at least 70 to 90% of the former marking material has removed through grinding
or sand blasting. Similarly, tapes cannot be reapplied over existing tapes unless a minimum of
80 to 95% of the former tape has been removed through grinding or sand blasting. The
performance of marking material is significantly affected by application over existing
materials; it is important that agencies talk to vendors about this issue.
In new applications on asphalt surfaces, agencies typically use inlay tapes, hot-applied
thermoplastics or high build grade applications of paint-based markings in order for the
85
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
markings to be visible. Markings generally last longer on asphalt than concrete, especially for a
relatively new surface. Tapes can also be rolled in when new asphalt is being rolled; this is
generally a very good way of improving the durability of the tapes during the winter and
plowing applications. For new concrete surfaces marking applications are so mewhat more
limited and preparation of the surface is even more important than asphalt. Grooving concrete
for inlay tapes is very expensive, but provides superior durability during the wi nter months
where snowplows are in use.
Many agencies use more ex pensive inlay markings on new street, reconstruction, and repaving
projects whe n these materials are covered by construction budgets. But the co st of remarking
crosswalks usually comes out of the maintenance budget, which may not allow for easy
reapplication using the same materials.
Maintenance budgets tend to be tight, whereas including more ex pensive marking materials in
a construction project, represents just a small part of a larger project budget. Importantly,
some applications of more expensive tapes can only be applied initially at the time of
resurfacing o r reconstruction.
Although there is a certain economy of scale and simplicity for agencies to use one marking
type for initial marking and another for remarking, it is more important to m ake decisions
about remarking independently of the original application . Traffic volumes, pavement
surfacing type, init ial marking material that will be marked over, cost, and availability of
application equipment will be factors in the how agencies will need to con si der a mi x of
treatments for remarking crosswalks. Agencies will need to be flexible in their approaches to
remarking crosswalks . For example, it may be cost effective to use paint for r emarking of a
crosswalk on a lower volume street, while expensive pre-formed thermoplastic material will be
used for other crosswalks in a higher volume downtown location even when the old material
has to be ground off for re-appl ication .
5.4 I MAINTENANCE OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
5.4.1 I Background
Based on the research conducted for this guide, agencies considered their pedestrian signals to
be durable with the most serious maintenance problems related to signal "take-downs" due to
vehicle crashes . This is in contrast to the perception of many pedestrians who often say they
find pedestrian signals more temperamental. Other significant problems reported by
communities requiring maintenance include malfunctioning push buttons and signal heads.
86
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Another set of hardware problems relates to the controller for the signal system. The
controller itself is the device that manages the entire signal system for the intersection, but
occasionally problems with the controller will cause pedestrian signal malfunctioning requiring
a maintenance call .
5.4.2 I Maintenance Recommendations for Pedestrian Signals
Timely Response
Agencies should have multiple means for members of the public to report malfunctioning
signals and have a system in place for a quick response . A malfunctioning signal can be a
serious hazard for pedestrians, and people should be strongly encouraged to report
malfunctions. In the research conducted for this guide, response times for agencies for repairs
ranged from several hours to two weeks with the majority of communities reporting that they
have signals fi x ed within one to two days. Agencies should establish a protocol that results in a
response between 24 to 48 hours after the report is received (in high pedestrian and traffic
volume areas perhaps even sooner). This will result in the reduction of hazards and an
improvement in signal maintenance .
Inspection
If a community has a sidewalk inspection program, push button signal actuators should be
inspected for functionality at the same time that adjacent sidewalks are inspected. Pedestrian
signals should also be inspected at the same time as vehicular signal heads at the same
intersection. Almost all communities that were contacted for this guide indicated that they
have had few issues with their pedestrian signals, although some indicated they have some
issues with pushbuttons for the signals. In discussions with pedestrians and pedestrian groups,
their perspective was different as they often reported pushbuttons that seem to be
malfunctioning. In some cases, pushbuttons have a propensity to stick as they wear. For
inspection, these are conditions that should be monitored:
• Cracked or broken pushbutton hardware
• Pedestrian signal heads or push buttons that are turned askew
• LEDs in pedestrian signal heads that are fading in conspicuity
• Vegetation obscuring pushbuttons or pedestrian signal heads
Inspection processes provide a perfect opportunity to check button mounting locations and
how current accessibility standards are being maintained. Although more of an operations
issue, agencies should remember to change signal timings for pedestrian signals when they
change cycle length timings as part of intersection signalizat ion updates and upgrades.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Inspection regimes may need to be changed with the installat i on of Accessibl e Pedestrian
Signals (see below).
Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Accessible Pedestrian Signals may be required for all pedestr ian signal sys t ems as the
PROWAG become finalized into law . Agencies will need to take seriously their responsibilities
for these new signal adaptations and take steps to ensure proper operation and maintenance .
Fortunately, APS devices work with ex isting traffic signal controllers and usually r equire no
additions to equipment in the signal controller cabinet for installation and operation . The
NCHRP report Accessible Pedestrian Signals : A Guide to Best Pract ices i ndicates t hat agencies
will have to m o nitor these new devices for malfunctions relating to WALK indic ation, locator
tone, and sign al interaction which may fail to work correctly, to av oid dangerous crossings for
pedestrians w ith vision impairments. The overseeing agency should conduct an audit or
checkup of APS installations on a regular basis, and more frequently if the weath e r is harsh . At
a minimum, APS should be inspected every 6 months, after repairs to the inters ection signals,
poles or controller, and after changes to signal timing.
Occasionally a n agency may receive a complaint that a locator tone on an APS is too loud or
needs mainte nance . The vo lume of the tones and messages can be adjusted and should only
be audible 6-10 feet from the signal pole. The volume adjusts acco r ding to ambi ent noises, but
if the environment around the pole changes significantly, the volume settings may need
adjusting . Pushbutton manufacturers should be contacted with question s or ongoing
problems.
Newer technologies -most associated with APS -will improve the day -to-day performance of
pedestrian signals. It is recommended that agencies become acquainte d with these
technologies by surveying new devices offered by many vendors.
LED Technology
The replacement of signal heads with LEDs has significantly reduced the need for replacement
of light fixt u res in signal heads and has been the single most maintenance -reducing
improvement related to pedestrian signals in the past 10 years . LED lights last for
approximately 100,000 hours, many times the life of incandescent bulbs.
However, th e re are new maintenance considerations with LED lights. First, LEDs generate so
little heat t hat they do not melt off accumulated snow and/or ice as readily as incandescent
systems . Second, because LEDs last much longer than i ncandescent bul bs, regular lens
88
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
cleaning and LED fading may become an issue. The frequently asked questions on the MUTCD
website address this issue :
"Agencies using LED-based signals should be aware that these signals need to be
monitored for adequate brightness of the signals and for needed replacement, typically
well before the signals fail totally. LEDs have a long life before total failure, but the
LEDs gradually become dimmer over time and may become so dim that they cannot be
adequately seen under all lighting conditions . This is in contrast to signals using
incandescent bulbs, which usually remain sufficiently bright over their full lifetime and
then fail completely by "burning out". Agencies thus quickly become aware of and
replace failed incandescent signals. Agencies need a different strategy for monitoring
and replacing LED signals."18
There are reasons from a maintenance perspective that agencies would want to consider the
use of LED technology in traffic signals.
5.5 I MAINTENANCE OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNAGE
Wear and tear on signs results in discoloration and loss of retroreflectivity. Signs that act as
wayfinding devices for pedestrians are no exception to this on-going maintenance problem .
Unlike markings, signs have a much longer life -quite often more than 10 years . Several
factors tend to lessen the life of signs -ultraviolet radiation and airborne pollutants can
dramatically degrade a sign's useful life. Vandalism is also a significant maintenance problem
for signs in general. Sign replacement for pedestrian-related signs (wayfinding, street signs,
etc.) tends to take a lower priority to the maintenance of signs for regulatory and warning
purposes, such as stop and yield signs. Regulatory and warning signs also communicate
messages to non-vehicular users and regulate movements at intersections of paths and
sidewalks with streets .
According to the MUTCD, maintenance activities should consider proper position, cleanliness,
legibility, and daytime and nighttime visibility . The MUTCD requires signs to be conspicuous
and legible . Agencies should anticipate costs associated with keeping signs well maintained. At
the same time, any changes required by the MUTCD can be incorporated . To assure adequate
maintenance of pedestrian signs the following actions should be taken:
• Scheduled inspections. These should occur during daylight hours, but also during
nighttime hours to check retroreflectivity.
18 http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/fag part4.htm#q22
89
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Clean signs. This includes power washing signs to maintain their visibility.
• En l ist help from other public employees. Employees of the agency including law
enforcement, public works, highway department, etc. who are traveling the
roadways should be encouraged to report any damaged, deteriorated, or obscured
signs at the first opportunity.
• Replace signs. Signs have a life of about 10 years and need to be replaced on that
cycle or close to that cycle . Damaged or vandalized signs also need to be replaced.
• Vegetation removal. Trees, bushes, and weeds need to be removed or trimmed so
they do not block the visibility of signs .
Retroreflectivity is one of the most important aspects for sign maintenance and is covered in
depth in the MUTCD. It requires agencies to use an assessment or management method that is
designed to maintain sign retroreflectivity at or above minimum levels cited i n the MUTCD
(Section 2A.08 Maintaining Minimum Retroreflectivity). Five assessment or management
methods are recommended in Paragraph 4 of Section 2A.08 in the MUTCD for possible use .
The MUTCD minimum retroreflectivity standards cover many pedestrian signs, but some sign
types can be ex cluded from this requirement including path signs that are intended for
exclusive use by bicyclists or pedestrians. Another good resource for information on
retroreflectivity can be found at the FHWA Sign Retroreflectivity Toolkit at:
http://safety.fhwa .dot.gov/roadway dept/night visib/retrotoolkit/requirements/index.htm .
5.6 I SEASONAL MAINTENANCE
Section 5.2 through 5.5 covered the maintenance techniques and approaches necessary to
tend to the wear and tear on sidewalks, crosswalks, signals and signs. However, most people
associate maintenance of pedestrian facilities with clearing snow and debris that blocks such
facilities. This means sweeping, vegetation removal and control, and snow and ice removal.
This connection to maintenance is ever apparent to property owners living adjacent to
sidewalks because most state laws and/or municipal ordinances make this day-to-day
maintenance their responsibi l ity. This section will discuss the most common types of everyday
maintenance and the techniques that are used.
5.6.1 I Vegetation Removal and Control
Street trees and other plants adjacent to the sidewalk are a beneficial street amenity for a
variety of reasons, including provision of shade, carbon dioxide reduction, increased property
value, stormwater control and visual interest. Trees are considered by communit ies as one of
their most important assets in the street right-of-way. However, vegetat ive growth
encroaching upon sidewalks or paths is a serious condition that requires maintenance .
Sightlines to driveways and inte r sections must also be maintained for pedestrian safety. In
90
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
addition, the surface of the sidewalk must be kept free of vegetative debris. Many
communities require adjacent property owners to keep a sidewalk free of vegetation or
property owners are doing so on their own without any prodding. The main problems
associated with vegetation are identified in Section 3.2.2 .
Recommended Practices
Vegetation within the public right-of-way is managed in a variety of ways. Some communities
require adjacent property owners to maintain vegetation planted between the sidewalk and
the curb. Other jurisdictions require property owners to obtain a permit in order to plant
anything other than grass between the sidewalk and the curb so that proper sightlines and the
pedestrian clear zone are maintained. Many communities employ arborists who provide expert
assistance on inspection and trimming of trees which will help in the maintenance of this
planting strip.
While many communities, especially moderate to large sized cities, have ordinances regarding
the maintenance of vegetation, they are often not very well enforced or there is poor reporting
of problems. It is strongly recommended that municipalities enforce those ordinances to
maintain vegetation along the sidewalk on private property and in the public right-of-way. For
those communities lacking an ordinance, it may be difficult to find support for efforts to
manage vegetation near sidewalks and pathsi
thus, the passage of an ordinance is a
recommended first step. There are several
demonstrated techniques to control vegetation:
edging, limb trimming, vegetation debris
management, and vegetative planting.
Edging
Certain types of grasses or a combination of
grass and soil will build up on the outer edges of
the sidewalk . Edging is a technique that cuts
back the vegetation to the outside limits of the
sidewalk. Edgers are both motor powered and
hand powered. A wheel rests on the sidewalk as
the devices are used on the edges of the
pavement. These machines are capable of
trimming the vegetation all the way back to the
edge of the sidewalk and are especially effective
if this task is done routinely. Vegetative build-up
91
Vegetation Maintenance
Wilsonville, Oregon
Wilsonville, Oregon, exemplifies the
typical approach that small jurisdictions
take toward vegetation maintenance.
The city has one full-time arborist on
staff in the public works department
who is responsible for inspecting
sidewalk vegetation overgrowth that
impedes sightlines or sidewalk passage.
If vegetation on private property has
overgrown the sidewalk, the arborist will
give the property owner notice to
remove the vegetation . The city has the
authority to remove the overgrowth and
bill the property owner, but that rarely
occurs. Generally communities are less
likely to enforce through fines than they
are through the issuance of a warning.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
on sidewalk edges is often an under-identified problem, but can result in serious issues on
narrow sidewalks or where drainage is affected.
Limb Trimming
Branches can quickly grow into the pedestrian accessible route of a sidewalk or path.
According to accessibility guidelines, objects protruding more than four inches into the
pedestrian circulation path must be at least 80 inches above the surface of the walkway.
Objects close r than that must be trimmed back. A variety of tools can be used to trim branches
such as long handled pruners, pruning shears and saws. The AASHTO guide for bicycle
facilities should also be consulted for shared-use paths. The minimum vertical clearance for
paths is 92 inches.
Vegetation Material Management
The most important task related to cleaning up vegetation is the removal and collection of
leaves in the fall. Leaves can lead to very slippery conditions when wet and they can easily
cover up tripping hazards. Communities and property owners rely on the ob v ious tools to
maintain sidewalks including rakes and leaf blowers. Agencies often have spec ially equipped
trucks with baskets to collect piled leaves.
5.6.2 I Sweeping
While most communities sweep streets free of debris, very few have an active citywide,
sidewalk-sweeping program. It is much more common to have communities su p port sidewalk
sweeping through business improvement districts aimed at downtowns and commercial
business districts . For example, the City of Perry, GA, sweeps sidewalks in the core business
district three times per year. On State Street in Madison, WI, it is done weekl y. The City of
Concord, NH, sweeps sidewalks citywide every spring. In the absence of a coordi nated citywide
or Business Improvement Dist ri ct approach to sweeping, adjacent property owners more
commonly perform this work and are often required to by a community ordinanc e.
The typical tools for sweeping sidewalks depend on the scale of the effort. Communities will
often use a power driven rotating broom mounted on a tractor or skid-steer load er if sidewalks
are swept clean on an area or community-wide basis. Although this tends to be a fast way to
clear the sidewalk, the swept material is very difficult to control and is usual ly just simply
pushed to another location . This option may be preferred if the material, such as soil or sand, is
simply being returned to a tree buffer where it was initially situated .
92
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Small scale efforts include using leaf blowers to corral dirt and refuse into a pile or windrow to
be swept up later. A simple broom is the tool of choice for adjacent property owners who
occasionally need to sweep a messy sidewalk.
There are several conditions that communities must pay special attention to when considering
sweeping needs. Curb ramps and low sect i ons of sidewalks or multi-use ~aths where ~at~r
settles provide conditions for dirt to settle as well. When still wet, the silt that remains is
extremely slippery. Secondly, paths must be Community-wide Snow Removal
closely observed for sweeping needs or swept on Halifax, Nova Scotia
a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Paths are The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM)
sometimes plagued with broken glass which is in Nova Scotia, Canada, maintains 400
especially troublesome for bicyclists' tires . Given miles of sidewalk w ith an operating
the unpredictable nature of debris or refuse left budget for sidewalk snow removal of
on paths, relying on reports from users is often a $4 .2 million dollars and average snowfall
viable maintenance approach, assuming of 8i inches per year. In an effort to
communities respond quickly to reports . make the cost of snow removal more
5.6.3 I Snow and Ice Removal
Following a snowfall, snow and ice must be
cleared from sidewalks, curb ramps and
crosswalks promptly to provide safe and
accessible passage for pedestrians. Common
challenges to pedestrian travel after snowfall
include street plowing that pushes snow onto
sidewalks or blocks crosswalks, clogged or
obstructed drains that create puddles at curb
ramps, patches of ice that create slip hazards,
and stretches of snow and ice covering
sidewalks. Jurisdictions should have policy and
action plans that address these key issues .
While the proposed ADA Guidelines for the
Public Rights-of-Ways specify that sidewalks
have 48 inches of clear passageway, different
municipal ordinances have varying degrees of
detail for how best to achieve a safe clear zone
for pedestrians after a snowfall. For example,
some ordinances require clear widths for snow
93
predictable, a performance-based
contract was developed that required
contractors to provide costs for snow
removal based on performance
standards rather than the number and
intensity of snow events. Performance
expectations such as final sidewalk
condition and time frames for snow and
ice removal are required in each
contract. Contractors are also tasked
with inspection, compliance tracking
and conditions monitoring. Per the
contract, the City assumes liability for
slips and falls unless gross negligence is
documented on the part of the
contractor. The Halifax Regional
Municipality has seen cost saving of
CAN$4,600 per kilometer of sidewalk .
The benefit of this strategy is consistent,
competitive costs for snow removal no
matter how many snow events occur
over the contract length.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
removal . Othe r ordinances allow the use of aids such as sand, ash or salt on ice to prevent slip
hazards while others require the breaking out of ice . Some ordinances specify t h e maximum
allowable height of snow banks and forbidden zones for snow piles, to maintain proper
visibility of pedestrians . Some jurisdictions require snow removal from specific features such as
fire hydrants, benches, driveways and curb ramps .
In the event of a snowfall, communities need to make streets and sidewalks passable to
pedestrians . Removing snow and ice should be thought of as a community resp o nsibility that
covers the ent i re public right-of-way. And since sidewalks are part of the public right of way,
efforts to remove snow and ice need to occur i n a reasonable time period followi ng a snowfall.
Elements of an effective sno w and ice removal program include: timeframe for removal,
responsibility for removal, ord inances, compliance efforts, and planning and outreach
strategies.
Timeframe
Removing snow and ice within a 24 to 48 hour period following the culmination of a snowfall is
considered a reasonable timeframe for removal. In regions whe r e snowfall is infrequent and
the climate is very temperate, many communities rely on a qu ick melting method or a "melt
strategy" for responding to most of their snowfalls. Rather than remove sno w and ice, a
community may rely on warmer temperatures shortly after a storm to melt snow and ice
before mobility becomes an is sue. Although this may be a reasonable approach for light
snowfalls or those that occur in relatively warm weather, communities stil l ne e d to have a
contingency plan in place (or have it clearly covered in an ordinance) to deal with snow and ice
that remains longer than the 24 -48 hour time period. Snow that falls in the coldest and
darkest months will have a much greater tendency to stay frozen (or thaw and freeze) and
presents more problems compa red to snowfalls in November, Ma r ch, and April.
In parts of the country where snowfall is more frequent, commun it ies will need t o be prepared
to respond to all snowfalls . Ex pecting snow to melt without impacting pedestrian travel is not
realistic. It is also common an d appropriate to require a shorte r timeframe to respond to
snowfalls in h igh pedestrian zones such as in business districts, around colle g e campuses,
school areas, and where pedestrians need to access transit. Rather than establish a time period
for removal (i .e., 24 to 48 hours after snowfall culmination) another strategy is to set a speci fi c
time for when all snow must be cleared . For instance, a time of day can be set. A n n Arbor, Ml,
requires that any snowfall accumulation before 6 AM must be removed by noon while
Ale x andria, VA, requires different timeframes depending on the category of sto r m . The larger
the storm the more time allotted for snow removal. All of these are responsible and
recommended approaches for responding to snowfalls. All timeframes must balance the needs
94
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
of pedestrians and provide a reasonable amount
of time for the agency and property owners to
remove snow .
Responsibilities, Laws and Ordinances
Sidewalks are the most common pedestrian
facility, and although the removal of snow and
ice from them is considered to be a very
important safety issue, removal of
accumulations from curb ramps, crossings in
medians islands, and transit stops are equally
important. A failure to remove snow from one of
these facilities can easily disrupt or even stop a
pedestrian trip from occurring. Similar to the
maintenance of sidewalks, curb ramps and
median crossings are potential problem areas
that have to be addressed by communities
through ordinances and public snow removal
practices.
A common practice is to require by ordinance
that residential and commercial property owners
remove snow and ice from sidewalks that abut
their property within a specific time frame and
often that will include adjacent curb ramps. This
allows city crews to focus on priority locations for
snow removal such as in business districts, school
zones, transit stops, bridges, median crossings,
along property it owns, and other priority
locations. Because the majority of sidewalks abut
private property, and most communities rely on
property owners to remove snow and ice, the
success of sidewalk snow removal relies on a
coordinated program for education and
enforcement of the community. Strong and
efficient enforcement is also instrumental for
compliance to snow removal ordinances. Within
ordinances, there are varying degrees of
95
Citywide Public Snow Clearance
Burlington, Vermont
The City of Burlington, Vermont, Public
Works Department is responsible for all
snow and ice removal from all city
streets and sidewalks . This city of
approximately 43,000 people has almost
twice the mileage of sidewalk (150
miles) as it does street (90 miles). The
city has a unique "Snowfighting
Program" that tasks city crews with
snow removal from all city streets and
sidewalks despite an ordinance that
assigns removal of snow to property
owners. The plan was enacted to
provide flexibility due to unpredictable
weather, ensure geographic equity in
snow clearing, and address the
challenges of snow removal in dense
areas of Burlington.
The snow removal program includes
temporary parking bans by parking
zone. Parking bans are posted on a city
blog and residents are alerted via email
and by flashing lights that are turned on
by 3Pm. The city has found that snow
removal costs and hazards decrease
significantly when parking banned to
allow for plowing . Crews remove snow
and ice from roadways and then clear
sidewalks up to 24 hours after a snow
event. The annual cost for these
activities averages $750,000 annually for
all snow removal operations -street and
sidewalks. This is an equitable and
recommended practice that ensures the
compliance of city standards for snow
removal of walkways.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
requirements, guidance, inspection and
enforcement provisions to ensu re that sidewalks
are cleared. The ADA now requires pedestrian
facilities to be cleared of snow and allows only
temporary closures . The most comprehensive
programs, and those recommended by this
guide, specify requirements such as removing
snow and ice from curb ramps and crosswalks as
well as sidewalks .
Most snow removal practices are established by
local ordinances. State laws typically enable
communities to establish ordinances covering
maintenance practices for sidewalks or for the
entire street right-of-way including sidewalks. In
other cases, state law or established case law
may establish the responsibility for snow
clearance at the state level. Communities are
encouraged to become knowledgeable regarding
relevant state laws and be especially aware of
local ordinances addressing sidewalk
maintenance. For instance, the State of New
Hampshire requires state and local jurisdictions
to perform a l l sidewalk related construction and
maintenance activities including snow and ice
removal at no cost to the adjacent property
owner.19 This places the responsibility for
clearing all snow and ice from sidewalks on
Preparing Snow Removal in Low-
Snow Areas
Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle receives only minor
amounts of snow each yea r . There are
some years it receives no snow.
However the city has developed a
Disaster Readiness and Response Plan
that serves as a model for fully
integrating the needs of pedestrians into
a city's response to snowfall. Depending
on the severity of the storm, crews are
deployed to provide three levels of
service that include clearing snow from
high priority sidewalks, b ridges and
transit zones. The city focuses on
educating the public about snow
removal requirements and uses local
media, an interactive website with live
snowplow locations, a blo g and Twitter
to update the public about snow
removal progress. The city also
distributes pamphlets to parents of
school children containing information
on winter preparedness and provides a
winter weather fact sheet online and in
print in six languages.
municipalities . The state law grants municipalities the flexibility to determine a course of
action, such as a snow removal action plan, for prioritizing snow removal activities within a
reasonable a mount of time. As a result, communities in New Hampshire are encouraged to
have a snow removal plan tha t outlines the requirements of "reasonable remo val of snow, ice
and debris."
There are several additional factors that tend to negatively impact the success of snow
removal by adjacent property owners and need special attention: the presence of rental
properties, especially in areas near colleges or universities, and the presence of elderly or
19 Ne w Hampshi re State Title XX section 231 :113 ht tp:l/www .gencourt.state .nh .us/rsa/htm l/XX /231/231 -113 .htm
96
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
disabled households that require assistance to remove snow. Factors that tend to positively
impact snow removal are enforcement mechanisms and the ability of communities to respond
in a timely fashion to non-compliance with ordinances . In smaller communities, it is common
for neighbors to informally help each other remove snow, where larger communities tend to
develop snow removal assistance programs .
Having adjacent property owners assume responsibility for clearing sidewalks is a common and
economically efficient (for the community) technique for snow removal as long as abutting
owners are informed and held responsible for removal. Furthermore, the community must be
prepared to step in to remove snow and ice when property owners fail to do so, as well as
remove snow from intersections and its own sidewalk and path property. Although this is a
time -honored practice, it has been called into question on equity grounds. Arguments have
been directed at this approach because it taps the resources of adjacent property owners for
maintaining sidewalks when the street itself (in the same public right-of-way) is maintained by
the community . While communities remove snow and ice from adjacent streets using general
fund or transportation fund dollars, adjacent property owners with sidewalks are responsible
for removal using their own resources. Property owners who do not have sidewalks have no
such responsibility or burden yet benefit from the use of cleared sidewalks in the parts of the
community that do have sidewalks.
Jurisdictions that take on the full responsibility of snow removal from sidewalks will assume
increased levels of efforts or cost in exchange for more consistent and potentially convenient
snow removal programs. When communities take on snow removal they can do so with
relatively few pieces of equipment in contrast to every property owner with sidewalks having
to respond to snowfalls with their own equipment. There are several measures that will
streamline the process : having appropriate equipment for removal, parking restrictions to
expedite simultaneous plowing of streets and sidewalks (when sidewalks are immediately
adjacent to the parking lane or agencies need to remove snow from buffer zones in
commercial areas) and the use of performance based contracts to balance the costs of annual
sidewalk snow removal when contractors are used. Some of the additional benefits to
communities in providing community-wide snow and ice removal are: increased confidence
among pedestrians who can expect uniform level of service (having just a couple of property
owners not remove snow and ice can significantly disrupt a trip), curb ramps and medians can
also be cleared at the same time, and agencies can anticipate and inform constituents of
clearance completion schedules helping residents with their own trip and transit planning .
When property owners are required to remove snow from abutting properties, communities
will still have the responsibility to remove snow from sidewalks adjacent to public lands . This
97
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safe t y
should be a shared responsibility between the jurisdiction, county, state, transit and private
agencies and institutions. Responsibility can often be a point of confusion that may lead to
uncleared sidewalks. Clearly defined responsibilities are important to a successful snow
removal program. Many communities deploy crews or hire contractors to clear snow and ice
from sidewalks adjacent to public lands or buildings. Often this is a shared responsibility
between Parks Departments and Public Works Departments . Some smaller communities
require school, fire and police staff to clear snow from sidewalks around bu i ldings. A snow
removal pla n that outlines clear responsibilities and assigns those responsi b ilities through
written agreements are important when coordination is requ ired between agencies,
institutions and organizations.
Prioritization
Very few communities have a prioritized system for sidewalks to be cleared of snow and ice by
city crews, but it is a recommended practice. Either as part of or after streets are plowed, many
communities will focus attention on clearing sidewalks near schools, transit stops and business
districts . Th is scheme of establishing priority routes for clearing sidewalks ca n function when
communities themselves are solely responsible for the clearing of snow from pedestrian
facilities or when adjacent property owners are responsible. For the latter, the community
would ensure that all sidewalks are suitably cleared of snow and ice and if they are not the
community's crew would clear the sidewalks and charge the adjacent property owner. The City
of Alexandr ia, VA, prioritizes sidewalks in the following order: 1) schools, 2) h igh transit use
areas, 3) city facilities and 4) bus stops .
Yet another positive development over the past 20 years is the creation of Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs) and Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) and the ability to use
these districts to provide basic maintenance of walkways including snow and ice removal.
Businesses are responsible for a special tax that among other things, funds maintenance
activities such as snow and ice removal from sidewalks by a hired contractor. This is also a
clever way for communities in low snowfall areas to ensure removal of snow from sidewalks in
the busiest pedestrian areas.
Compliance Efforts
For those communities that require property owners to remove snow and ice from walkways,
proper and prompt enforcement is the key to a successful snow removal program. Most
communities are granted the power to fine property owners or charge them the cost to
remove snow and ice from their sidewalks if they fail to do so themselves . Although it may
seem like a callous action, using fines or charges is a recommended approach.
98
-A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Communities that combine education efforts with strict enforcement of snow removal are
more successful at having snow removed from walkways by adjoining property owners.
Communities can use police, public works staff, and inspectors to issue citations to non-
compliant properties. Typically, a public works employee or inspector is the most sensible
choice. Communities will often have a code enforcement person who writes notices for other
code violations such as property violations (grass too long, junk cars on premises, vegetation
encroachment) so the same person that handles summer complaints can handle snow and ice
complaints in the winter. One strategy that should be considered with apprehension is the
issuance of warnings before citations. This process can elongate the time that the sidewalk
remains impassable to pedestrians and creates additional work for the enforcing agency . In the
end, pedestrians may be presented with longer periods with winter sidewalk hazards .
Fines can also be increased over time since residents would rather shovel snow than face
increas in g fines . The goal is to move toward compliance so it may be necessary to escalate
fines to make this possible . A fee structure can include different fines for residential and
commercial properties. Charges can accrue daily for failure to remove snow and ice and/or for
the cost of crews to remove snow and ice per cubic yard. Fees collected from the fines should
remain in the removal program to fund city sponsored snow removal at non-compliant
properties. Recurring charges resulting in a lien on property ta x es can be an effective strategy
for encouraging property owners, managers and tenants to comply with snow removal
requirements.
Successful enforcement programs should treat snow removal enforcement much like parking
enforcement: violators are promptly ticketed, and failure to pay the initial fee results in
additional penalties. Mechanisms for enforcement are performed by parking officers, police or
inspectors. Like parking fines, snow removal fines can be a predictable revenue stream.
Work Plan
A snow removal plan or policy is a strategy for determining the priorities and actions a
jurisdiction will take in response to a snow event. The development of an action plan is
important for a successful snow removal program. Often sidewalks are a secondary priority to
snow removal on streets. However, plans that address sidewalks can provide important
guidance on timeliness, techniques, priorities and coordination between jurisdictions and
agencies to ensure that the needs of pedestrians are met. A successful plan acknowledges that
pedestrian needs are important year round. Successful action plans have the following
elements relating to sidewalk snow removal policies:20
'
20 http://www .clrp .cornell.edu/workshops/manuals/snow and ice control.pdf
99
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Stress the need for continuous improvements and performance measu r ements
• Mitigate risks and manage costs
• Utilize electronic communications and social media to enhance outreach
• Ensure compliance with federal and state laws
• Inco r porate innovative and/or environmental sustainability practices that provide cost
savings measures, foster efficiency of operations, and aid in efforts to p reserve air and
water quality
• Iden ti fy and program major snow removal equipment
Jurisdictions should include the most comprehensive information available when developing or
updating a plan. It is also recommended to conside r making the plan an all-season plan by
including vegetation removal for sidewalks and paths. Often sidewalk ordinances include year-
round maintenance provisions and the compliance efforts will be the same whether the
problem is snow or vegetation . Two comprehensive guides for developing snow removal plans
were review ed for this study and are recommended in the development of a plan that
specifically addresses pedestrian needs:
• The Winter Maintenance of Pedestrian Facilities in Delaware: A Guide for Local
Governments outlines sources of information for winter maintenance management
plans as they relate to sidewalks; provides guidance on processes for developing a plan;
and highlights communi t ies with outstanding plans for sidewalk snow removal. 21
• Snow and Ice Control is a workbook that provides a comprehensive overview of the
elements of a snow removal plan in Minnesota 22
Outreach, Problem Reporting, and Help Programs
One of the m ost critical ways that a community will communicate with residents after a
snowfall is through a problem reporting mechanism . Residents and visitors can use an online
service and a call-in number. Although this type of reporting is valuab le year-round to report
any pedestrian facility problem, having it available to report unshoveled walkways and
impassable curb ramps and medians is absolutely essential to successful winter maintenance.
Communities need to be responsive to problems including making a visit to the location to
confirm the problem. Depending on the system the community has in action, t he adjacent
property owner is either fined or charged with removal of snow and ice from the sidewalk or
curb ramp. In other cases, it may be the community itse lf that has failed to undertake its
responsibilities for snow and ice removal. Clearing of snow and ice should occur within a 24 to
48 hour period after the report is made.
21 http ://www .ipa.udel.edu/publ ications/SnowRemoval.pdf
22 http ://www.mnltap .umn.edu/publications/handbooks/documents/snowice .pdf
100
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Figure 33 : City of Boston fines for non-compliant snow removal
Removal of Snow/Ice from Private
Failure to Remove Property to Street or Sidewalk
Snow/Ice From More than one One cubic yard or
Type of Property Sidewalk cubic yard less
Commercial $200* $200* $150*
Residential with
More than 16 Units $100* $150* $100*
Residential with 16
or Fewer Units $50* $100* $50*
*Each day that a violation exists is considered a separate and distinct violation
Many municipalities have programs to assist low-income elderly or disabled people with
sidewalk, walkway and driveway snow removal. Snow Angels, 23 Snow/Ice Busters, 24 ' Snow
Buddy, 25 and Shovel our Snow 26 are just a few names of programs throughout the nation.
These programs are for residents who cannot physically or financially perform sidewalk snow
removal. For those in need, an application is often required to demonstrate eligibility. Some
jurisdictions provide an online questionnaire to match volunteers with those in need of help,
such as the City of Chicago's Snow Corps program. Snow removal may be performed by city
sponsored contracted services, city crews, neighbors, youth groups or volunteers. Assistance
programs, whether highly organized or informal, not only help elderly or disabled residents
and ensure snow removal will be performed consistently, but are also good community
building and service opportunities .
Snow Removal from Shared Use Paths
Shared use paths are often treated differently than sidewalks after snow events . In many
communities they are either not plowed or have a very low priority of being plowed. Seldom
do communities require adjacent property owners to maintain them. Some communities,
counties, and states deliberately do not clear pathways to allow for winter activities such as
skiing or snowmobiling. Decades ago, very few paths were maintained for year-round use.
However, as more and more paths became true transportation facilities and are funded with
transportation funding, that practice began to change. Several factors need to be considered
when deciding on removal of snow from paths .
23 Pittsburg, PA http ://www.pittsburghpa.gov/servepgh/snowangels/
24
Aurora, CO https://www.auroragov.org/LivingHere/GivingBack/SnowBusters/
25 Boulder Colorado . Link no longer ava il able .
26
Brookline MA, http://www.brooklinema .gov/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=19 3&1temid=8zz
101
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Bicyclist and pedestrian demand for the
facility. Facilities located i n remote areas
will have little winter demand while those
located within urban areas will see
continued demand throughout the
winter, especially from pedestrians.
• Presence of nearby pedestrian facilities.
•
If there are no nearby sidewalks that
parallel the path and can act as an
alternate facility, having a path
maintained year-round becomes more
important.
Community
neighborhoods,
pedestrians asking
support. Are
bicyclists, and
that the facility be
cleared of snow and ice? Are there many
Clearing Snow from Paths
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Madison, Wisconsin
Columbia Association, Maryland
Not all agencies will remove snow and
ice from shared use paths . However,
there are many communities which have
exemplary snow and ice removal
programs for this type of maintenance .
The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota will
remove snow and ice on paths on a
comparable schedule to that of snow
removal on streets. The Park Board is
responsible for removal on most of the
longer paths in the city.
requests for maintaining the path for The City of Madison, Wisconsin uses one
winter use?
• Connectivity. The more neighborhoods
and commercial areas the path connects
to, the more valuable the path will be for
year-round use .
Paths that are located within the public right-of-
way often substitute for a sidewalk and need to
be cleared of snow and ice in the same
timeframe as sidewalks. Since paths are wider
than sidewalks, wider pieces of equipment can
service it such as pick-up trucks with mounted
plows. This is also a reason why paths should be
designed with appropriate widths and loading
characteristics to accommodate light-duty
equipment (see sections 6.1 and 6 .2).
Snow and Ice Removal -Conclusion
Depending on the region, snow and ice removal
can be a major seasonal effort for communities
of all sizes . The preceding sections include the
102
of three departments to remove snow
and ice from paths. When assigning a
department and unit, the location of the
path is considered. This enables two
efficiencies: the clustering of paths
under specific units and the assignment
of rather remote sections of paths to a
Streets Department unit rather than
expecting only the Department of Parks
and Recreation to hand le the entire
system. This helps expedite snow-
removal, and in many cases, improves
upon response times when compared to
removal on residential streets.
Columbia Association, Maryland, is one
of the largest homeowners associations
in the country and manages and
maintains over 93 miles of pathways and
25 miles of sidewalks. This includes the
winter maintenance of all of these
facilities.
• . . • iii;
::; .
~
l
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
basic elements of a recommended snow removal program. Most of these elements can at least
in part be employed in communities of all sizes .
The most equitable means of removing snow and ice from sidewalks and paths is to have a
community-sponsored program . This will better ensure a consistent removal of snow and ice .
In many states, the local community is ultimately responsible for snow removal, but has shifted
the initial responsibility to the adjacent property owner . Although community sponsorship of
snow removal is recommended based on its fairness, the vast majority of communities will still
require adjacent property owners to remove snow and ice. When that is the case, communities
have several primary responsibilities:
• Clear snow and ice from their own sidewalk facilities, median crossings, and splitter
islands
• Ensure through compliance measures that snow is being removed
• Remove snow and ice from sidewalks, bridges and curb ramps where adjacent property
owners fail to do so
• Provide education programs on importance of removal and proper ways of removing
snow and ice
• Coordinate with other public entities to make sure all jurisdictions are providing for
removal on their publically owned facilities
• Provide a problem reporting system both on-line and via phone
• Sponsor assistance programs for people who cannot remove snow and ice themselves
103
l
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Sidewalk Snow Removal
Chicago, Illinois and Cambridge, Massachusetts
The City of Chicago has developed Chicago Shovels, "a tool to help connect the public with
City winter resources and empower neighbors to come together to help Chicago navigate
winter." 1 The program employs positive messaging coupled with action opportunities that
stress the shared snow removal responsibilities between residents, neighbors and the city
during a snow event. The program has several services accessible on line to inform and assist
city residents. The Adopt-a-Sidewalk Program is an online mapping and encouragement
tool that allows property owners to take the sidewalk in front of their property and link it to
social media. The intention is to help neighbors and neighborhoods organize and
coordinate snow removal. The Snow Corps program pairs volunteers with low income
residents who are elderly or disabled. The program also provides weather alerts so that
residents can receive text messages, phone calls or emails about emergency or non -
emergency conditions in the city. In addition, the city has developed a brochure that
provides clea r diagrams and instructions on where and how to remove snow and ice. This
program is exemplary in that it uses real-time mapping and social media to educate and
enable neighbors to work together to perform their responsibilities .
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/snowportal/chicagoshovels.html
The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, website has a specific section for sidewalk snow
removal which includes deta i led information on how to make Cambridge walkable
throughout the year. There is a video about how to properly clear snow and ice from the
perspective of residents with mobility impairments. The website also provides detailed
instructions on how to remove snow and ice and outlines the property owner's
responsibilities. Much of the information is also provided in pamphlet form for those who
do not have internet access and for easy distri bution:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/snow/whatyoucando/snowcleari ng .aspx
http://www.cambridgema .gov/theworks/ourservices/snow/Resources/Publications .aspx
https ://www .cambridgema.gov/iReport/reportanunshoveledsidewalk.aspx .
104
I ,
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
6 I Construction Techniques to Lessen Maintenance for
Sidewalks and Paths
The best way to maintain sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities is to start by building them
to last. Some common types of sidewalk damage can be prevented or slowed through the use
of exceptional practices in initial sidewalk construction . In particular, close attention to specific
design details can result in sidewalks that require low or lower levels of maintenance over their
lifespan, thereby improving access in a community and reducing municipal and property owner
costs . This chapter will highlight specific construction techniques that can lengthen the
standard lifespan of pedestrian facilities .
Initial design and construction methods greatly influence the long-term maintenance and
lifespan of sidewalks. Historically concrete has been the material of choice by many
jurisdictions because of its ease of installation, durability, reliability and availability of
materials. The thickness of the sidewalk material, use of reinforcing bars or mesh use of
aggregate base, depth of sub-base below the sidewalk, distance from trees, and other design
details impact how well a sidewalk will age over time. If best practices are followed, the
expected sidewalk materials service life can be as long as:
• Concrete : Approximately 80 years
• Bricks and interlocking concrete pavers: Approximately 80 years
• Asphalt : Approximately 40 years
Although the lifespans noted above are achievable, many cities consider 25 years to be an
expected lifespan for concrete sidewalk . While some data exists on construction methods that
can mitigate the potential for future damage, more research is needed on sidewalk
construction best practices for reduced maintenance . There is an opportunity for increased
research in this area.
Sidewalk Failure
As discussed in chapter 3, sidewalks and paths fail for a variety of reasons including damage
due to :
• Poor base soils and sub-base preparation causing differential settlement
• Nearby trees roots causing displacement or cracks
• Heavy Vehicle loading on sidewalks not designed to take such loads
• Insufficient concrete thickness or lack of reinforcement where design dictates
105
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Much of this damage can be avoided or delayed by using proper construction tec h niques that
take into acco u nt the type of soils underlying the sidewalk, seasonal conditions that impact
soils underlying sidewalks, tree type and placement and sidewalk design (thickness, use of
aggregate, sub -drainage, and reinforcement).
6.1 I SUBGRADE
The type of soil underlying a sidewalk may be the greatest determinant if the sidewalk will fail
before the end of its projected lifespan. A comprehensive study in Cincinnati showed a greater
correlation between sidewalk failure and the underlying soil type than between sidewalks and
the presence of nearby trees. Providing an adequate subgrade below sidewalks may deter
many of these fa ilures by providing stability and good drainage, helping the sidewalk be more
resistant to seasonal changes . Subgrade design and preparation should be carefully considered
and based on local soil conditions and policies. Although there is not one specific design
solution for every situation, Canadian national guidance 27 provides the following general best
practices:
• Subgrade should be uniform material compacted to a minimum 98% standard Proctor
density.
• Provide 100 -150 mi l limeters (4 -6 inches) of free-draining granular material under
sidewal k s for base material 28
• For pavers, 200 millimeters (8 inches) recommended over slow draining soils or frost
zones
• Minimum compaction of 95 % standard Proctor density for concrete and asphalt
• Minimum compaction of 98 % standard Proctor density for pave rs
Providing an adequate subgrade of free-draining material may also reduce problems from
nearby tree roots, as detailed below.
6.2 I p AVEMENT THICKNESS
6.2.1 I Concrete
Sidewalk thickness is just another aspect of the overall sidewalk "pavement" design, and
should take into consideration expected loading, local soil conditions and policies . In the
United States, concrete sidewalk thicknesses in warm climates that do not need to support
27 Sidewalk Design , Construction , and Ma intenance: A Best Practice by the National Gu ide to Sustainable Mun icipal Infrastructure .
Federation of Canad ian Municipal ities and National Research Counc il.
28 Ib id .
106
I
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
heavy vehicles may be as low as 3.5 inches; areas
that ex perience a winter freeze and must
accommodate heavy veh icles (known as vehicle
load i ng) may require th icknesses of 6 inches or
more. In theory, the thicker the sidewalk, the less
likely it will fail prematurely; however, adequate
research does not exist to support this claim in the
case of frost heave or tree roots . It is important to
ensure that sidewalks are constructed with
enough thickness to support ex pected vehicle
loading which may include maintenance vehicles
or more substantial loads at driveway crossings . In
some cases reinforcement (usually with a welded
wire mesh or re-bar) can be used to increase the Figure34 :Fi ve inchesofconcreteside walk
loading capacity of sidewalks. Similar to subgrade design, there is not one specific des ign
solut ion for every situation; however, the following provides general practices for sidewalk
thickness. FHWA's Pedsafe Guide recommends a minimum of 4 inches for concrete slab depth .
• Concrete slab thickness 29
• Four inches for light axle loading over sand/gravel
• Five inches for light ax le loading over silt/clay
• Five to si x inches for heavy ax le loading over sand/gravel
• Si x inches or slightly greater for heavy ax le loading over silt/clay
Based on research conducted for this report, municipalities commonly follow these cited
pract ices by r equiring the following sidewalk thicknesses : 5 inches standard depth, 6 inches at
driveways, 7 inches at commercial driveways. State DOTs require thicknesses of 4 ors inches
for most sidewalk sections and 6 to 8 i nches for sidewalk sections crossing driveways
(cons istent with the depth of the driveway aprons). Additional thickness may also need to be
considered where off-tracking by trucks occurs on curb ramps.
29 Ibid .
107
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
6.2.2 I Asphalt
Asphalt is commonly used on paths and for
shoulders used as pedestrian facilities. Asphalt
thicknesses for shared use paths can be as low
as two inches if laid on top of an adequate
aggregate depth of 4 inches and if only very
light duty equipment will use the path . If •
laying asphalt without a base and an
expectation that only medium duty trucks
may use the facilities, 8 inches may be
needed. According to a recent report by the
Illinois Center for Transportation -Best Figure 35 : Inadequate shoulders on a path resulting in
Practices for Bicycle Tra il Pavement edge damage.
Construction and Maintenance in Illinois, a minimum hot-mix asphalt thickness for paths that
can support regular-heavy -duty trucks is 3 inches over a 4 inch aggregate. Depths for asphalt
sidewalks are not very well documented, but at a minimum should be 2 inches with an
adequate aggregate depth similar to the minimum depth of an asphalt path. It is also
important for the paths to be at least 10 feet wide to support truck wheels at the edges. Larger
maintenance vehicles -especially when the edge of the path cannot be seen very well by
drivers -can cause significant edge damage if wheels ride at the edges .
6.3 I DRAINAGE
Proper sidewalk drainage is i mportant for maintenance purposes and to provide a safe and
comfortable experience for users. It is important to provide a slight cross slope on sidewalks to
ensure proper drainage and prevent pooling of water, especially in climates where ice can
form. Accessibility requirements prescribe a maximum cross slope of two percent. This
provides adequate drainage, but does not adversely impact access for people with disabilities.
Sidewalk immediately behind the curb should be considered for installation of a sub-drain
system parallel to the curb to facilitate drainage away from the base and reduce frost heave in
cold climates. Additionally, providing a subgrade of quick-draining material as noted above will
help reduce frost heave in areas with soils that drain poorly.
6.4 I CONTROL JOINTS AND SCORING PATTERNS
Control and expansion joints should be provided in all concrete sidewalks and paths to
minimize cracking and guide where cracking should occur. However, decorative
jointing/scoring should be minimized to avoid jarring bumps for pedestrians using wheelchairs.
Also, saw cutting control/contraction joints is recommended because it provides a smoother
108
,
I
'
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
surface than troweling joints into the surface. Joints should be level and as narrow as possible .
For interlocking pavers, the maximum variation in height should be 2 millimeters.30
Full depth expansion joints should be placed adjacent to existing rigid structures such as poles,
walls, hydrants and buildings . Isolation joints should also be located at the beginning and end
of curved sections of sidewalk and at all intersections .
Control joints, also known as contraction joints or construction joints, allow shrinkage to occur
during drying in a way that does not affect the appearance of the sidewalk. It is generally
recommended that control joints be spaced a maximum distance of 24 to 30 times the
thickness of the concrete. The transverse contraction joint should extend to a depth of one
quarter to one third of the depth of the concrete sidewalk and be a maximum width of s
millimeters. If the sidewalk width is 2.5 meters (8 feet) or greater, a control joint should also be
formed along the center line of the walk . It is recommended that the control joints be saw cut
instead of trowel led.
Asphalt sidewalks typically do not need joints or scoring patterns .
6.5 I CURB RAMPS & DETECTABLE WARNING FIELDS
Curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces present unique maintenance needs. The primary
issues with detectable warning fields are debris collection, detachment from the sidewalk, or
damage to the domes in the warning fields themselves. Detectable warning fields tend to
collect dirt and debris between raised domes where pooling occurs during rain events. During
the design, it is important to maintain a gutter slope that allows water entering the curb ramp
to drain and carry away the debris. The primary solution to this issue is frequent sweeping.
Seasonal pressure washing of detectable warning fields may also be of value, and may help
retain the color contrast between the detectable warning field and the surrounding sidewalk .
Physical damage to detectable warning fields and their domes is common in areas that require
snow removal. Detectable fields are easily damaged by snowplows that clear some paths and
sidewalks, and can even be damaged by snowblowers . Extending the life of these fields can be
accomplished by material selection . A few manufacturers are now providing cast iron
detectable warning fields that are significantly heavier and stronger than those manufactured
from stainless steel, alloy, concrete pavers, thermoplastic or pressed directly into the concrete .
The cast iron detectable warning fields may be excessive for areas that do not experience
30 Sidewalk Design , Construction, and Maintenance : A Be st Practice by the National Gu ide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure .
Federation of Canad ian Municipalities and National Research Council. Jul y 2004.
109
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
significant snowfall, but may provide reduced maintenance and replacement costs in areas
with snowfall.
Detectable warning surfaces pressed directly into fresh concrete are not recommended
because they suffer from two problems . First, it is common for some of the concrete domes to
be only partially formed during the initial installation on the curb ramp. When this occurs, it is
likely that the incomplete domes will break off. Second, snow removal equipment, and even
household snowblowers, can cause damage to concrete domes . If concrete detectable warning
fields are used, a regular inspection schedule should be developed to monitor the integrity of
the fields and perform necessary maintenance . In accordance with ADA Guidelines, domes
that are pressed into concrete must be painted a contrasting color to aid those with visual
disabilities . The contrasting paint rarely adheres to the domes for very long.
6.6 I STREET TREES
Street trees are important in enhancing the aesthetics of a corridor, providing shade and green
space in urban environments and helping define the character of a corridor . The presence of
mature street t r ees also increases the value of adjacent properties .31 However, street trees can
also cause damage to sidewalks and walkways when either the trees or sidewalks are poorly
sited. In many communities this is the primary cause of sidewalk damage and replacement.
Proper site conditions, including soils, tree selection and location are all essential to ensure
that the trees thrive in their location and do not interfere with nearby utilities, sidewalks or
streets. Trees should typically be "limbed up" ensuring branches grow above and away from
the sidewalk. Trees with drooping or low growing branches can create hazards for nearby
pedestrians or vehicles.
The following guidance on street trees is impacted by urban design standards, suc h as planting
strip widths, right-of-way widths, sidewalk widths and even the presence of curb and gutter.
Along with the following guidance focused directly on street trees, agencies need to address
deficiencies in their urban design standards that can help promote better stree t designs for
trees and sidewalk preservation. At the national level, the AASHTO Guide for Plann ing, Design,
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities has some guidance as well as ITE's Design ing Walkable
Urban Thoroughfares : A Context Sensitive Approach. Many state agencies will also have street
design handbooks that can provide guidance on urban design standards.
31 Wolf, Kathleen, City T re es and Pro perty Valu es, A rbo ris t Ne w s (Aug ust 2007), PP . 34-36
110
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
6.6.1 I Soil Selection
One of the best ways to support healthy street trees and protect against sidewalk damage is
provis ion, selection and management of proper soils . Often trees in the right-of-way are
planted in existing soils compacted to support motor vehicles. Roots in compacted soil will
migrate toward the surface for air and water, causing sidewalk to crack and heave. These soils
can u ltimately lead to damage of underground utilities, sidewalks and roadways . To abate
costly maintenance issues it is important to consider the relationship between soils, street
trees and sidewalks. Important factors to consider include the amount of soil provided
(discussed later in the chapter), the soil content and the maintenance of soils over time :
• Use soils that have high organic content, air space and provide tree roots with
nutrients, water and oxygen. Soils that are heavily compacted can be improved by
amending them to improve aeration, and moisture content. Soil selection will be
specific to location.
• Test soils before planting . This will help determine if the soil is adequate for plantings,
needs amendment, is compacted or is unsuitable for healthy tree growth .32
• When there is room for sufficient soil volume, use structural soils or eng i neered soils to
meet the load bearing requirements of urban sidewalks while still maintaining adequate
pore space and organic content to support healthy vegetation. With new street trees,
install structural soil below the sidewalk and parking zone to maximize soil volume.
Trees can grow in confined areas with paved surfaces above the root systems, provided
there is a way for water to enter the structural soil mixture.
• Soils should be regularly tested after installation on a regular maintenance schedule to
ensure conditions are suitable for healthy tree growth.
6.6.2 I Soil Volume
Street trees need adequate space to grow to maturity. Tree roots do not survive in confined
space and compacted soils so it is important to ma x imize soil volume appropriate to street tree
species. In the confined street right-of-way this is often challenging and ex pensive but
provision of appropriate soil volume enables the tree to grow a mature, healthy canopy and
lessens the chance that roots will damage underground utilities or the adjacent sidewalk .
Published research suggests that increasing soil vo l umes is one of the best ways to enable
larger and healthier trees in cities. Soil volume recommendations range from a minimum of
400 cubic feet to more than 1000 cubic feet based on the sidewalk width.33 One of the first
steps is to simply determine the soil volume requirements per tree volume. Volume will vary
33 Casey Trees, Tree Space D esign, 2008,PP . 3
111
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
depending on climate, soil type
and desired tree species . The
following diagram provides some
general guidance .
Techniques for Supporting
Adequate Soil Volume
A variety of innovations i n
engineered soils to support root
growth have been developed
primar i ly for streets in urban and
suburban locat ions with curb and
gutter where plantings are
desired in spatially constra i ned
conditions. These strategies
adopted from Up By Roots by Jim
Urban 34 are intended to increase
Ultimate tree size
Crown DBH-Trunk
Spread Diameter
Sq Ft Inch
m2 mm
1200 24
111 610
1000 20
92 508
18~40 4
1:61
550 12
51 305
350 8
32 203
150 4
14 102 v
Example A 16 inch/406 mm diameter
tree reqwres 1000 cu fl/28 3 m3 of soil
/ v
v~
vi( ,,,
/..~e e;,' e ..._<.e ~e ,, o\ ~v ~~~oo~"'o
..._o~ 1 •
I
200 400 600 800 fi®Ol 1200 1400 1600
5:7 11.3 17.0 22.7 l1.!IJ 34.0 39.7 45.3
Soil Volume Required ~~;
Figure 36: Tree siz e to soil volu m e rela tionship . Urba n, Table 2 .4 .1 1 page
2 05, 2 008.
the volume of rooting soil while maintaining accessible sidewalks :
• Open Tree Trenches: Tree trenches are a common strategy used in areas where
exist i ng soil is not su itable for tree growth. Continuous soil trenches are planted w ith
multip le trees and the trenches are covered with mulch, groundcover grass or othe r
plantingsi this works where parking turnover is not high so that soils are seldom
traversed or compacted . Five feet of width is a good rule of thumb . Open tree trenches
are normally installed i n urban conditions where space is constrained .
• Covered Tree Trenches: In areas where parking turnover is high or where there is a
high vo l ume of foot traffic, covered tree trenches are a good option. A continuous soil
trench is covered w ith structural reinforced concrete around and between trees,
enabling passive irrigat ion . As noted below, tree trenches can be integrated with the
pedestr ian furniture zone . Covered trenches are durable, i n part because the soil under
the concrete will settle and create an air gap that gives r oots space to grow without
damagi ng the sidewalk . This is a more expensive option but one that requires less day-
to -day m aintenance open tree trenches, which require management of mulch and
vegetat ion. Covered t ree trenches are normally installed i n urban conditions with high
pedestr ian volumes and where space is constrained .
34 Urba n, Jim, Up By Roots: Health y So ils and Trees in the Bu i lt Environme nt. In t ern at ional Soci ety of Arboricu lture,
Cha m paign, IL . 2 0 08 .
112
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Root Paths: These sub-concrete trenches are often dug underneath existing sidewalks
to allow roots to spread into new soil areas. They should be 4 inches wide by 12 inches
deep, filled with amended soil and lined with strip drain board. Root paths are low cost
and are often a retrofit application. They can be installed with curb and gutter or on
curbless streets.
• Structural Soils: Void space for tree root growth can also be introduced by using
structural soils, which are substrate mixes composed of soil and stone aggregate. This is
more often an option for plantings for new construction or reconstruction projects.
However, the aggregate means there is less soil to the tree, so a large volume of
structural soil must be used. As a result, structural soils are not appropriate for use in
tree pits, and their use is often extended under sidewalks and parking areas. Due to the
required volume of soil, structural soil is often not as cost effective as other options.
Structural soils can be used for plantings on streets with or without curb and gutter.
• Soil Vaults: Soil vaults are large soil-filled, enclosed, often precast concrete structures
that fully contain the root system of a tree to protect underground utilities and
sidewalks. They are a costly option and should be properly sized to provide adequate
space for mature tree root systems.
• Structural cells: Structural cells are prefabricated, perforated, stackable, soil filed
boxes with a removable cap that allows for air space at the surface so that tree roots
can be easily accessed and pruned. Cells are load bearing and other vegetation can be
planted on top.
6.6.3 I Tree Pits
Tree pits are used where space or resources do not permit the use of open or covered tree
trenches. This option is less desirable for new construction than the techniques described
above because it often does not allow for adequate soil volume. However, tree pits are often
an existing condition that can be improved with the addition of amended soils . For new
construction, tree pits should be as large as possible to provide maximum rooting volume while
maintaining appropriate clear width for sidewalks. The sides of the pit below the sidewalk
should be open to the surrounding subgrade to allow for root penetration and drainage beyond
the pit. Tree pits are often covered by grates to minimize soil compaction and trip hazards, but
the grates require maintenance to adjust for tree growth and to correct for settlement that
may cause a tripping hazard. Open tree pits, and in some cases covering them with tree grates,
are acceptable treatments with proper maintenance .
113
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
The preferred siz e for a tree p it is at least 4 feet
by 10 feet by 3 feet deep for 120 cubic feet.
According to published research, trees need 1
to 2 cubic feet of soil volume fo r every square
foot of crown area spread . Smal le r tree pits, as
narrow as 2'-6 " w ide, may be appropriate if
sidewalk constraints prohibit the construction
of a full size tree pit and suffic ient soil volume
is provided . However, tree p its are often the
cause of sidewa l k damage; trees can outgrow
the pit and buckle the sidewalk. Solutions to
small ex isting tree pits include using high-
nutrient amended soils, ins t all i ng permeable
pavers arou nd the tree pi t , ex panding the
opening of the tree pit or i ntr oducing mulch.
Rubber sidewa l ks can also alleviate sidewalk Figure 37:Modularp las tic pavers nea r atree .
buckling adjacent to tree pits. Modular rubber
sidewalks and fle xi ble porous pavements allow for root growth w h i le reducing tri p ping hazards
by providing a rounded rather than buckled surface .
6.6.4 I Tree Placement
Planting street trees in appropriate sites will help promote their successful growth and
development w h i le minimizing sidewalk and street maintenance issues commonly caused by
poorly sited trees . Following are broad guidelines drawn primari ly from Chapter 11 of the Los
Angeles County Model Des ign Manual for Living Streets 35 :
• Establ is h and mainta i n 6 -8 foot wide sidewalk furniture zones where po ssible . Many
large trees need up to 12 feet in width, and are not su itable for placem e nt in narrow
furnitu r e zones. In residential areas, sidewalk furniture zones within the root zone of
trees should be unpaved and planted/surfaced with low groundcover, mulch or
stabilized decomposed granite where these can be maintained. Where maintenance of
such extensive sidewalk furniture zones is not feasible, provide 12 foot long tree
trenches w ith true permeable pavers (standard interlocking pavers are not permeable).
• Establ ish wide furniture zones or planting strips and provide additional space for snow
storage in snowy climates .
3s Bogart, S; Sny der R. et al. T he Los Angeles County Model Design Manu al fo r Living Streets , Los A ng e les Coun t y, 201 1 .
http ://www .mode lstreetdesignmanual .com
114
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• If the above options are not feasible, provide adequate volume of non-compacted soil,
structural or gap-graded soil (angular rock with soil-filled gaps) to a depth of 3 feet or
greater beneath the adjacent sidewalk (in the furniture, planting strip, frontage, and
pedestrian sidewalk zones).
• Space trees appropriately . Spacing will vary with species, site conditions, and desired
aesthetic appearance of corridor. Closer spacing of large canopy trees is encouraged to
create a lacing of canopy, as trees in groups or groves can create a more favorable
microclimate for tree growth than isolated trees exposed to heat from all sides, which
can desiccate isolated trees .
• If open trenches are used, the planting sites should be graded, (but not overly
compacted) so that the soil surface slopes downward toward the center, forming a
shallow depression to collect water. The crown of the tree should remain 2 inches
above finished grade . The finished soil elevation after planting is held below that of the
surrounding paving so 2 -3 inches of mulch can be added . The mulch layer must be
replenished as needed to maintain a nearly level surface .
• Use tree grate guards, pavers and compacted aggregate along streets with heavy
pedestrian traffic. Covered tree trenches can also be used to increase the width of the
sidewalk in high use areas . Along streets with limited foot traffic and in less urban
environments, mulch and ground cover may be used in lieu of tree grates.
• Provide a gravel sub-base below sidewalks near street trees; this has been shown to
reduce pavement damage and root growth immediately below pavement on well
drained sites .
• Where appropriate soil volume is available, install vertical barriers next to sidewalks
(DeepRoot or poly sheets) to reduce root growth under pavement which may reduce
long-term sidewalk damage from roots .
• Use porous surfaces for adjacent driveways and patios to improve infiltration of water.
Minimizing impervious surfaces and maintaining the natural grade also encourages tree
growth.
Where space is limited between the curb and the sidewalk consider planting street trees on
private property adjacent to a sidewalk. Doing so can increase the tree setback from the
sidewalk, reduce the likelihood of root damage, and give roots more room to grow .
115
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
100 LANDSCAP E PLANTING
ST""'f. TP l .. lfH (::'} tM '(0
~· lOOG(PC\.( p tor J ;'. EO
::i.. ~:~ (ftk£'·~J
"'£( LOOStl TO Pl'C. DC 1'""
SJ.Ct-fOR 1 )U~o CPO .. TH
"C • O:•" O lCuAI. w t
~i~irf,~"'~ \,r ::,0· l!~\o~J:
ST .. E TO ~it 0 •t~CA&....,'
I 0 P IACH Tll o\lfOtJ,.,') ~r
TQf[ LOOSll 1 TO rP(VIO[ ,.
Ci.AC1>. fOR ~~ ""' .H+·t
:'" J " MvlC~ O(PTH
{TArc·' ) AT "'nlJ'~ )
MVLC~l TPrC Pll M r.r ~· O"'
lfNC'tH ' ruu p ~W't •C
~Tfl "h out ,,, .~, tN C1,;M
AlO 5IOI.~ I (!OR
Pl.4liT11•C STRIF'°3 lC'S:, 1 Ak
6' -C " ~OE) OR Fl'0\11
'-01AMlltPl~OfO!ll
P ,\Nl t-1C sr PS OLP. 'MA?•
1;. rw •
MO
1.
STANDARD PLAN No 1 OOa
REV Mre DEC 20 0
!loll IV!"' 0 l"'<,;U !.:lotU'4 •
., .. ,i90~1 AOJAC ••T CURB
dt ~Dew ,. c;~
.f' "O .a'" ~>CM
.,..AlUltNC P ~C
~ ~u; It.IC rt :)
TPt Ptl PfH •
flOOTlJ l (}[PT•i
(V(.>S.,.Rl B IC"!.
DtCG><l: 0 MlD
O,fF ),C\,\AT CN)
I • l.,.I ·pi." n
,. o· t~TO
lljl'"l,1\ .. ,"\ ... ,
'.:: C,,. "001 L
f,,1 -~ OTH O' 1Pf£ P11 • , TM s J>O.Ol 'L.1. D!.>\M ~ OH\fl "'I b.l Al litlJU L
EOCl {l •P (Sil N01[ )
,)A ~· o·, \\ CliC~'f'R $ c111,,t.T ll
UhOISTl,iF't3• 0 s .. e .R.aDE
(P.f0\.10I s ' ~M ~o rHA1 ~'vLl~ APlA YO ( CtD~ CPA ;s, ~ tOS. (tC. 'TO
"t0l tt I 1' I " ~
REF STD SPEC SEC a.-02
• City of Seattle
REOU( l cou on!tJON \', h· 1RH P001":<.
NOTTO SCALE
DEC IDUOUS TREE PLANTING
IN PLANTI NG STRIP
20 11 Edition City of Seatlfe StaldMI Plans tor Mun lclpal Construction
Figure 38: Standard specification for stree t tree pl anting. Sea t tle Departmen t of Tra nsport atio n, 2011.
6.6.5 I Tree Selection
Street trees should be ca refu lly selected to ensure that the y will be compat ible with their
surrounding s and will min im iz e the potential of future damage to sidewalks . Si n ce appropriate
trees will va ry from location to location, work w ith an arborist horticulture spec ialist, landscape
architect or other qualified p rofessional to help assess the site and conditions t hat apply to the
selection of proper tree spec ies . Below are some points for identifying desirable f eatures :
116
/
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Tree species should be adapted to a site's climate. This includes tolerance of the local
precipitation cycle, extreme winter and summer temperatures, radiant and reflected
heat from nearby structures and surfaces, local soil conditions and types, and natural
winds as well as those created by passing traffic. Because an individual city, and more
commonly a county or state, may span several climatic zones it is important for an
arborist to assist with street tree species selection, planting requirements and lifespan
maintenance requirements. Street tree selection should address the following criteria
for species selection: climate, temperature and water requirements, available height
clearance and growth characteristics, susceptibility to disease or infestation, light
requirements, heat and wind tolerance, environmental pollutants and amount of debris
the tree creates.
• Trees with large amounts of shallow or surface roots should be avoided . While all trees
have a large network of fine roots near the soil surface, trees that have larger surface
roots may cause maintenance issues with nearby sidewalks, streets or parking areas.
Tree selection should be performed by a qualified processional to determine acceptable
and appropriate trees for the conditions due to multiple factors. For example, Acer's
(map le), Ouercus (Oaks), Ulmus (Elm's) and Tilia (Lindens) are typically good
candidates for many of the climatic zones in the U.S., but planting conditions, soil
availability, and the climate can influence the habitat of each tree.
• Trees with large trunk flares should be avoided next to pavement and i n narrow
planting areas. For example, many conifers are not suitable street trees due to low
branches or thick, flared trunks . Large trunks should be avoided near street corners to
preserve sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles .
• Local municipalities should consult a qualified professional to develop a list of
recommended tree species for use in the public right -of-way. The list of recommended
trees should include specifications for each species including minimum planting site
sizes, appropriateness for planting below utility lines and appropriateness for use in
stormwater catchment areas . The City of Seattle provides residents with a list of
recommended street streets. The list includes the physical characteristics of the tree
e.g. fall color, height, compatibility with overhead utilities and planting strip
requirements.
Ma t ure Sp rood Undor Min Strip Fall
Comments Hel1ht Wire>? Widt h Scie nt ific & Co mmon Na me
25 30 Y~s Deep pink flowers on bare r....gs 1n spring -droughl re111stanl
25 25 Yes
20 20 Yes ~~1 '1
Figure 39 : Partial list of approved street trees . Seattle Department of Transportation .
117
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Choose trees that are compatible with overhead utilities if they occur on the same
street . Conflicts can be minimized citywide if the jurisd iction considers placing power
lines underground or running them along alleys. Another option is to only plant trees on
the opposite side of the street from power lines. Many tree species can be pruned to
accommodate power lines . For example, Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane Tree) and
similar trees are generally easy to prune around overhead wires because of their open
canopy and trainab i lity. However, trees such as Populus (Pop lar), Aln us (Alders) and
Betula (Birch) and simil ar species are not recommended under overhead utilities due to
their dense growth habits and poor reaction to pruning, which can be severe in some
cases .
• Although use of a single tree species can provide a strong identity to a corridor or
neighborhood, street tree species should be varied to provide resistance to disease and
insects .
118
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
71 Funding
7.11 METHODS OF FUNDING INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
A variety of sources are available to fund pedestrian facility inspection and maintenance
programs. In general, funding strategies can be split into two categories: programs that are
funded by abutting property owners, and programs funded by community taxes, funds and
fees .
7.1.1 I Community-Paid Repair and Maintenance Programs
Many communities treat pedestrian facilities as a community-wide asset, and fund their repair
and maintenance directly. Typically, these funds come from a municipality's general fund or
transportation fund. A community-paid program eases administrative costs compared to
assessment programs and spreads the costs for pedestrian facility maintenance over the entire
community. The primary concern with community-paid maintenance programs is that funds
must be budgeted for the program. Fees and taxes that are commonly used to fund pedestrian
facility maintenance programs are briefly discussed below.
General Fund
Sidewalk repair and replacement is commonly
paid for through the general fund, which is
typically funded by property and sales tax
revenues. This is consistent with the way street
many agencies consider the funding of street
repairs. Generally, sidewalk maintenance is
considered separately from road repair funding;
in some cases, several sidewalk maintenance
projects (e.g. typically sidewalk replacement)
may be lumped together and included as a line
item in the capital improvement program.
Sidewalk repair and replacement projects often
compete with other projects and funding
obligations. Sidewalk repair and replacement
programs should have the same priority of other
types of street repairs and should not fall victim
to budget cuts or shifting priorities .
119
Communitywide Assessments:
Ann Arbor, Michigan
The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has a
voter-approved sidewalk millage tax that
generates $560,000 or more per year for
sidewalk repair and replacement. The tax
was proposed by city officials as a means
to address significant sidewalk
maintenance that was not being
adequately addressed through the city's
code requirements, which assigns the
responsibility of sidewalk maintenance to
the adjacent property owner. The special
millage was seen as a more equitable and
effective means to address the city's
sidewalk maintenance needs and was
approved by over 60% of voters. As a
result of the 0.125-mill, the average
household pays an additional $13 per
year in local taxes.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Winter maintenance is also commonly funded through the general fund. Typically, cities set
aside a discrete amount for snow and ice removal . The uncertainty of the need for snow and
ice removal each winter, cities may end up with a surplus or may need to pull additional money
from the general fund. Most cities return surpluses back to the general fund or ca r ry the funds
over for the following year.
Improvement Districts
Many communities have downtown or other business district areas that (i.e . Business
Improvement Districts, Community Improvement Districts, Business Improvement Area,
transportation improvement districts, etc.) have assumed responsibility of sidewalk
maintenance, including winter maintenance. These special districts may fund sidewalk
maintenance through their general funds or may assess local property owners for general
sidewalk maintenance as wel l as necessary repairs and replacements.
Homeowners Associations
Homeowner associations are one of the most significant participants in the provision and
maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Homeowners' associations are formal legal entities
created to maintain common areas. These common areas often include sidewa l ks and paths
that are open to the publ ic. Homeowners associations are usually created when a new
development is opened. Their popular ity is increasing especially for condominium and
townhouse developments . In parts of the U.S. many newer single-family subdivisions are
organized around a homeowners associat ion.
Their means of financing activities is similar to improvement districts or business improvement
districts typically through some form of assessment based on valuation. For example,
Columbia Association of Columbia, Maryland assesses an annual fee of 50 cents on $100 of fair
market valuation, but just on 50% of the total valuation of a property. This association offers a
complete set of community services and as part of those services; it provides m a intenance for
93 miles of path and walkways. While other services may require an additional user fee, the
infrastructure for pedestrians is conside r ed a public commodity that is included in the base
assessment paid by all residents and businesses. Other homeowner associat ions provide a
much more limited set of services but it is common for these associations to completely fund
maintenance services for pedestrian facilities if walkways have been included in the
development .
120
l
r
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
State Aid Funds
State-aid funds are aimed at distributing a portion of state fuel ta x es and vehicle license fees
and tax es to local governments for transportation projects. In some cases such funding is only
available for transportation projects within state -aid eligible rights-of-way . In other cases, such
funds are set-aside for communities to draw on for specific transportation purposes such as
safety projects. In yet other cases, such funds are set up as reimbursement programs in which a
portion of costs that local jurisdictions incur in fi x ing sidewalks may be reimbursable by the
state .
The availability of this type of program to local communities varies from state to state and may
not be available for maintenance activities.
Special Communitywide Assessments
Some communities are able to target the funding of pedestrian facilities with voter-approved
levies or special property tax assessments. Not all states have state-level enabling legislation
making such levies or district assessments possible . The levies typically involve asking voters to
approve a temporary fee or ta x that will be dedicated to a specific use such as sidewalk repair .
Benefit assessment districts can be established in some states and used for general sidewalk
maintenance and repair, ADA compliance, pedestrian safety improvements or other specific
programs. The City of Ithaca, NY has just passed legislation creating sidewalk assessment
districts covering most properties in the city. All properties will pay a yearly assessment
(ranging from $70 to $140 annually) to be used toward sidewalk replacement and construction,
including corner curb cuts. The City has discontinued special assessing individual adjacent
property owners for sidewalk repairs, however, homeowners can receive credit for work they
paid for in the past 20 years .
121
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Bonds
Bonds are often used by govern m ents to address
significant fun d ing gaps by le veraging ex isting
revenues to pay for large capital ex penditures .
Communities i n some states use bonding to fund
sidewalk repair or replacement programs, usually
for an entire ne ighborhood or large section of the
community. These bonds often have to be
approved by res idents through a referendum.
Utility Fees
Utility Fees
Corvallis, Oregon
Cheney, Washington
Corvallis, Oregon, includes a sidewalk
maintenance fee as part of residents'
monthly City Services bill, which also
includes water and sewer charges . The
$0 .80 monthly fee was dete rmined by
taking the average yearly co st to repair
defective sidewalks ($150,000) divided
by the number of utility customers
divided by 12 . Prior to the i m position of
the utility fee, property owners paid for
repairs to sidewalks in the public right-
of-way along their property. Now, the
City will use the money raised by the fee
to pay for repairs to defects on public
sidewalks.
Cheney, Washington, uses a voter-
approved tax on electrical and natural
Utility fees are used by some municipalities to
fund street and sidewalk ma i ntenance. Often
such fees are voter-approved . Typically the utility
fee an individual household pays is relatively
small, but the steady funding source enables
municipalities to plan and ex ecute maintenance
activities in a systematic way. Utility fees may be
specific line items, such as a sidewalk
maintenance f ee collected d i rectly by the
munic i pality, or may be a ta x on electric or
natural gas servi ce collected by the utility.
gas services to fund main t enance of
Sales Tax residential streets and sidewalks. The
Many commu ni ties indirectly use sales tax 4% electric and natural gas tax
revenues to fu nd pedestrian facility maintenance generates roughly $380,000 annually .
by way of the general fund . Additionally, many This dedicated funding paid for the
states allow local municipalities or counties to repair of nearly 18 miles of existing
impose a small local sales ta x that could be residential streets and nearly 6 miles of
earmarked for pedestrian facility maintenance . existing residential sidewalks
Sales ta x revenue, direct or indirect, is a common throughout the city over 14 y ears .
source of fund i ng for street ma i ntenance and there are commun it ies that use th ese revenues
to also fund sidewalk repair and replacement programs.
The availability of this program to local communities is typically covered by st ate law and
varies from sta t e to state.
122
' ,
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Gas Tax
State gas tax revenues are a common component of sidewalk maintenance funding . Though
not common, some states give local governments authority to levy local fuel ta xes, typically in
the range of one to three cents per gallon, to pay for roadway improvements including
sidewalks. More commonly, many states share a portion of state-generated gas tax revenues
with local communities to fund street improvements, often through state aid programs as
described above. The availability of this program to local communities is typically covered by
state law and varies from state to state.
Vehicle License, Wheel tax, and Parking Fees
Funding pedestrian facility maintenance using revenues from vehicle license fees or parking
fees is not common based on information gathered from agency discussions. Seattle was the
only community that explicitly mentioned using vehicle license fees to partially fund its ADA
program, which includes replacing curb ramps . The state of Arizona's Highway User Revenue
Fund, a portion of which is distributed among the state's cities and counties, receives funding
from vehicle license fees. Some states, such as Wisconsin allow for the collection of a wheel ta x
at the time of vehicle registration with the stipulation that that ta x revenue be used for
"transportation" purposes .
Enforcement Camera Revenues
Funding pedestrian facility maintenance using revenues from red light or speed cameras is not
common based on information gathered from agency discussions. Fort Worth, Te x as was the
only community that ex plicitly mentioned red light cameras as a funding source for its
pedest ri an maintenance activities . Seventy-five percent of this revenue goes towards new
sidewal k construction and 25% goes towards repairing ex isting sidewalks. However, red-light
and speed cameras are becoming a more common enforcement method and more
communities may choose to dedicate some of the revenue to sidewalk repair. Montgomery
County, MD uses some red -l ight and/or speed enforcement revenue to fund pedestrian safety
programs which are not directed at regular sidewalk maintenance, but has been used for
facility safety improvements especially around schools.
Federal Funds
Federal transportation funds are a common source for financing pedestrian facility
construction and maintenance. Such funding may be used to supplement other available
financial resources, and typically is used for targeted projects such as replacing large segments
of sidewalks, installing ADA -compliant curb ramps, and installing and upgrading pedestrian
signals. Common federal grant funding sources used for pedestrian facilities by communities
include Community Development Block Grants and Safe Routes to School and Transportation
123
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Enhancement grants (the last two programs have been comb i ned into the Transportation
Alternatives program and discussed in more detail below). A comprehensive fede r al website is
www.grants.gov .
One of the mo r e common programs to correct ADA and Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973) deficiencies is the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). Funds apportioned
under the program to a State per MAP -21, may be used to correct deficienc ies that may also
address maintenance problems for facilities in the public -rights -of-way (e .g ., sidewalks and
curb ramps). These may be identified in the State's or local government's ADA/Section 504
transition plan . The Transportat ion Alternatives Program (TAP), authorized under Section 1122
of MAP -21 (23 U.S.C. § 213), provides funding for projects or activities, including:
transportation alternatives, as defined at 23 U.S.C. § 10 1(a)(29); the recreational trails program
under 23 U.S.C. § 206; the safe routes to school program under section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU;
and the planning, design or construction of boulevards and othe r roadways largely in the right-
of-way of former Interstate System routes
Tax Incremental Financing {TIF)
Some comm u nities use ta x incremental financing (TIF) as a means to address pedestrian
facility maintenance needs i n commercial areas undergoing extensive de velopment or
redevelopment. TIF is a method to use future ex pected gains i n taxes to subsidize current
improvements. TIF districts operate in most states and are typically targeted toward mak i ng
improvements i n distressed, underdeveloped or underused parts of a jurisdiction to encourage
new development .
Piggy-Back Funding
One of the best ways to ma i ntain sidewalks is to piggy-back sidewalk repair/replacement
projects with other improvements within the public right-of-way. For example, a municipality
may require utilities to install or replace sidewalk segments w ithin a certain distance of a
project that i nvolves digging up the right of way. The cost of replacing sidewalks can also be
folded into large projects such as utility line replacements and street resurfacing. Also,
accessibility-related improvements could also target sidewalks, curb ramps, and paths most in
need of repai r .
124
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
7.1.2 I Property Owner Assessment for Repair
Assessment programs assess abutting property owners for the costs of ma i ntaining o r
replacing pedestrian facilities. Property owners may be held responsible for the full cost of the
maintenance or the jurisdiction may pay pa rt of cost. The jurisdiction's portion may be raised
through any of the alternatives highlighted in section 6 .1.1. Popularity of this funding tool
varies from state to state . This is a common means of financing sidewalk replacements in some
states, but is nearly non-existent in other states.
The primary benefit of an assessment program is that it allows a community to directly recover
costs for pedestrian facility maintenance as maintenance is performed . Assessments also allow
property owners to see and directly benefit from payments that they are making to the
mun icipalityi general fees or ta x es that may fund transportat ion improvements are not as
visible to those paying the fee or tax . However, a number of concerns arise in systems that
assess abutting property owners forthe costs of pedestrian facility maintenance.
Political Concerns
If a community does not have a history of assessing property owners for pedestrian facility
maintenance, it can be very difficult politically to
begin an assessment program. Typically, elected
officials are loath to impose a new fee on the i r
constituents, particularly one that may only
apply to a select number of people each year . In
communities with an ongoing assessment
program, political considerations may become a
factor in issuing the unpopular assessments, with
a negative impact on sidewalk quality.
Administrative and Timeliness Concerns
An assessment program requires that the
munic i pality have a system in place to assess
property owners for the costs of maintaining
abutt i ng pedestrian facilities . If such a program is
not in place, a community may be hesitant to set
up the administrative structure needed to run
the program . Such programs have ongoing
administrative costs for communities that do use
assessment programs, including time and
expenses for the initial assessment and ongoing
125
Sidewalk Assessments
Madison, Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin, actively assesses
property owners for costs associated
with sidewalk replacement. Typically
assessments for replacement occur
when the adjacent street is being
repaved or reconstructed. Assessments
will also occur for sidewalk replacements
made as part the City's Sidewalk Repair
and Rehabilitation Program.
Under the assessment program,
property owners are responsible for 50%
of the cost of sidewalk replacements .
Property owner assessments fund
approximately one quarter of the City's
million dollar plus sidewalk program.
The remainder of the city's sidewalk
program is funded with general
obligation bond funds.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
costs for asses sment collection . Taking property owners through a long process to ultimately
assess them for sidewalk repairs can significantly delay repairs, prolonging hazardous
conditions.
Equity
Assessing abutting property owners for maintenance and repair of pedestrian faci l ities places a
greater burden on homeowners in lower-income neighborhoods who are less able to pay.
Many older pa rt s of communities are the most affordable and housing is the least expensive
and may be populated by those with lower incomes. However, sidewalks in these areas may
need the most maintenance because they are older. This, coupled with the fact that these
areas may hav e a lower density of cars per household and have more pedestrians that need to
use the sidewalks for their daily trips to work, shopping, etc. contribute significa ntly to a need
for the facilitie s among those who can least afford to maintain and repair it.
Pedestrian fac i lities are part of a community's transportation network, and improvements to
the facilities serve not only the abutting property owner, but the public at large. Maintenance
and repairs of the travel and parking lanes of streets are rarely funded in this manner.
Abutting Property Owner-Paid Repair and Maintenance
In some communities, property owners are directly responsible for maintaining sidewalks, and
city ordinance s mandate that they schedule and pay for repairs on their own . The municipality
has the administrative burden of inspecting the work and enforcing these ordinances, as
discussed in Chapter 4. The drawbacks of this system are the same as those for assessment,
with the add itional concern over the potential for uneven quality in the repair work,
unpredictable schedules for completion, and the potential for a higher cost burd en placed on
homeowners than other systems taking advantage of economies of scale.
7.2 I FUNDING SUMMARY
If a municipality already has a functioning assessment program in place, it is likely that the
program will be the simplest way for the municipality to continue to fund pedestrian facility
repairs and maintenance. However, if a municipality does not have an assessment program, or
if there are concerns about the equity of an assessment program, a shared or community-paid
program may be the best way to fund maintenance and repairs. Municipalities should be
creative in drawing on a variety of funding sources to keep their sidewalks in good repair .
126
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
8 I Conclusion
This guide is one of the first of its type to research pedestrian facility maintenance practices
nationwide and to suggest recommended practices based on that research. Pedestrian
facilities that were selected for this study i nclude sidewalks, paths, curb ramps, crosswalks,
signals, and signs and constitute the primary set of facilities that are used by pedestrians on a
daily basis.
The guide provides a comprehensive set of reasons to support the maintenance of pedestrian
facilities ranging from safety to access to liability. One of the main challenges conducting
research and developing the guide was the variation in pract ices throughout the country.
There is no simple way to ex plain how and to what extent pedestrian facilities are maintained
in the United States because the quality and timing of maintenance, inspection standards,
funding, and even ownership of facilities varies considerably across the country . Pr actices of
over a hundred agencies, including cities, villages, counties, state transportation agencies, and
homeowners associations were studied . The research identified many ex amples where a
municipality or a state agency is the maintaining authority for all aspects of pedestrian
maintenance. However, the research also identified many examples where pedestrian facility
maintenance becomes the responsibility of adjacent property ownersi this shift changes the
dynam ic of pedestrian facility maintenance and causes the need for enforcement processes to
be put in place to ensure consistent and timely maintenance .
The most variation in maintenance practices occurred between states. Several state
transportation departments (Alaska and Florida) and many communities assumed total control
of sidewalks and paths including winter maintenance . On the other end of the spectrum, many
agencies simply considered sidewalks as strictly a property owner responsibility and provided
little or no maintenance. A significant percentage of agencies simply relied on reported
mishaps or serious problems before they addressed maintenance of sidewalks .
Maintenance of pedestrian facilities is split into two broad categories: day-to-day maintenance
(sweeping, vegetation removal, and snow/ice removal, etc.) and structural maintenance
requir in g repair work (patching, wedging, minor sidewalk replacement, etc.). As sidewalk
replacement increases in scope and scale, the activity moves beyond the common definition of
maintenance. There are a number of deformation forces which impact the condition of
sidewalks and paths. These forces cause cracking, heaving, or sinking of pavements which will
ultimately affect the surface quality, and in many cases, present immediate hazards to
pedestr ians. Inspection is one of the most important aspects of a maintenance program and
perhaps the one element that has changed the most in the past 10 years with improved
technology, methods and changes in inspection criteria.
127
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Maintenance projects do not automatically trigger the need bring the pedestrian facility up to
current ADA standards . However, maintenance activities provide opportunities to comply with
ADA and should be used to make facilities as accessible as possible. The guide supports the use
of the ADA cr iteria as the best source of standards related to cross-slope, running grade,
displacements, and other measurers. The guide also acknowledges that not every
maintenance repair can comply with every ADA standard .
There are common forms of maintenance repair for sidewalks and paths. Each repair has an
appropriate use and a typical lifespan. Sidewalks and paths are the focus of much of this guide
because they represent the vast majority of the pedestrian system. However, curb ramps have
the same set of maintenance issues as sidewalks and paths plus additional maintenance
considerations related to the detectable warning fields (truncated domes). The maintenance of
markings is also important and is the major maintenance need for crosswalks . The type of
marking mate r ial -paint, epoxy, thermoplastic, tape -used will be a major factor in how often
the marking will have to be maintained to achieve an acceptable level of conspicuity .
The types of funding used for maintenance facilities have broadened somewhat in the past 20
years. However, in simple terms, the maintenance of pedestrian facilities is covered by a
community's or agency's general fund, through special assessments, or directly by adjacent
property owners when they provide maintenance themselves -especially for day to day
maintenance such as snow and ice removal. State and federal funds rarely cover maintenance
costs. The research for this guide has uncovered several new and innovative methods to pay
for maintenance. Many agencies are requiring adjacent property owners to pay for repairs of
sidewalks, particularly the replacement of sidewalk sections and the day -to -day maintenance
of sidewalks and curb ramps . Although this is often an effective way of providing safer and
more accessible facilities, there are legitimate concerns about the equity of these
arrangements. In many communities streets are maintained by various maintaining agencies,
but sidewalks that fall within the same right -of-way become the responsibility of adjacent
property owners . Shifting to a system where all sidewalk repairs -especially sidewalk
replacements -are totally funded by the maintaining agency responsible for the street will be
a funding challenge, but communities have succeeded at making this switch .
The best approach to reducing the cost of maintaining pedestrian facilit ies is to build
pedestrian facilities with maintenance in mind. Sidewalks and paths with a suitable base
course and pavement thickness will last longer than those that are not well constructed .
Concrete surfaces that have been properly finished with a very slight cross-slope will provide
slip resistance and shed water (which can become ice). The placement and selection of the
128
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
type of street trees will have a profound effect on how the trees' root systems will impact
sidewalks and paths and require maintenance.
There are many pedestrian facility maintenance topics that need be further studied. State and
local laws and ordinances have a considerable effect on how agencies treat sidewalk
maintenance. The research conducted for this guide uncovered the labyrinth of laws and
practices for a number of states, but did not provide a state-by-state comparison or an
assessment of how those laws were being put in practice. Another topic for continued study
involves keeping abreast of new technologies that will continue to improve the efficiency and
accuracy of inspections. Finally, an entire mini-guide could be written on how street trees
impact sidewalks and how sidewalk replacement can be handled to increase the survivability of
trees .
Communities must continue to make their pedestrian systems safer, more accessible and well-
maintained. These three goals are inextricably linked as discussed and presented as
recommendations in this guide. Simultaneously, many of the recommendations in this guide
will lead to improved efficiencies and often cost savings for communities and agencies charged
with maintenance.
129
l
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix A: Model Sidewalk Inspection Policy
League of Minnesota Cities
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
LMCIT MODEL SIDEWALK INSPECTION POLICY
Introduction
The city of _______ , Minnesota has_ miles of pub li c sidewalks. Public sidewalks
vary in age and in quality of condition. Not every mere inequality or irregularity i n the surface
of the sidewal k rises to the level of a defect . The city recognizes that some sidewalk conditions
cr eate unreasonable hazards for pedestrians and other sidewalk users.
The city has l imited employee and financial resources and cannot reasonab ly replace all
sidewalks need i ng replacement or repair in the same year the sidewalk is identifi ed as needing
replacement and repair . Side w alk replacement and repair can be costly . Comprehensive
sidewalk surveys are ex pensive and require the use of lim ited city personnel and other
resources. Under appropriate ci rcumstances, some or all of the cost of sidewal k replacement
may be passed to the adjacent property owner.
Accordingly, the city and its Pu blic Works Department must ex ercise both d iscretion and
professional judgment in determining whether and when sidewalks need to be replaced or
repaired . The city ex pects that its agents, employees, and city officials will ex ercise discretion
in identifying conditions requir i ng replacement and repair, in the scheduling of replacement
and repair and i n establishing priorities for replacement and repair.
Sidewalk inspection procedures
The (Street Superintendent/Director of Publ ic Works/City Eng i neer) shall
establish procedures for regula r sidewalk inspection . Those procedures will includ e:
• An initial city wide sidewalk survey to be completed by _____ (date)
• A schedule for routine sidewalk inspections on a regular basis
• Criteria for determining whether a particular side w alk condition i s i n need of
replacement or repair . T hose criteria will include, but not necessarily be l i mited to, a
deviat ion or difference in eleva t ion greater than (1/21 %, 1) inch, as
determ i ned at the t i me of i nspection .
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Sidewalk replacement and repair policy
Upon completion of the initial sidewalk survey, the (Street
Super i ntendent/Director of Public Works/City Engineer) shall establish a replacement and
repair schedule. This schedule is subject to modification based both on sidewalk conditions and
the availability of resources for sidewalk replacement and repair.
The sidewalk replacement and repair schedule will:
• Divide the city into sections or otherwise prioritize replacement of the sidewalks
identified as needing replacement or repair so all sidewalks identified in the initial
sidewalk survey as needing replacement or repair are replaced or repaired by
_____ (date).
• Take into consideration and weigh the following factors:
• Sidewalk location and amount of pedestrian traffic
• Proximity of sidewalk identified as needing replacement or repair to other sidewalks
also needing replacement or repair
• The nature and severity of the condition needing replacement or repair
• The city's budget for replacement or repair of sidewalks
• Whether, or to what extent, the cost of repair can be recovered from adjacent
property owners
• Availability of employees, equipment, and other resources for sidewalk
replacement or repair
• Public safety
• History of prior accidents or complaints
• Schedules of independent contractors and work necessary to prepare bids and bid
specifications if work is to be performed by independent contractors
Sidewalk maintenance policy
City employees will be responsible for removing snow from sidewalks that abut city -owned
buildings or parking lots . Adjacent property owners, including other public entities, are
responsible for removing snow and ice from sidewalks that abut their property (see City
Ordinance No . __ ). The city may, as a public service and for reasons of public safety,
remove snow and ice from sidewalks . The (Street Superintendent/ Director
of Public Works/City Engineer) will identify sidewalks from which the city will remove ice and
snow .
131
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Review and modification of policy
The City Cou ncil may modify or clarify this policy at any time . Where the ci t y council has
delegated responsibility or authority to any city employee or official for development or
implementation of any port ion of this po licy, that employee or official shall have full authority
to modify that portion of the policy at any time.
Review of policy
The _______ (Street Superintendent/Director of Public Works/City Engineer) will
keep on file comments and complaints received regarding this policy. The policy will be
reviewed per iodically . Any rev iew will consider comments and complaints since the last review
and any othe r factors affecting the policy or its implementation .
Effective date of policy
This policy shall be effective as of _____ (date). Mod ifications of the policy shall be
effective on the date said mod ifications are approved by city council resolution or the date city
employee or official (with authority granted by the city council) has approved the policy
modification or change.
132
I
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix B: Protruding Objects Summary Sheet
Protruding objects -From Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access -Part II of II: Best
Practices Design Guide. Section 4.1.3
Objects that protrude into the sidewalk corr i dor but are higher than 2.03 m (80 in) are not a
problem for people with vision impairments because most pedestr ians require less than 2.03 m
(80 in) of headroom. In addition, people with vision impairments who use long white canes to
navigate (if they are of adult stature and using their canes skillfully) will usually detect and
avo id objects on the sidewalk that extend below 685 mm (27 in). However, obstacles that
protrude into the sidewalk between 685 mm (27 in) and 2.03 m (80 in) and do not extend to the
ground, are more difficult to avoid because the long white cane is unlikely to contact the object
before the person contacts the object. Guide dogs take their owners around obstacles.
I I
2 000 111
\!llinl r--
J
""" 112 I
POTENTIAL PROBLEM: This pedestrian who is blind is
approaching the telephone kiosk from the side. When
obstacles mounted on posts can be approached from
the side they should not protrude more than 101mm (4
in). This pedestrian does not detect the obstacle, which
could cause him to collide with the obstacle.
This pedestrian who is blind is able to avoid colliding
with this telephone kiosk because he detects the pole
with a cane before coming in contact with the phone .
Pole mounted objects that can only be approached
from the front should not protrude more than 305 mm
(12 in ) i nto the sidewalk corridor .
133
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Pedestrians with vision impairments often travel close to the building line. According to the
Americans wit h Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) Section 4.4, if an object is
mounted on a wall or the side of a building, it should not protrude more than 101 mm (4 in) into
the sidewalk corridor (ADAAG 4 .4, U.S. Access Board, 1991). If an object is moun t ed on a post
that can only be approached from the front, it can protrude up to 305 mm (12 in ) because the
angle of the long white cane allows a pedestrian who is blind to identify the post before
bumping into the protruding object. However, if the post-mounted object can be approached
from the side, it should protrude no more than 101 mm (4 in) into the sidewalk corridor . Signs
mounted on two posts should have a crossbar at 305 mm (12 in) above the walki ng surface so
that a pedestrian using a long white cane can readily detect the sign. Stop signs mounted on a
single post should be no lower than 2.03 m (80 in) or be placed outside of the paved portion of
the sidewalk corridor (e.g ., in a planting strip).
The least possible amount of protrusion should be used in each situation . Furthermore,
because pedestrians with vision impairments do not always travel in the pedestrian zone,
protruding objects should be eliminated from the entire paved portion of the sidewalk corridor .
Protruding objects do not need to be eliminated from the planter/furn iture zone if it is
separated from the sidewalk with a planting strip or other type of setback.
This pedestrian, who is blind, is walking down
a sidewalk that contains a number of
obstacles that are difficult to detect using a
long white cane, because they protrude into
the path of travel between 685 mm (27 in) up
from ground level and below 2.03 m (80 in) in
height.
134
----iii -~ -~ ---~
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix C: City of St. Michael Sidewalk and Trail
Inspection and Maintenance Policy
1. Introduction
The city of St . Michael has many miles of public sidewalks and trails . Public sidewalks and trails
may vary in age and in quality of condition . Not every mere inequality or irregularity in the
surface of the way rises to the level of a defect. The city recognizes that some sidewalk and
trail conditions can create unreasonable hazards for pedestrians and other sidewalk and trail
users.
The city does not have unlimited employee or financial resources and cannot reasonably
replace all sidewalks or trails needing replacement or repair within the same year the sidewalk or
trail is identified as needing replacement and repair. Sidewalk and trail replacement and repair
can be costly. Comprehensive sidewalk and trail surveys are expensive and require the use of
limited city personnel and other resources . Under appropriate circumstances, some or all of the
cost of sidewa lk or trail replacement may be passed to the adjacent property owner.
Accordingly, the city and its Public Works Department must exercise both discretion and
professional judgment in determining whether and when sidewalks and trails need to be
replaced or repaired. The city ex pects that its agents, employees, and city officials will
exercise discretion in identifying conditions requiring replacement and repair, in the scheduling
of replacement and repair, and in establishing priorities for replacement and repair.
2. Sidewalk and trail inspection procedures and repair policy
The City of St. Michael sidewalks and trails shall be divided into four inspection districts split
into quadrants by County Road (CR) 19 (running north-south) and TH 241/CR 35/CR 36 (running
east-west). The City Engineering Department shall inspect one of the four sidewalks and trails
districts each year beginning in 2005 with the NW quadrant and working clockwise along the
quadrants so that every sidewalk or trail in St. Michael will be inspected at least once every four
years .
The sidewalk or trail inspector shall mark and record on a list any deviation or difference in
elevation greater than one-half inch, as determined at the time of inspection. Such list will
then be given to the Public Works Supervisor who will determine the extent, prioriti zation, and
schedule of the potential repair and rep lacement. This schedule is subject to modification
based both on sidewa lk conditions and the availability of resources for sidewalk replacement
and repair. The sidewalk replacement and repair schedule will take into consideration and
weigh the following factors :
135
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Sidewalk or trail location and amount of pedestrian traffic
• Proximity of sidewalk or trail identified as needing replacement or repair to other
sidewalks or trails also needing replacement or repair
• The nature and severity of the condition needing replacement or repair
• The city's budget for replacement or repair of sidewalks or trails
• Whether or to what extent the cost of repair can be recovered from other sources
(adjacent property owners, builders, contractors, or developers)
• Availability of employees, equipment, and other r esources for sidewalk or trail
replacement or repa ir.
• Publi c safety
• History of prior accidents or complaints
• Schedules of independent contractors and work necessary to prepare bids and bid
spec ifications if work is to be performed by independent contractors
4. Sidewalk and trail maintenance policy
City employees and/or private contractors will be respons i ble for removing snow from
sidewalks and trails that abut or are located within city-owned streets, buildings, or park i ng
lots . Adjacent property owners, including other public entities, are responsibl e for removing
snow and ice from sidewalks and trails that abut or are located w ithin their property. The city
may, as a publ ic service and for reasons of public safety, remove snow and ice from sidewalks and
trails . The Public Works Supe rvisor will identify sidewalks and trails from whi c h the city will
remove ice and snow and the prioritization for snow and ice removal subject to t he Public Works
Supervisors discretion. The city will remove ice and snow those sidewalks and trails first that
are high pedestrian volume and higher traffic routes that connect major sections of the city . The
second priority sidewalks and trails are those providing access to schools and commercial
businesses. The third priority sidewalks and trails are along low volume residen t ial streets and
along park areas .
5. Review and modification of policy
The city council may modify or clarify this policy at any time . Where the city council has
delegated responsibility or authority to any city employee or official for development or
implementation of any portion of this policy, that employee o r official shall have full
December 28, 2004 City of St . Michael Sidewalk Inspection Pol icy
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix D: Risk Management Information
LEAGUE O F
M INNESOTA
C ITI ES
CONNECTING & I NNOVAT I N G
INCE 19 1 3
Sidewalk Inspection and Maintenance Policies: They Are All They're Cracked Up to Be
Cities should develop and adopt sidewalk inspection and maintenance policies if such policies
do not already ex ist. Sidewalk inspection and maintenance policies serve many useful purposes
includ i ng providing guidelines to city employees, conveying information to city residents, and
preventing and/or minimizing lawsuits and ex posure .
There are five common misconceptions and myths about sidewalk inspection and maintenance
policies.
1 . The city has no sidewalk maintenance policy .
2. A good written sidewalk maintenance policy need only say, "The city regularly inspects
and maintains its sidewalks, and responds to resident complaints."
3. If a city doesn't have any money, it doesn't need to do anything about sidewalk
maintenance or worry about the Americans with Disabilities Act or other similar federal
or state laws.
4 . If a person falls on a sidewalk and city employees determine the sidewalk where the
person fell is defective, city employees shouldn't fi x the defect because it will look bad if
the injured person sues.
5. Documenting problems with sidewalks, including accidents, can come back to hurt the
city .
This memo addresses these misconceptions and myths, highlighting how to avoid common
pitfalls and how to develop effective sidewalk inspection and maintenance policies .
No Sidewalk Maintenance Policy
If your city regularly inspects and maintains sidewalks, most likely it has a policy for sidewalk
maintenance. However, this policy may be unwritten. Most likely, your city has a sidewalk
maintenance policy if city employees:
137
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Periodically inspect and/or rate all city sidewalk segments.
• Prioritize what city side w alks to repair and/or replace .
• Decide whether to repa i r and/or replace a sidewalk ba sed on certain criteria (i .e.
difference of height between two sl abs of concrete of one inch or more).
• Respond to resident complaints and concerns.
• Inspect sidewalks when performing other work, such as t ri mming trees or inspecting
streets .
• Balance sidewalk maintenance duties with other public wor ks functions .
While an unwritten policy is better than no policy, a written pol icy is better than an unwritten
policy . A written policy serves to :
• Guide the city's inspec t ion and maintenance efforts by providing guidance and
direction for city employees, providing i nformation for responding to citi zen concerns,
and serv i ng as a tool for long -term planning and budgeting.
• Preserve the "statutory/discretionary immunity" record . Under Minn . Stat . § 466.03,
subd . 6, a city is immune from liability for discretionary policy -level deci si ons that are
based on a balancing of political, social, and econom ic factors. In other words, a
claimant cannot recover where she/he alleges negligent maintenance if the city
balanced social, econom ic, and pol itical factors in formulating its sidewalk maintenance
policy. In maintaining sidewalks, a city typically balances political (cost of and
resista n ce to assessment), social (public safety, desire to provide safe sidewalks to
residents, desire to encourage downtown shopping), and economic (limited number of
employees, limited budget for sidewalk maintenance, cost of repair/replacement)
factors .
• Minimize the city's liabil ity ex posure in lawsuits . Even if a city is not entitled to an
immunity defense (whic h provides immunity from suit, not just liability), if a city
establishes and follows a sidewalk maintenance policy, the city can prove that it
ex ercised reasonable care in the maintenance of its sidewalks .
• Communicate to the public. Specifically, a written policy (1) informs pro perty owners
about how the city treats sidewalks; (2) helps ta x payers understand t he economic
implica t ions of sidewalk i nspection and maintenance; (3) allows the public to comment
on and seek modification of the policy; and (4) may assist in decreasing the likelihood of
lawsuits resulting from claims resulting from minor, non-defective sidew a lk deviations
or conditions.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
A Good Written Sidewalk Maintenance Policy Needs No Detail
The ideal written sidewalk inspection and maintenance policy contains several critical
components, including (1) identification of defective conditions; (2) development of an
inspection procedure and schedule; (3) prioritization of replacement and repair; (4)
development of cost recovery mechanisms; and (5) response to resident complaints and
concerns.
Identification of Defective Conditions
A city should identify defective conditions on its sidewalks by:
• Conducting an initial survey. Typically, the city should conduct an initial survey to
inspect and evaluate all its sidewalks and document its findings.
• Conducting follow -up surveys. After the initial survey, the city should periodically
conduct follow-up surveys and document its findings. The frequency of follow-up
surveys may depend on the availability of city employees and the city's budget. The
frequency of follow-up surveys can also vary for residential and downtown areas.
• Establishing criteria for defective sidewalks . The city should establish criteria for
defective sidewalk by considering the location of the sidewalk, the amount of
pedestrian traffic, the city resources for repair or replacement, the appropriateness and
effectiveness of a temporary repair, and the wishes of the city council. The city must
also define when a sidewalk is defective and requires repair or replacement considering
deviations in elevations, missing sections, holes, spalling, and other conditions. The city
should determine who is responsible for determining that a city sidewalk needs repair
or replacement .
Development of an Inspection Procedure & Schedule
A city should establish a sidewalk inspection procedure and schedule. In formulating an
inspection procedure and schedule, the city should consider:
• Conducting an initial survey if the city has not conducted a survey in the past five years.
• Whether city employees will survey the whole city at once or survey the city area by
area .
139
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
• Frequency of sidewalk re-inspecting, considering the location of the sidewalk, the
amou nt of pedestrian traffic, and available city resources.
• City employees' informal inspections when performing other work. A city needs to
determine how a city employee can report a sidewalk problem even if she/he is not
formally inspecting the sidewalk and the city's response to such reports.
Prioritization of Repair and Replacement
A city should prioritize sidewalk repair and replacement by:
• Establ ishing priority criteria, considering location of sidewalk, amount of pedestrian
traffic, overall condition of sidewalks in the area, cost versus effect, and resident
complaints.
• Establ ishing a repair and replacement schedule. The schedule should be realistic, within
budget, and take into consideration the resources needed, the length of the
construction season, and the amount of work to be done . The schedule should indicate
whether sidewalks are to be replaced area by area and whether they are to be replaced
based on severity of condition regardless of location.
• Establishing a mechanism for modifying the repair and replacement schedule,
consi d ering budget, time, resource limitations, and changed priorities.
• Determining whether city employees or contractors will perform the repair and
replacement work .
• Providing information to property owners, including work schedule and contact
information for complaints and concerns.
Development of Cost-Recovery Mechanisms
A city can pay for sidewalk repairs and replacements or assess the costs to benefited property
owners. If a city decides to assess the cost of sidewalk repair or replaceme nt to benefited
property owners, it needs to formulate clear policies and procedures for assessing costs to
property owners. A city can follow various procedures including (1) notifying property owners
that they need to repair/replace sidewalk by a specified date or the city will perform the work
and assess the property owne r; or (2) providing that city employees perform the work in all
cases and assess the property owner.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Response to Resident Complaints and Concerns
A city's sidewalk inspection and maintenance policy should contain a component for
responding to r esident complaints and concerns. A city should consider taking the following
actions in responding to complaints :
• Complete an accident/incident report.
• Inspect the sidewalk after the accident or complaint and document the inspection . A
city should describe the condition of the sidewal k before repair, take photographs, take
measurements, and compare the post-accident sidewalk condition with the condition
at the last inspection .
• Determine if post -accident sidewalk condition constitutes a defective condition or
warrants repair or replacement under the city's pol icy.
• Determine whether to repair, replace, take temporary action, or do nothing . If the city
decides to do nothing, the city should state its reasons for doing nothing.
• Commun icate with the injured party. The city can acknowledge the accident, but
should not admit fault or liability. The city should inform the injured party what the city
has done i n the past (inspection and maintenance policy) and what it will do in the
future in response to his/her compla i nt. Before undertaking repair, the city should
consult its city attorney and/or the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and
notify in writing the injured person (or his/her attorney).
Adoption of the Policy
After the city or city employees formulate a sidewalk inspection and maintenance policy (1) the
city council should adopt the policy via a resolution; and (2) city employees should follow the
pol icy.
Limited Resources & Federal and State Laws {Americans with Disabilities Act)
If a city has limited resources, the city cannot simply ignore sidewalk maintenance. Instead, the
city needs to formulate a policy that effectively utilizes the resources it does possess. For
instance, if budget issues require that the city trim its sidewalk budget, the city should alter its
inspection
and maintenance schedule accordingly; it should not completely eliminate the schedule .
Moreover, the city should document its decision. For instance, the city should show that it
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
balanced social, political, and economic factors in formulating or modifying its sidewalk
inspection and maintenance policy.
Nor can a city avoid compliance with state and federal accessibility laws on the sole grounds
that it possesses limited funds . Instead, the city must prioritize sidewalk projects and other
public works projects to ensure compliance with state and federal accessibility laws. Moreover,
because state
and federal accessibility laws frequently change (because of amendments or cou rt decisions), a
city should consult with its city attorney to ensure compliance.
Fixing Defects
This myth contains some truth. City employees should not repair a sidewalk where an
individual fell until the city consults with its city attorney and/or the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust . Typically, it is a good practice to allow time for the city's agents and
representatives to invest iga te the incident and take photographs of the sidewalk in question .
However, assuming that the city's agents have already conducted an investigation, if a city
determines that a sidewalk where an individual fell is defective, the city need not wait until the
end of litigation to repair the defect for fear the claimant will use the information against the
city. In general, the Rules of Evidence prohibit a claimant from introd ucing evidence that a city
repaired a sidewalk to prove that the city was negligent in not repairing the sidewalk
beforehand . Minn . R. Evid. 407.
Documentation
It is very helpful if a city documents its sidewalk inspection and maintenance policy and
sidewalk problems . In the even t of a lawsuit, the city's attorneys can use these documents to
prove the existence of city polic ies and the city's adherence to the policies . They can also show
that the city ex ercised reasonable care in inspecting and maintaining its sidewalks . Sometimes,
individuals believe that if they do not document policies or problems, there will be no paper
trail to hurt them later on . However, what they fail to understand is that judges and juries can
draw negative inferences from a lack of documentation. Documentation shows that a city
deliberately and conscientiously made decisions.
Jana O'Leary Sullivan 1/09
Revised: 04/10
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix E: Eau Claire, Wisconsin Sidewalk Ordinance
City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin Ordinances -Sidewalk and Sidewalk Maintenance
Sections:
Chapter 13.04
CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR*
13.04.010 Installation of sidewalks--General.
13.04.020 Deferral of sidewalk construction.
13.04.025 Procedures for deferral of sidewalk construction.
13.04.030 Design and construction of sidewalks.
13.04.010 Installation of sidewalks--General. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the
authority provided in Wis. Stats. 66.615(7). Subject to other provisions of this chapter,
sidewalks shall be constructed as follows:
A. Within new subdivisions, as provided in Section 17 .12.280 of this code. The provisions of s.
13.04 .020, entitled "Deferral of sidewalk construction," and s. 13 .04.025, entitled "Procedures
for deferral of sidewalk construction," shall not apply to this subsection A. for the construction
of sidewalks within new subdivisions.
B. Abutting any lot described on a certified survey map under Wis. Stats. s. 236 .34, or any other
unplatted lot, at the time when the main building on the lot is initially constructed or when it is
entirely reconstructed or replaced. Prior to issuance of a building permit for such construction,
reconstruction or replacement, the property owner shall execute and file with the city
Administrator of Inspections and Zoning a written document certifying installation of a public
sidewalk abutting such lot or execute a petition to the city for such installation and the levy of
special assessments in connection therewith and waiving notice and hearing pursuant to Wis .
Stats . s. 66 .60 (18).
C. Along streets lying within one -half mile of a public or private elementary or secondary
school;
D. Along any street or portion of street which is classified by the city council as a collector
street or arterial street under the functional street classification system of the city;
E. Where the i nstallation of a sidewalk will connect previously constructed and existing
sidewalks within the immediate area;
F. When property owners who own over one-half of the frontage along a street file a petition
with the city requesting that sidewalks be installed along such frontage; and
G. At such other locations where the city council determines that one or more of the following
condit ions exist :
143
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safet y
1. Vehicular and pedestrian conflicts present a potential danger to the health and safety
of persons; or
2. The number of smal l children, senior citizens or other persons having special needs
reside on a street and require a sidewalk to assure their safety; or
3. Parks, playgrounds or other locations exist which are attractive to large numbers of
children and are not served by sidewalks thereby resulting in an immediate danger to
the health and safety of such children. (Ord . 6285 §1, 2002; Ord. 4510 §1, 1984).
13.04.020 Deferral of sidewalk construction. Sidewalk shall be constructed in all locations as
outlined in section 13.04 .010, except the city council retains the authority to review any
sidewalk proposal and to designate procedures to defer the construction thereof whenever it is
deemed necessary and desirable. A deferral shall not constitute a permanent waiver of
sidewalk construction, and the city council may review and reconsider the need for
construction at any time. Sidewalk construction may be deferred in the following situations:
A . Where the construction would be along a cemetery, outly i ng industrial property, or in any
other area where little or no pedestrian use is reasonably anticipated;
B. Where the owner of the property adjacent to the street elects to provide an alternative
pedestrian facility which is acceptable and approved;
C. When it is determined that the construction of sidewalk is not feasible or practical due to
topographical or other physical constraints; or
D. When it is found that construction of sidewalk would not serve the public interest, safety or
convenience . (Ord. 4981, 1989; Ord. 4510 §2, 1984).
13.04.025 Procedures for deferral of sidewalk construction. All requests fo r deferral of
sidewalk construction shall be submitted in writing to the department of public works.
Applications for deferral of sidewalk construction shall be processed as follows:
A. The director of public works is authorized to approve the deferral of sidewa l k construction
under the following circumstances :
1. Where the location is on a cul-de-sac or dead-end street of 750 feet or less in length
and no other sidewalk ex ists on the cul-de-sac or dead-end street segment;
2 . Where development is substantially complete in the area and no other sidewalk
exists on the street segment;
144
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
3. Where the location is a remote rural area and no sidewalk exists or is planned to be
constructed in the near future;
4. In locations where the city has programmed or scheduled street construction as part
of the capital improvement program; or
5. Where topography, street grades or physical constraints make the construction
im practical.
B. Decis ions rendered by the director of public works may be appealed by the applicant to the
city council for consideration and determination by the council.
C. All applications for deferral of sidewalk construction for reasons not included in subsection
13 .04.025 A. shall be submitted to the city council for review, consideration and determination .
D . Locations where construction of sidewalk is deferred shall be subject to the following
conditions :
1. A concrete sidewalk section shall be constructed at the time the driveway is
constructed in the location and at an elevation established by the department of public
works which is calculated to accommodate a possible future sidewalk in the location .
2 . The terrace and yard area shall be graded to meet a possible future sidewalk in the
location and elevation established by the department of public works. This subsection
shall not apply where sidewalk construction is not practical for topographic reasons.
(Ord. 4981, 1989).
13.04.030 Design and construction of sidewalks.
A. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with city specifications as established by the
Department of Public Works . Subject to the provisions of subsection B, and unless as
otherwise directed by the Director of Public Works, the width of all sidewalks in residential
areas shall be 5 feet. The sidewalk width in all other areas shall be established by the Director
of Public Works .
B. The design of sidewalks shall be flexible and shall be adapted to suit the particular needs of
the area within which they are constructed . The materials used and designs employed in
connection with sidewalk construction shall be consistent with topography and aesthetics.
Trees shall not be removed in order to construct sidewalks unless their removal is reasonably
necessary in order to accommodate such construction, as determined by the Director of Public
Works . If a boulevard ex ists, as much space as possible shall be retained on it to provide for the
storage of snow . (Ord . 4510 §1, 1984).
145
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
13.16.010 O bstructing--Littering--Vegetation control.
A. No person shall place, deposit or cast or cause to be placed, deposited or cast upon any
street, alley, gutter, sidewalk or public ground within the city any grass clipping s, leaves, ashes,
rubbish, paper, snow or ice or anything or substance whatever which may obstruct any such
street, alley, gutter, sidewalk or public ground, or impede, hinder or endanger travel thereon,
or which shall or may injure or disfigure the same, or tend to the injury o r disfigurement
thereof, or tend to render the same unclean or a nuisance; nor shall any perso n cause or suffer
any motor vehicle or other vehicle, or any box, crate, bale, package, merch an dise or other
thing to stand or be in or upon any such street, alley, sidewalk or public ground longer than
may be actually necessary, under a penalty of up to fifty dollars for each and every offense .
B. No person shall permit any vegetation growing on premises owned or controlled by him to
obstruct or impede, hinder or endanger travel upon any street, sidewalk, or alley under like
penalty. (Ord . 4246 §4, 1982; Ord. 3936 §4, 1978; Ord . 3639, 1976; prior code §5 .0l).
13.20.010 Cleaning of snow and ice required.
A. The owner of every lot or parcel of land shall keep the public sidewalk adjacent to said
premises reasonab ly free and clear from snow and ice and shall clear the sn ow from such
sidewalk within twenty-four hours following a snowfall. Any owner violating the pro-visions of
this section shall be subject t o a forfeiture of not less than five dollars nor more than fifty
dollars for each offense. Upon the failure of an owner to clear any sidewalk as required under
this section, the City shall cause the sidewalk to be so cleared and shall cause the cost thereof
to be levied as a special ta x chargeable to such lot or parcel of land to be collected like other
ta xes upon real estate, as prescribed in Wis. Stats . s. 66.615
B. "Sidewalk " as used in this chapter means any sidewalk, path, walk or way regularly used by
pedestrians along any opened and established street and within the boundari es of such street .
(Ord . 4262, 1982; Ord. 3599 (part), 1976; prior code §5.12).
* For provisions of general municipality law authorizing city councils to requi re sidewalks and
to provide rules for their grade, construction, maintenance and repair, see WSA 66 .615;
for provisions of general charter law regarding street improvement and repair, see WSA
62 .16 .
292 (Eau Claire 6/2002)
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
Appendix F: Des Moines, Iowa Sidewalk Ordinance
City of Des Moines, Iowa Sidewalk Maintenance Ordinance
Sec. 102-42. Maintenance.
(a) The owner of any property abutting a public sidewalk shall maintain the sidewalk in a safe
cond ition, in a state of good repair, and free from defects . The abutting property owner may
be liable for damages caused by failure to maintain the sidewalk .
(b) In the sole discretion of the department director and if funds and personnel are available for
the same, the city inspector may, but is not required to, conduct voluntary inspections of city
sidewalks following receipt of a sidewalk complaint to assure that the owners of property
abutting sidewalks are complying with the maintenance requirements imposed above .
(c)
(1) If, through sidewalk complaint and voluntary inspection or otherwise, it comes to the
attention of a city inspector that an owner of property abutting a sidewalk is not complying
with the maintenance requirements imposed above, then the city inspector may cause to be
served upon the property owner, by certified mail at the property owner's last known address
as shown by the records of the county auditor, notice of the sidewalk defect and of the
requirement to cure said defect and/or reconstruct the defective sidewalk or a portion thereof
with i n 180 days from the date of said notice .
(2) In response to said notice, the property owner may submit a written request to the city
inspector for an 180 day extension of time to cure the sidewalk defect and/or reconstruct the
defective sidewalk, for a total period, as extended, of up to 360 days from the date of the
notice to cure and/or reconstruct .
(3) Said notice, if given, shall also state the nature of any immediate or interim repairs or
precautions required to be undertaken by the property owner following notice but prior to
repair of the sidewalk defect, including but not limited to temporary asphalt wedges,
barricading, and placement of protective devices.
(4) Said notice, if given, shall also state that if the property owner does not make the required
immediate or interim repairs, and/or cure the sidewalk defect and/or reconstruct the sidewalk
within 180 days from the date of the notice or within such extended time as approved by the
city inspector, the city may pursue action against the property owner for civil infraction, and/or
may give notice and take action pursuant to sections 102-83 and 102-84 of this Code, and/or
may pursue any other legally available remedy. Failure of the abutting property owner to
147
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
complete the ma i ntenance within 180 days from the date of the notice or within such extended
time as approved by the city inspector may be punishable as a municipal infraction by a civil
penalty pursuant to section 1 -15 of this Code.
(d) Curing of sidewalk defect and/or sidewalk reconstruction as ordered by this sect ion shall be
undertaken by property owners in accordance with division 2 of this article, except that the
following code sections shall not apply: sections 102-71, 102 -74, 102 -81, 102 -91, 102-92 and
102-93
(e) The department director may, in his or her sole discretion, establish policies and procedures
relating to income-based subsidies, and to reimbursement of part or all of the cos t to repair a
sidewalk defect determined by the city inspector at time of inspection to have been caused by
city activities and/or city trees, for property owners receiving notice of sidewalk defect . Any
subsidies or reimbursements authorized in accordance with such policies shall be subject to
funding availability, as determined by the department director in his or her sole discretion.
(f) In the sole discretion of the department director and if funds and personnel are available for
the same, the public works department, at the request of the city inspector, may, but is not
required to, place barricades or other devices or materials in such places as may serve to
protect the public from sidewalks not in compliance with the maintenance requirements
imposed above . If such protective devices are placed by the department, they shall not be
removed until all sidewalk defects are corrected. Premature removal of the prote ctive devices
may be punishable as a municipal infraction by a civil penalty pursuant to section 1 -15 of this
Code, which penalty shall be available to the city as a remedy in addition to all other legally
available remedies.
(g) The department director shall keep records of all sidewalk complaints received, all
voluntary sidewalk inspections conducted, notices of defects sent, protective devices placed
and sidewalk work done by the city for a period of three years from the date of the action and
shall, to the extent required by open records law, make the same available to all persons who
claim to have been damaged or injured as a result of the failure to maintain a sidewalk by an
abutting property owner.
(h) This section shall not apply to multi-use recreational trails as defined pursuant to section
114-1 of this Code.
(i) Nothing set forth in this section shall be construed so as to prevent or preclude the city, or
the department(s) and department director(s) responsible for enforcement of th is article, from
~u ~de _for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety
taking any emergency action or nuisance abatement act ion, including but not limited to notice
and assessment of costs, as deemed appropriate pursuant to chapter 42 of this Code in the
event that sidewalk defects are determined by the department director to constitute a
nuisance .
Sec.102-43. Definitions-Maintenance of sidewalks.
As used in divisions 1 and 2 of this art icle, the following words have the following meanings :
Defect or defective condition means a public sidewalk has a defect or defective condition when
it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics :
(1) Vertical separations equal to three-fourth inch or morei
(2) Horizontal separations equal to three-fourth inch or morei
(3) Holes or depressions equal to three-fourth inch or morei
(4) Spalling over 50 percent of a single square or panel of sidewalk with one or more
depressions equal to one -half inch or morei
(5) A single square or panel of sidewalk cracked in such a manner that no part thereof has a
piece greater than one square foot, or is cracked in such a manner that it constitutes danger or
potential danger to the publici
(6) A sidewalk with any part thereof missing to the full depth;
(7) A deviation on the staked and constructed grade equal to three-fourth inch or morei
(8) Covered in whole or in part with weeds or other plants, garbage, junk, rubbish, debris, solid
waste, bird or animal droppings or any nuisances, obstructions or hazards which makes or
tends to make pedestrian travel either dangerous or impractical.
City inspector means any city employee designated by the department director to undertake
the city's inspection and notice actions as set forth in divisions 1 and 2 of this article.
Department director means the director of any city department charged with enforcement of
any sect ion of divisions 1 and 2 of this article, or his or her designee . Maintain or maintenance
means the duty to remove and replace a public sidewalk, or a portion of a public sidewalk, all
work to be performed in accordance with established city specifications in effect at the time
the work is commenced, so as to render the sidewalk free from defect .
Property owner or owner means the record holder of legal title, and the contract purchaser, if
there is one of record, and may be referred to as "person" in division 2 of this article.
149
· ·1· · f Enhanced Saf ety A Guide for Maintaining Pedest rian Fac1 1t1es or . --
Sidewalk means the paved portion of that area between the cu rb lines of th e roadw ay and the
adjacent property lines intended for the use of pedestrians.
G:.(} U.S. GOV ER NMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 201 4_385-4
42