A Guide for Maintaining

Pedestrian Facilities 

for Enhanced Safety

October 2013
Guide for

Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities

for Enhanced Safety

October 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration
1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-13-037

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

5. Report Date

October 2013

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Tom Huber, Kevin Luecke, Michael Hintze, Virginia Coffman, Jennifer Toole, Matt 

VanOosten

8. Performing Organization Report 

No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00022

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Guidance

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA-HSA1

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Tamara Redmon (FHWA Office of Safety). The project team gratefully acknowledges the 

input provided by the report and guide’s panel of experts. These panel members are:

• Paula Reeves, Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA

• Sean Harbaugh, Columbia Association, Columbia, MD

• Donna Gardino, Fairbanks MPO, Fairbanks, AK

• Mike O’Meara, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Rapids, WI

• Tom Fischer, City of Tuscon, Arizona

• Arthur Ross, City of Madison, WI

• Mary Anne Koos, Florida DOT-Roadway Design Office, Tallahassee, FL

• Marni Ratzel, City of Boulder, CO.

• Kevin Farrington, City of Plattsburgh, New York 

• Dan Bauer, City of Minneapolis, MN 

• Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria, VA

Melissa Anderson of the U.S. Access Board, Washington D.C. is acknowledged for both her participation on the panel and for her 

tireless assistance and guidance on accessibility issues. FHWA staff members who provided initial and on-going direction include 

Gabe Rousseau, Candace Groudine, Jody McCullough, Brooke Struve, Michelle Noch, Kristie Johnson, Hillary Isebrands, and Peter 

Eun.

Images were provided by Toole Design Group, City of Charlotte, City of Ithaca, and panel members Paula Reeves, Tom Fisher, 

Melissa Anderson, and Sean Harbaugh.

16. Abstract

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 Guide addresses the needs for pedestrian facility maintenance; common 

maintenance issues; inspection, accessibility, and compliance; maintenance measurers; funding; and construction techniques to

reduce future maintenance.

17. Key Words:

pedestrian, facility, maintenance, sidewalk, path, crosswalk, 

signal, funding, repair, concrete, asphalt, safety, 

accessibility, access, patching, curb ramps, ADA, hazard, 

crack, inspection

18. Distribution Statement

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

157

22. Price
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................i

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................iv

1 | Purpose and Background...........................................................................................1

1.1 | Purpose...........................................................................................................................1

1.2 | Audience for Guide ........................................................................................................ 2

1.3 | Types of Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................... 2

1.4 | Overview of Pedestrian Maintenance Programs in the United States.............................3

1.5 | Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 4

2 | The Case for Pedestrian Facility Maintenance .............................................................6

2.1 | Pedestrian Facilities – A Part of the Transportation System .......................................... 6

2.2 | Maintenance is Critical for Safety .................................................................................. 6

2.3 | Maintenance Improves Mobility .................................................................................... 8

2.4 | Maintenance is Critical for People with Mobility Restrictions ........................................ 9

2.5 | Asset Management.......................................................................................................10

2.6 | Liability Management................................................................................................... 11

3 | Common Maintenance Issues................................................................................... 12

3.1 | Surface Types................................................................................................................12

3.1.1 | Concrete ................................................................................................................12

3.1.2 | Asphalt.................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.3 | Brick and Pavers .................................................................................................... 13

3.2 | Common Maintenance Issues .......................................................................................14

3.2.1 | Infrastructure Issues Leading to Increased Maintenance.......................................15

3.2.2 | Seasonal Maintenance ..........................................................................................21

4 | Inspection, Accessibility, Compliance, Plans and Policies........................................... 27

4.1 | Inspection and Accessibility ..........................................................................................27

4.1.1 | Importance of Inspection.......................................................................................27

4.1.2 | Inspection Criteria ................................................................................................ 28

4.1.3 | Inspection and Accessibility.................................................................................. 29

4.1.4 | Using Maintenance to Improve Accessibility.........................................................34

4.1.5 | Inspection Types ................................................................................................... 37

4.1.6 | Documentation of Inspection Results and New Technologies...............................43
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

ii

4.2 | Compliance...................................................................................................................45

4.2.1 | Principles for Compliance......................................................................................45

4.2.2 | Compliance with Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Ordinances ........................ 46

4.2.3 | Compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ........ 48

4.2.4 | Routine Maintenance Supported by Laws and Ordinances.................................. 49

4.2.5 | Types of Enforcement Efforts ...............................................................................50

4.3 | Policies and Ordinances ................................................................................................52

4.4 | Plans.............................................................................................................................53

4.4.1 | Inspection Criteria and Procedures........................................................................54

4.4.2 | Prioritization and Funding.....................................................................................54

4.4.3 | Communication.....................................................................................................55

4.4.4 | Documentation.....................................................................................................56

4.4.5 | Equipment ............................................................................................................56

4.5 | Conclusion ....................................................................................................................57

5 | Maintenance Measures............................................................................................58

5.1 | When is Maintenance Necessary for Sidewalks, Paths, and Curb Ramps? ....................58

5.2 | Maintenance Repair Methods for sidewalks and paths .................................................59

5.2.1 | Patching ................................................................................................................63

5.2.2 | Cracking Repairs ...................................................................................................65

5.2.3 | Wedging................................................................................................................67

5.2.4 | Grinding and Horizontal Cutting .......................................................................... 69

5.2.5 | Mud-jacking, Concrete Raising or Slab-jacking ..................................................... 71

5.2.6 | Sidewalk and Path Replacement........................................................................... 73

5.2.7 | Bricks and Pavers...................................................................................................76

5.2.8 | Repairs to Curb Ramps..........................................................................................78

5.2.9 | New Materials ...................................................................................................... 80

5.3 | Maintenance of Crosswalks...........................................................................................81

5.3.1 | Crosswalk Marking Material ..................................................................................81

5.3.2 | Crosswalk Marking Considerations....................................................................... 84

5.4 | Maintenance of Pedestrian Signals.............................................................................. 86

5.4.1 | Background.......................................................................................................... 86

5.4.2 | Maintenance Recommendations for Pedestrian Signals .......................................87
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

iii

5.5 | Maintenance of Pedestrian Signage ............................................................................ 89

5.6 | Seasonal Maintenance................................................................................................. 90

5.6.1 | Vegetation Removal and Control ......................................................................... 90

5.6.2 | Sweeping ............................................................................................................. 92

5.6.3 | Snow and Ice Removal ..........................................................................................93

6 | Construction Techniques to Lessen Maintenance for Sidewalks and Paths................ 105

6.1 | Subgrade ....................................................................................................................106

6.2 | Pavement Thickness...................................................................................................106

6.2.1 | Concrete..............................................................................................................106

6.2.2 | Asphalt................................................................................................................108

6.3 | Drainage .....................................................................................................................108

6.4 | Control Joints and Scoring Patterns ...........................................................................108

6.5 | Curb Ramps & Detectable Warning Fields ..................................................................109

6.6 | Street Trees................................................................................................................ 110

6.6.1 | Soil Selection ...................................................................................................... 111

6.6.2 | Soil Volume......................................................................................................... 111

6.6.3 | Tree Pits .............................................................................................................. 113

6.6.4 | Tree Placement................................................................................................... 114

6.6.5 | Tree Selection..................................................................................................... 116

7 | Funding................................................................................................................ 119

7.1 | Methods of funding inspection and maintenance programs ....................................... 119

7.1.1 | Community-Paid Repair and Maintenance Programs .......................................... 119

7.1.2 | Property Owner Assessment for Repair...............................................................125

7.2 | Funding Summary.......................................................................................................126

8 | 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
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sidewalks and pedestrian areas should be accessible to all users................................ 9

Figure 2: Concrete is the most widely used material for sidewalks in the United States...........12

Figure 3: Asphalt is commonly used for shared use paths ......................................................... 13

Figure 4: Porous pavers in downtown Denver........................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Rubberized pavers allow for modular installation. .....................................................14

Figure 6: A crumbling surface on a walkway .............................................................................15

Figure 7: Spalling on a sidewalk ................................................................................................16

Figure 8: Cracking of sidewalk sections can lead to accessibility issues ....................................18

Figure 9: Heaved sidewalk ........................................................................................................18

Figure 10: Damaged detectible warning fields..........................................................................19

Figure 11: A street is prepared for the installation of new crosswalk in-laid markings...............20

Figure 12: Mean annual snowfall and days that snow remains on the ground...........................22

Figure 13: Snow and ice should be promptly removed from sidewalks and paths.....................23

Figure 14: Asphalt pushed up against curb ramp ..................................................................... 24

Figure 15: New markings tracked over already ........................................................................ 24

Figure 16: Soil accumulation across a sidewalk.........................................................................25

Figure 17: The maximum extension of this object is limited to 4 inches....................................33

Figure 18: Sidewalk inspection examples and criteria from a Midwestern city..........................36

Figure 19: An accessible detour ............................................................................................... 48

Figure 20: Missing areas of concrete have been marked for repair. ..........................................63

Figure 21: Areas have been temporarily repaired with asphalt patches ....................................63

Figure 22: Cracking can cause trip hazards ...............................................................................65

Figure 23: Wedge has been placed to mitigate the hazard .......................................................67

Figure 24: A small wedge may create a hazard.........................................................................67

Figure 25: A raised sidewalk block has been ground down to provide a smoother transition... 69

Figure 26: An unevenly raised slab can be ground to provide a smoother transition. .............. 69

Figure 27: The mud-jacking process.......................................................................................... 71

Figure 28: These panels were mud-jacked more than 20 years ago.......................................... 71

Figure 29: Damaged pavers have been repaired with asphalt to alleviate a hazard ..................76

Figure 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 marking tape......................... 84

Figure 33: City of Boston fines for non-compliant snow removal ............................................ 101

Figure 34: Five inches of concrete sidewalk ............................................................................ 107

Figure 35: Inadequate shoulders on a path resulting in edge damage.....................................108

Figure 36: Tree size to soil volume relationship ...................................................................... 112

Figure 37: Modular plastic pavers near a tree .......................................................................... 114
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

v

Figure 38: City of Seattle standard specification for street tree planting ................................ 116

Figure 39: City of Seattle partial list of approved street trees ................................................. 117
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

1

1 | 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 | 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 exceptional practices, along with barriers for 

pedestrian facility maintenance: what works and 

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

2

what does not work based on experience from state and local agencies. The guide will provide 

exemplary and effective practices for maintaining pedestrian facilities and infrastructure.

1.2 | 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 include homeowners associations, private land management organizations 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,” 

“municipalities” or “communities” in this document, even though the group may include nongovernmental entities such as homeowners associations.

1.3 | 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., heaving) 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 elongate the maintenance life of pedestrian facilities. All of the sections include 

a discussion of exemplary maintenance practices from around the United States and 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

3

recommendations for maintenance. In some cases, a discussion of a practice or set of practices 

to avoid is provided.

1.4 | 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 jurisdictions 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

4

undertaken in a short timeframe (often 30 to 60 days). In a small percentage of cases, 

communities 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 | CONCLUSION

There is no simple way to explain how and to what extent pedestrian facilities are maintained 

in the U.S. The quality and timing of maintenance, inspection standards, funding, 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 public right-of-way, sidewalks are considered an important part of the pedestrian 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

5

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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

6

2 | The Case for Pedestrian Facility Maintenance

2.1 | PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES – A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Sidewalks, shared use paths and other pedestrian facilities are important components of the 

transportation network. Regardless of the primary means of transportation chosen (auto, bus, 

rail), nearly everyone is a pedestrian at some point in nearly every trip and pedestrian facilities 

serve nearly everyone. Because of this, it is important to provide dependable pedestrian 

facilities that are usable year round by people of all abilities.

Sidewalks are an integral part of the transportation system and should be regarded as such. In 

the same way that the maintenance for a street or roadway is considered, it is also important 

to consider maintenance for any adjoining sidewalk or path. In many states the definition of a 

street or highway is inclusive of everything within the public right-of-way including all of the 

pedestrian facilities contained within that right-of-way. Maintenance of the street or highway 

should automatically cover the maintenance of the pedestrian facilities – sidewalks, curb 

ramps, pedestrian signals, and crosswalk markings.

Pedestrian facilities provide a relatively low cost mobility option that is available to nearly 

everyone if properly designed and maintained. Pedestrian facilities are also relied upon 

disproportionately by a significant segment of the public who cannot drive. Once constructed, 

it is important to maintain pedestrian facilities for varieties of reasons that are detailed below.

2.2 | MAINTENANCE IS CRITICAL FOR SAFETY

There are many safety issues that are directly attributable to poorly maintained pedestrian 

facilities. Improved safety through proper maintenance can be considered in two ways –

reduction of crashes with motorists and the reduction in trips, slips, and falls. 

In 2008, the FHWA Office of Safety produced a list of nine proven safety countermeasures that 

was revised in 2012.

1 These countermeasures have the potential to significantly reduce traffic 

fatalities and injuries. The 2008 list included walkways as a proven countermeasure to improve 

pedestrian safety. The 2012 list includes three measures that are related to pedestrian safety: 

pedestrian hybrid beacons, road diets and medians/pedestrian crossing islands. According to 

the findings of the studies, the presence of a sidewalk or pathway on both sides of the street 

corresponds to approximately an 88 % reduction in “walking along road” pedestrian crashes. 

Providing raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked 

 1

Furst, Tony. Memo to Division Administrators. “Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures.” Federal 

Highway Administration. Jan 12, 2012. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pc_memo.pdf.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

7

crosswalks has demonstrated a 46% reduction in pedestrian crashes. To fully realize the 

potential for crash reductions for these facilities, routine maintenance is critical. Pedestrians 

will walk in roadways to avoid improperly or unmaintained sidewalks or will stand in the middle 

of intersections waiting for traffic to break when crossing islands are not accessible.

Another countermeasure is marked crosswalks. Although this is not specifically promoted as 

part of the nine countermeasures by FHWA, crosswalks are a known and effective 

countermeasure in most urban and suburban environments. Poorly maintained crosswalk 

markings may not provide the visibility necessary to warn 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 pedestrians 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 occasion fatal. The 

seriousness of falls tends to disproportionately impact older adults. 

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, hip fractures, or head traumas. 

Most fractures among older adults are caused by falls. Falls are also the most common cause of 

traumatic brain injuries for older adults. The likelihood for serious injury increases 

exponentially as people age past 65. One of the most common and serious fractures for an 

older 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 examples 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 directly impact a person’s willingness to 

continue to walk within their community. People who have fallen may develop a fear of falling 

that reduces their confidence and causes them to give up walking. Because of the inactivity, 

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 

significant percentage of this population does not drive. Given these obstacles, the simple 

maintenance of pedestrian facilities can have a very positive effect of encouraging walking 

 2 “Falls Among Older Results: An Overview.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. September 20, 2012. 

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

8

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 areas where 

children are walking and playing. It also underscores the need to have sidewalks in place that 

are in walkable condition. Using Safe Routes to School programs provide an excellent means of 

developing walking audits that identify hazards or otherwise poorly maintained pedestrian 

facilities.

2.3 | MAINTENANCE IMPROVES MOBILITY

Access and mobility are inextricably linked. It is difficult if not impossible to have mobility for a 

significant segment of the population without providing overall access to pedestrian facilities. 

Just as the last section on safety revealed 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 walking. Oddly, in some cases, pedestrian safety might 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 time. 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 who might be 

more susceptible to being tripped by surface problems or are at greater risk to injury if they 

were to fall. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

9

2.4 | 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 

with only isolated or temporary interruptions in accessibility. According to FHWA, “In 

accordance with 28 CFR §35.133, 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 Wlaschin, Butch. Memo to Directors of Field Services Division Administrators. “Snow Removal on Sidewalks Constructed 

with Federal Funding.” Federal Highway Administration. August 27, 2008. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/preservation/082708.cfm.

Figure 1: Sidewalks and pedestrian areas should be 

accessible to all users.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

10

that prevents them from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location are 

considered eligible for paratransit. Environmental barriers, such as snow and ice that prevent 

an individual from traveling to or from the boarding or disembarking locations may form the 

basis for their eligibility.

2.5 | ASSET MANAGEMENT 

Asset management has been defined by the American Association of Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as a strategic and systematic process of operating, 

maintaining, upgrading, and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their lifecycle. 

Through asset management better decision-making occurs based on the quality of information 

and the defined objectives. The maintenance of pedestrian facilities falls squarely within this 

definition and is no different than other components of the transportation system.

Sidewalks are known to last well over 50 years in most environments. The recent drive for asset 

management for transportation facilities has called attention to how the maintenance of 

sidewalks fits into an asset management approach. For sidewalks and other pedestrian 

facilities to last for that length of time maintenance is critical as a means of protecting and 

extending the initial investment. Although a new name and a more sophisticated process has 

been applied to managing transportation assets, communities that have been carefully 

maintaining pedestrian facilities have already learned the benefits of asset management. Here 

are few examples of how asset management and pedestrian facility maintenance are linked:

• Protect initial investment. The initial construction of sidewalks requires a significant 

outlay of capital. A maintenance program continues to protect that investment. 

Relatively small outlays of maintenance funds can elongate the life of pedestrian 

facilities and in some cases avert significant future outlays.

• Level of service. The maintenance of pedestrian facilities is inextricably tied to the level 

of service they offer. Asset management practices focus not only on the simple 

function 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 

facilities. Careful monitoring 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 investment, but keeps the facilities in a safer condition for users.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

11

2.6 | 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, liability 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

12

3 | Common Maintenance Issues

3.1 | 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 for 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 historic 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 discussed 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 public 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 fix 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 | 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 

are multiple grades and cross slopes such at Figure 2: Concrete is the most widely used material for 

sidewalks in the United States.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

13

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 excreted 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 | 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 

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 | 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 pavers 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.

Figure 3: Asphalt is commonly used for shared use 

paths, but is less commonly used for sidewalks in the 

United States. Above is a section of shared use path 

after a repair in Madison, Wisconsin.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

14

individually replaced by experienced 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 commercial areas or plazas. This approach often reduces maintenance 

costs and potential tripping hazards within the accessible path because the bricks are often laid 

over a solid concrete surface. Bricks are primarily rectangular and are manufactured in a wide 

range of colors. More recently, bricks and pavers have been manufactured and placed 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 other sidewalk 

materials, attention 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 bricks and pavers 

can be reused, but often have to be removed and repositioned so the base material can be 

modified to effectuate the leveling of the sidewalk. 

Rubberized Pavers

Pavers made from recycled rubber and plastic have recently been introduced as a substitute for 

traditional sidewalk pavements. These pavers are modular 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 | 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 infrastructure itself, Figure 5: Rubberized pavers allow for modular 

installation.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

15

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 dayto-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 | 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 hazards.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

16

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

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 raised. 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 four major deformation actions 

leading to structural damage to sidewalks. These same conditions cause failures in asphalt, as 

well as bricks and pavers. With the exception of cracking and gaps (which can be just a surface 

condition), all of the problems listed below are structural in nature and result from a series of 

structural failures 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 which illustrate the potential aftermath of the forces at work.

Rigid Body Uplift or Settlement 

The tendency for a concrete sidewalk slab to 

rise, subside or tilt as a result of expansive 

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 compared 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.”

Figure 7: Spalling on a sidewalk
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

17

Tensile Shrinkage 

Deformation resulting from tensile stresses 

during the shrinkage of underlying soil from 

decreasing moisture content. 

Sagging 

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 

more accurately explained as tensile 

shrinkage described above.

Raised or Heaved (Also referred to as hogging)

Unequal movement of the slab 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

18

Cracking and heaving are the two main results 

of the deformation forces at work. Cracking can 

occur in every direction of a surface when 

concrete is used. Since any given length of 

concrete will eventually crack, methods are used 

to control it. The 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 

making cuts with concrete saws as the surface is 

curing. Most of the maintenance problems stem 

from uncontrolled cracking, although sidewalk panels do heave at the joints. The ones mostly 

closely impacting sidewalks and paths 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. Longitudinal cracking occurs along the 

length of the sidewalk, usually in the middle third of the sidewalk, usually in the middle third of 

the sidewalk, and can extend through several expansion or control joints. Unlike alligator 

cracking, they are often larger. 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. 

Heaving of concrete sidewalk 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 forces described above can lead to 

heaving. Because sidewalks are built with joints 

to control cracking, heaving most often occurs 

at these locations.

Other Pedestrian Facility Infrastructure Problems

Maintenance of pedestrian facilities is often associated with just sidewalks and sometimes 

paths, but other pedestrian facilities also incur problems which increase the need for 

maintenance. These facility types include curb ramps, crosswalk markings, pedestrian signals, 

and signage.

Figure 8: Cracking of sidewalk sections can lead to 

accessibility issues.

Figure 9: Heaved sidewalk
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

19

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 

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 expensive. 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.

Figure 10: Damaged detectible warning fields.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

20

Another area of concern with crosswalk 

markings is slipperiness of the markings.

Manufacturers of these materials have taken 

steps to significantly improve the friction factor 

of their materials, but as the material wears, 

sometimes it becomes slicker causing a need for 

reapplication. Slippery markings make it 

necessary for municipalities to replace the 

markings sooner.

Signals

Based on the research conducted for this guide, communities consider their 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 light emitting 

diodes (LEDs) has significantly reduced the need for replacement of light fixtures. LED lights 

last for approximately 100,000 hours, many times the life of incandescent bulbs. Filaments in 

incandescent bulbs burn out in approximately 10,000 hours. However, LEDs do not produce as 

much heat as incandescent bulbs and can become snowed over in blowing snow conditions.

Another set of hardware problems relates to the controller for the signal system. The 

controller is the device that manages the entire signal system for the intersection. Occasionally 

problems with the controller cause a pedestrian signal to malfunction. 

Pedestrian signal systems have become more complex with the advent of Accessible 

Pedestrian Signals (APS). APS devices work with existing traffic signal controllers. Some APS 

devices require no additions to equipment in the signal controller cabinet for installation and 

operation depending on the type of equipment that is already installed. 

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. 

Figure 11: A street is prepared for the installation of 

new crosswalk in-laid markings.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

21

Signage

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 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 | Seasonal Maintenance 

The conditions of sidewalks for safe, comfortable and accessible travel are influenced not only 

by infrastructure 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 walking are needed to keep sidewalks accessible and hazard-free year-round. Often these 

seasonal conditions are the cause of problems people most associate 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 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 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

22

smaller amounts or drier (fluffier) snow, such as Fairbanks, Alaska, to have more significant 

maintenance problems 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 primarily on temperatures and sun to melt the maintenance problem away. 

The likelihood of snow accumulations in the U.S. are better explained 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 including Alaska) are prepared differently for snow and ice removal.

For example, Seattle receives mostly rain during the winter months while Minneapolis (located 

further south) experiences snow. Minneapolis is better prepared for snow and ice removal than 

Seattle and the expectations among residents for prompt snow and ice removal are set higher 

than cities in 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. Jurisdictions should 

still have policies and an 

action plan in place that 

addresses these key 

maintenance issues even 

though snow and ice are 

infrequent. Even within

these more temperate 

areas, snow and ice 

accumulations during the 

months of December and 

January have a far greater 

chance of lingering than 

when inclement 

conditions occur in other 

months. Figure 12: Maps display the mean annual snowfall and mean number of days that 

snow remains on the ground before melting from 1961 – 1990. Permission to use 

maps granted by Colorado Climate Center.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

23

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 

removal. 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 snowfall. 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 

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

24

the maximum allowable height of snow banks and where snow cannot be piled to insure 

proper visibility of pedestrians. Some jurisdictions require snow removal from specific features 

such as fire hydrants, benches, driveways and curb ramps. Of the communities contacted, the 

most successful programs specify clearance expectations in detail by ordinance and in 

education materials provided to the public about their responsibilities.

Extreme Heat

Just as snow and ice can create outstanding 

problems for maintenance, so can extreme heat 

which is especially common in the southwest 

U.S. Most of the problems caused by extreme 

heat manifest themselves as serious structural 

problems and are presented in the first part of 

this chapter in 3.2.1. One of the most serious 

problems is when concrete expands 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 expansion of asphalt 

on streets at concrete curb ramps at higher 

trafficked intersections causes maintenance 

problems. When the asphalt gets heated up, 

heavier vehicles rounding the corner push it out 

and up which creates a 1" to 2" high asphalt lip 

next to the ramp. This causes problems for

wheelchair users who cannot travel across the 

street and requires that maintenance crews to 

shave off the lips to make the transition smooth 

again. 

Another problem in hot climates is associated with markings. Markings on newly paved streets 

can be degraded with vehicles tracking over them. Manufacturers recommend not putting the 

markings in place until a number of days to a week after new asphalt has been laid, but often 

this is not a viable option for busier streets. This is a more serious problem in hotter climates 

where a higher percentage of paving projects are completed and marked during a relatively 

long construction season much of it with high tempertautures.

Figure 15: New markings tracked over already. Photo 

by Paula Reeves

Figure 14: Asphalt pushed up against curb ramp. 

Photo by Tom Fisher
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

25

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 

Figure 16: Soil accumulation across a sidewalk has 

allowed for thick vegetation overgrowth which limits 

the use of the sidewalk by people with some 

disabilities.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

26

these materials collect or 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 problems. This includes 

rubbish that 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 collection of debris is 

commonly made a responsibility of the adjacent property owners. The presence of debris on 

shared use paths presents the same issues with broken glass being an especially acute problem 

for bicyclists especially those with higher pressure tires. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

27

4 | Inspection, Accessibility, Compliance, Plans and 

Policies 

The work of maintaining pedestrian facilities should be guided by an inspection and by a repair 

regimen, supported by policies and ordinances. A community’s desire to comprehensively 

address the pedestrian environment should be expressed in a plan and policies that help the 

maintenance staff do their jobs and helps adjacent landowners and other residents understand 

what is expected of them and what they can expect. 

The use of inspection and criteria that spark action are hallmarks of a well-operated 

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 activities 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 | INSPECTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

4.1.1 | Importance of Inspection

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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

28

become a hazard, inaccessible, or impassable? Even facilities built to the tightest tolerances 

will have irregularities or suffer some displacement during freeze and thaw cycles. Criteria 

needs to be established and used to assess in quantifiable terms when facilities become a 

hazard or inaccessible for pedestrians. There are national guidelines and criteria (provided later 

in this section) which communities are advised to use for their own adopted inspection criteria.

Sidewalk and path inspection criteria serve many useful purposes, especially to reduce or 

eliminate slips and falls based on avoidable sidewalk and path hazards. Damaged surfaces 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 residents, and preventing and/or minimizing lawsuits 

and liability exposure. Section 4.1.5 below summarizes the actual thresholds or measurements 

that should trigger a response from a maintaining authority. Inspection results will help guide a 

program and are integral to a community’s maintenance program.

4.1.2 | Inspection Criteria

Every community that has a maintenance 

program in place uses criteria to evaluate 

existing 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 equally across the 

community. Additionally, many communities 

contacted had established criteria only for 

sidewalk displacements (faults, heaves, changes 

in level, steps) and their inspection protocol did 

not extend beyond that level of assessment even 

on a long term basis. Many other agencies 

responded that they follow the ADA guidelines

and their criteria 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), vertical clearances, 

Other ADA Standards

The 2010 ADA Standards 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 constraints of 

being located next to roadway. They 

also do not address additional features 

such as pedestrian signals, crosswalks, 

refuge islands, on street parking and the 

need for detectable warnings at street 

crossings. The Access Board also 

establishes the guidelines for buildings 

and sites, so there is consistency where 

it is reasonable to use the same criteria.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

29

maximum running grades, minimum clear width and the distance protruding objects extend 

into the pedestrian path.

4.1.3 | 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 III 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-ofway, 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

30

Administration has endorsed the use of PROWAG as a best practice where the building 

standards do not apply. Since PROWAG includes guidelines 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 facilities in response to an ADA complaint. However, where pedestrian facilities 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 practices 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 features 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 section 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 alteration 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 or streets impacting 

pedestrian facilities are more significant and offer considerably more opportunities to 

incorporate ADA compliant features. When facilities are altered there is an expectation that 

the facility be “accessible 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. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S.C. 1033 (1994). 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

31

alterations are defined as changes to a facility 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 

public agency must maintain 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 (9-12-06).”5

Maintenance and Repair under ADA

Maintenance projects do not require simultaneous improvements to pedestrian accessibility 

under the ADA and Section 504. For example, the spot repair of a tripping hazard 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

expected. And 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. 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 “Question and Answers AboutADA/Section 504.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

Accessed January 23, 2013. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada_sect504qa.cfm. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

32

• Dowel Bar Retrofit

• Fog Seals

• Joint Crack Seals

• Joint Repairs

• 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 guidance for streets, 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; however, communities and states must strive to meet ADA standards on these types 

of projects to the extent possible – even with small sidewalk replacements – given the scope of 

the repair and technical 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 guidelines for accessible routes are 

summarized below.

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 continuous plane.

Displacement/Changes in Level (includes faults and heaves): Surface discontinuities shall 

not exceed a half inch (13 millimeters). Vertical discontinuities between a quarter inch (6.4 

millimeters) and half inch (13 millimeters) 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, except where pedestrian access 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

33

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 (100 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 (100 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. Figure 17: The maximum extension of this object is 

limited to 4 inches.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

34

4.1.4 | Using Maintenance to Improve Accessibility

Section 3.2 of this guide characterized maintenance problems with pedestrian facilities that 

often caused the facilities to exceed the acceptable standards. Not every sidewalk, path and 

curb ramp within a community is going to simultaneously meet all of the guidelines listed 

above. However, 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, another recommended means of addressing all of the maintenance needs is with a 

zone-by-zone sidewalk repair and replacement program. This approach may take 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 descriptions 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 communities had photos on their website clearly depicting sidewalks 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

35

repairing and replacing sidewalks. Figure 18 from a Midwestern community’s website provides 

excellent photos and descriptions of problems that would fail inspection. Even in this otherwise 

good example, the community has some criteria that fail to meet the ADA guidelines.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

36

Figure 18: 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 engineering judgment

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 sidewalk 

from functioning as designed

Traverse Slope (T): Any individual slab or portion of a 

slab shall not slope toward the street or the adjoining 

property at a ratio of more than 5/8” per foot (1:20)

Gaps (G): Opening in between sidewalk slabs greater 

than 2” in width, or those caused by the absence of a 

fragmented section of sidewalk exceeding 2” in width

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

Tree Root Damage (R): Any deficiencies in a slab or 

part of a slab that are deemed to be caused by tree 

roots from a tree in the city right-of-way will be the 

responsibility of the city.

Longitudinal Slope (Sunken/Raised Sections) (L): 

Any sidewalk panels that have lifted to a peak or 

sunken such that the slab or portion of a slab deviates 

from the average line of the sidewalk surface level at a 

ratio of more than 1 inch per foot

Public Utility Damage (O): Any deficiencies in a slab 

or part of a slab that are deemed to be caused by 

public infrastructure (sewer and water mains, sewer

manholes, catch basins, 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

37

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 | 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 “systemwide”. 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

38

particular example demonstrated how a community can move from a community-wide 

inspection to a zone inspection (zone inspection addressed below).

Zone Inspection

Another approach is for a city, village or town to segment their community into zones to 

implement a repair program. By having the community split into three to ten zones, efforts 

and funds can be targeted in more manageable areas – zone by zone. Costs can also be further 

controlled by keeping crews within in a tighter geographic area, reducing mobilization and 

coordination costs. Although inspections are made in a proactive fashion on a zone-by-zone 

basis, often the same inspectors are used to respond to immediate inspection issues in other 

areas of a community if a hazard has been reported.

Many communities are using this 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-byzone approach or a variant of it. For instance, the City of Minneapolis has organized their 

sidewalk inspections and repair program into ten geographic zones, and targets their annual 

sidewalk repair budget into one of these zones each year, thereby inspecting and maintaining 

their public sidewalks on a ten year cycle. Similarly, almost all of these communities had either 

informal or formal arrangements to focus inspection and repairs in their downtown areas 

where pedestrian traffic is most common. The community that took that effort to the greatest 

length was Rochester, Minnesota. The central 

downtown area around the Mayo Clinic is 

examined on a monthly basis and the greater 

downtown area is inspected on a yearly basis. 

The rest of the city, which is primarily singlefamily residential (but some areas of multi-family 

use as well), is inspected at 5 percent per year; 

the city will also respond to any complaints or 

safety hazards on a community-wide basis. The 

targeted hospital area is roughly one quarter of a 

mile in radius while the greater 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 

experience, particularly for the many new visitors 

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 1⁄4 inch, horizontal cracks greater 

than 3⁄4 inch, or spalled areas greater 

than 1⁄2 inch in depth, and no visible 

hazards. The manual has detailed 

instructions and photos of how 

measurements should be made and 

computed.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

39

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 involved 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

40

• Documentation is important and should 

include strong and clear support for a 

decision when no repairs 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 party what action has been taken in 

the past (inspection and maintenance policy) and 

will be done in the future in response to a

complaint or injury. A community should keep its 

staff (including its attorney) involved 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 

exercised reasonable care in inspecting and 

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 mistaken 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 and maintain 

facilities.

Reporting by the Public

Every community 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 

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 volunteers to walk 

the sidewalks and record any problems.

The volunteers tend to be younger 

students and elderly residents, 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

41

reporting was by phone to the public works, transportation department, or parks department

(particularly for paths). The next 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 

application 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. 

Complexity 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 community 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

42

Chapter 11 of Designing Sidewalks and Trails for 

Access -Part II6 has an excellent discussion laying 

out a complete sidewalk assessment system. 

This is used for more extensive inspection 

processes for community-wide assessments and 

often for ADA transition plans and sidewalk 

replacement programs being conducted on a 

zone-by-zone basis within a community. 

Features of such an assessment go beyond 

routine inspection procedures with the following 

measurements being involved: sidewalk cross 

slopes (including cross slopes at driveways and 

maximum cross slopes), running grades, changes 

in level, changes in grade, minimum clear width, 

surface defects, minimum vertical and horizontal 

clearances and the distance protruding objects 

intrude into the pedestrian path.

Of communities contacted and profiled for this 

report, the majority lacks a coordinated sidewalk 

and path inspection program and typically responds to problems that could be caught earlier 

with inspections. Creating such a program can be an early priority for a sidewalk maintenance 

plan. At a bare minimum, a basic inspection system should consist of spot 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. Routine inspections should consider, at a minimum, changes in level or 

grade, excessive cross-slopes and vertical clearances. Additional factors are considered in more 

comprehensive inspections such as those conducted zone-by-zone or community-wide.

Unlike sidewalks, nearly all 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 repair program for sidewalks. Most communities relied on reports of 

 6 Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access - Part II of II. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/index.cfm

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 repaving 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

43

hazards from users; almost all of whom were bicyclists. However, when path inspection and 

repair was discussed with communities, nearly every community indicated 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 | 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 length 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 running 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 six 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

44

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, manual 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 efficiency and accuracy. 

One of the major benefits is that these tools are 

GPS-enabled and 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. 

Without an electronic inventory of facilities, it is still possible for inspectors to make use of new 

technologies. For example, 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 

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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

45

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 in 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 | 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 maintaining 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 | 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

46

4.2.2 | Compliance with Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Ordinances

The most outstanding maintenance and public coordination 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 research for this 

guide, several indicated they had difficulty in applying sidewalk repair ordinances. Many 

communities expressed 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 on 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 into disrepair. A community that recognizes this 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 responsibility 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 communities 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 requiring 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

47

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

FHWA Office of Asset Management Memorandum, 2008. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/preservation/082708.cfm
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

48

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 jurisdictions, 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 | Compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

When pedestrian 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 Traffic Controls (MUTCD) provides standards and guidance on “temporary traffic 

control (TTC) zones.” It is the national standard for designing, applying, and planning traffic 

control devices 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 

disabilities) through a TTC zone 

shall be an essential part of 

maintenance operations.

8

• Where pedestrian routes are closed, 

alternate pedestrian routes shall be 

provided for maintenance.9

• When existing pedestrian facilities 

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 existing pedestrian facility.

10

Additional guidance 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 Paragraph 2 of Section 6A.01 in the MUTCD. 9 Paragraph 8 of Section 6G.05 in the MUTCD.

10 Paragraph 9 of Section 6G.05in the MUTCD.

Figure 19: An accessible detour
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

49

• 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 | 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. 13 Item 2E in Paragraph 7 of Section 6B.01 in the MUTCD. 14 Item C in Paragraph 11 of Section 6D.01 in the MUTCD.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

50

Getting Organized

Working with property owners on sidewalk maintenance requires a clear and organized 

approach. The jurisdiction should establish multiple means of reporting problems, such as 

through websites, over the phone, and by employees, but just one person or unit should be 

responsible for responding to all of these reports. Just as importantly, this same person or unit 

needs to manage and monitor enforcement actions that are taking place.

4.2.5 | Types of Enforcement Efforts

When property owners are required by law to maintain pedestrian facilities, enforcement 

through fines or other punitive measures should be used as a last resort. Fines will 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 public and within the agency 

including: which department (and contact person) within an agency is responsible for 

accepting reported problems and monitoring enforcement, the fines and notification periods 

for different types of maintenance, the standards expected for maintenance, and the options 

available for people who cannot perform maintenance. 

In many communities a tiered enforcement approach is put into effect that makes use of 

warnings, but also cracks-down on chronic problems. For example, in Boulder a property 

owner is given a warning for the first incidence of non-compliance (per year/season) and then a 

ticket for the second non-compliance event. If the location is identified as a chronic issue the 

city may take more severe measures including conducting the maintenance themselves (or by 

contract) and billing the property owner for the work. Although this can work for many forms 

of property owner maintenance, providing a notification period for snow and ice removal is not 

recommended because of the immediate hazard confronted by pedestrians.

Enforcement for pedestrian maintenance can be aided by other employees of the agency. This

involves the identification of problems by a range of public employees and is considered to be 

more proactive. Communities can train parking meter readers, parks employees or police, 

public works staff, and inspectors to be alert to and to report sidewalk accessibility issues and 

dangers. It is usually best if a public works employee – usually an inspector – then visits the 

property. The inspector can make a decision in the field, talk to the property owner, and 

process the paper work for a citation or fine if necessary. There can also be more proactive

inspections after a major snowfall or on a schedule to identify problems that need an 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

51

immediate response. By using the range of employees and reporting mechanisms, hazards can 

be reported and attended to sooner.

Reactive 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 

associations. 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: violators are promptly fined and failure to pay the initial fee results in additional 

penalties; warning tickets are not recommended since it can elongate the time the sidewalk 

remains impassable to pedestrians and creates additional work for the agency. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

52

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 | 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 policies and 

ordinances that clarify how facilities will be 

maintained and if adjacent property owners will 

be required to conduct maintenance on their 

own. 

Most communities with pedestrian facilities 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 Appendix 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 will 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, vegetation overgrowth, 

and debris. 

Innovative Enforcement

Boston, Massachusetts

According to Keeping it Clear -

Recommendations for Sidewalk Snow 

and Ice Removal in Massachusetts 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 

Inspectional Services Department (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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

53

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.

4.4 | 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 Plan15 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 

 15 City of Minneapolis Pedestrian Master Plan – 2009 

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@publicworks/documents/webcontent/convert_286149.pdf
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

54

• Goals, objectives, performance measures

• Schedule for improvements

• Communication and mechanisms for reporting problems

• Inspection procedures (included in more detail under 4.1)

• Documentation (addressed in more detail under 4.1.3)

• Procedures for repair and replacement, including seasonal considerations

• Identification and recommendations of major pieces equipment necessary for 

pedestrian facility maintenance

4.4.1 | 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 appropriate and helpful to identify the personnel (by job classification) expected to 

conduct the inspections 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 | Prioritization and Funding

Each community will need to balance its needs and funding for maintaining pedestrian 

facilities. It should have a clear policy for how it expects 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 facilities. The inventory should 

collect and organize critical information on the condition of pedestrian facilities including 

sidewalks, curb 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 excellent opportunity to conduct a comprehensive inventory and 

establish priorities for maintenance. 

Communities use two main options for funding pedestrian facility repairs. The 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

55

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 facilities. 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 | 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

56

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. Rather than eliminate 

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 | Documentation

The plan should outline documentation procedures. It is always helpful and legally defensible 

to document 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 | 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

57

4.5 | CONCLUSION

Communities must continue to make their pedestrian systems safer, more accessible and wellmaintained. 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

58

5 | Maintenance Measures 

This chapter summarizes the common repair and seasonal maintenance practices for 

pedestrian facilities based on research conducted for the guide. The first section provides a 

summary of the repair methods, and how they are used for the range of pedestrian facilities. 

Part two includes common day-to-day seasonal maintenance methods along with 

recommended practices. The treatments are presented in order from the easiest to implement 

to the more complex and difficult.

5.1 | WHEN IS MAINTENANCE NECESSARY FOR SIDEWALKS, PATHS, AND CURB RAMPS?

Chapter 3 of this guide outlined the problems that drive the need to maintain pedestrian 

facilities. The range of potential needs requiring servicing is expansive. Infrastructure 

maintenance needs involve the repair of sidewalk slabs or path segments by grinding, crack 

filling, and patching. In many cases the only solution is to replace sidewalks or resurface paths. 

Generally when surface conditions degrade to a point where tripping hazards exist or 

worsening running or cross slope conditions are making routes inaccessible, maintenance 

needs to occur. Maintenance is also necessary to respond to seasonal conditions such as fallen 

snow or overgrown vegetation. Every community should establish thresholds that trigger a 

response to these problems. Those thresholds should be informed by accessibility guidance

using the criteria developed by the Access Board. Section 4 of this Guide outlines the 

thresholds, standards, and inspection techniques that should be in place. In summary, 

maintenance is necessary for sidewalks, curb ramps, and paths when an acceptable threshold 

is exceeded in the following categories. Additionally, seasonal maintenance is also required 

and is covered in detail in 5.6.

• Displacements 

• Surfacing issues such as cracks, holes, surface deterioration 

• Grades and cross slopes

• Other issues (detectable warning fields, ramp problems, etc.)

A large percentage of communities in many states employ a sidewalk replacement 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 begins again. This 

type of program often uses higher standards and tighter thresholds than spot repair programs. 

For example, a cracked sidewalk that currently exhibits no tripping hazard or other form of 

deterioration would not trigger a spot treatment, but would be addressed as part of a rotating 

sidewalk replacement program. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

59

5.2 | 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 life 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 

alterations under the ADA. 

Temporary Maintenance Measures

Temporary repair measures 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 universally 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 example, 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

60

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 accessibility 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 the pavement 

section. Corrective maintenance activities are generally reactive, not proactive, and 

performed to restore a pavement to an acceptable level of service due to 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

61

Provided below are the common maintenance responses to on-going infrastructure problems 

along with recommendations 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

62

Funding. Communities that fully fund repairs (no special assessing 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 need of repair.

Coordination. All requests for sidewalk work or reported hazards should go to the same 

department and preferably the same person. Every community 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 define 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 community should 

explain and support why it is not following its own established plan or policy along with how 

they are going to mitigate the impacts.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

63

5.2.1 | 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.

Figure 20: Missing areas of concrete have been marked 

for repair.

Figure 21: The areas have been temporarily repaired with 

asphalt patches. Note the patching material overlaid on 

the concrete extending beyond the hole.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

64

Material: Asphalt, but sometimes a concrete-type filler (mortar or composite 

material consisting of vinyl or epoxy mix)

Most suitable: Small holes of less than one foot

Least suitable: Large holes or large surface areas

Durability: Varies significantly based on repair method, material, depth of hole or 

crack, and underlying stress placed on the sidewalk. Generally less than 

several years.

Characteristics: Hot mix asphalt is easy to use as a filler, but has a very short life. Cold 

asphalt mix is an even more temporary repair material most often only 

suitable for a winter to spring seasonal repair. Mortar or concrete-type 

filler has a longer life, but is time-consuming to apply and is rarely used 

by muncipalities.

Recommendations: Suitable as a temporary repair. Highly recommended as a quickresponse corrective measure when tripping hazards are reported until a 

more permanent repair can be made.

Technique: Clean hole extremely 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 will 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 filler or a mortar mix 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 mix should contain aggregate to give the patch more compact 

strength because of vehicle loads crossing on top of the sidewalk . 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

65

5.2.2 | 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 together; 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. 

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

66

Material: Polymer-modified and asphalt rubber sealants for concrete and asphalt 

sidewalks and paths. Also, mortar mix 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 with widths greater than 

this are 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 

underlying stress placed on the sidewalk. Generally lasts less than 

several years and will only prevent water infiltration.

Characteristics: Cracking 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 in a range of climatic conditions – they need to remain solid in 

the summer and still be flexible 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 especially 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 material 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 pieces. Despite the laborous 

nature of these repairs, most often these repairs are only temporary and 

are recommended only as such.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

67

5.2.3 | 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 

caused by a raised sidewalk slab. Note the extensive and 

appropriate ramping of the wedge.

Figure 24: A small wedge may still create a hazard or be 

difficult to navigate in a wheelchair. This wedge had 

deteriorated over time.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

68

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 bonding capabilities.

Most suitable: For temporary repairs when sidewalks lifts by more than a half inch to 

less than 2 inches.

Least suitable: As a long term repair or when sidewalks displace by less than half inch. 

Or when the sidewalk displacement is more than a couple of inches. 

This will require a very long ramp (2 feet or greater) leading to the 

displacement.

Durability: Varies somewhat on repair method, material, how well the asphalt 

material is compressed (hot mix), any continued shifting of the sidewalk 

pieces, and winter maintenance (especially plows mounted on pick-up 

trucks running over the wedge).

Characteristics: 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 only 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 recommended as a quick 

corrective measure when tripping hazards are reported until a more 

permanent repair can be made later in the season or within a year 

depending on the slope and integrity of the wedge.

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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

69

5.2.4 | Grinding and Horizontal Cutting 

Another set of treatments that can be used for heaved concrete sidewalk and path segments is 

grinding and cutting. 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 horizontal 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 displacement at a joint. Note that the panel has uniformly lifted allowing a 

straight cut across the width of the panel. The panel being 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 condition. ADA draft guidelines accept grinding and cutting for 

displacements of between 1⁄4 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 3⁄4 inch at the joint, the grind or cut would have to taper back approximately nine inches for 

the repair to be ADA compliant and considered permanent. 

Grinding is also done to asphalt. On paths and sidewalks root pop-ups and minor heaves are 

often ground down.

Figure 25: A raised sidewalk block has been ground down 

to provide a smoother transition.

Figure 26: The diagram shows how an unevenly raised 

slab can be ground to provide a smoother transition.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

70

Material: Grinding can occur with either asphalt or concrete, but is much more 

common with concrete. Horizontal cutting occurs almost exclusively 

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 suitable: As a long term repair when sidewalks displace by more than 1/2 inch. 

Any displacement of more than a half inch will require a longer ramp at 

8.3% (at least 6 inches).

Durability: 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 expertly can be considered permanent fixes.

Characteristics: A horizontal cut will leave the appearance of a very smooth cut surface 

with exposed 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.

Recommendations: Suitable as a temporary repair and even permanent repair based on the 

size and angle of displacement. Highly recommended as a permanent 

corrective measure when the displacement is between 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.

Technique: This is a machine based operation. There are numerous pieces of 

equipment on the market that will grind and cut, but the technique is 

straightforward – grind the lip of a heaved section down or use a 

specially designed concrete saw to cut horizontal to the grade of the 

sidewalk to lop off the offending sidewalk lip.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

71

5.2.5 | 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 27: Graphic detail of how the mud-jacking process 

works

Figure 28: These panels were mud-jacked more than 20 

years ago and are still in good condition so if done 

properly this can be a permanent fix.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

72

Material: Mudjacking is done only to concrete sidewalks and paths. A concrete 

type “mud” or mixture 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: When 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 

fixes.

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 

expensive 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 the 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 mudjacking.

Technique: The concrete sidewalk slab is lifted back to its original position by 

pressure injecting 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

73

5.2.6 | 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 subareas 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 longerterm 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

74

over the entire community on an annual basis. This model requires a significant commitment 

to inspection (see Chapter 4 on inspection and inventory).

Nearly all of the communities reached for this study indicated that they take full advantage of 

street reconstruction projects to replace sidewalk segments. When combined with street 

reconstruction, sidewalk replacement can generally be completed at a lower unit cost. Because 

of the nature of these repairs – often involving the replacement of very long segments of 

sidewalk using tighter inspection standards – sidewalk replacement falls into rehabilitation or 

reconstruction definitions, the same as the street.

Material: The replacement material used will almost always match the material 

used for the connecting sidewalk or path segments. Replacement 

material for most sidewalks is concrete and asphalt for paths.

Most suitable: Replacement is the best and longest term repair solution for displaced 

sidewalks and paths. Although temporary repairs can be used to delay 

sidewalk and path repairs, only replacement ensures the best method 

for addressing displaced sidewalks and more easily permits the use of 

appropriate grades for the cross-slope and running slope of the sidewalk 

or path.

Least suitable: When simple repairs, such as grinding and horizontal cutting, can result 

in significantly elongating the life of the sidewalk or path and are 

considered effective.

Durability: Replacement of sidewalks and paths are considered permanent fixes.

Characteristics: Smaller segments of sidewalk, path, or curb ramps removed and 

replaced with new concrete or asphalt (only concrete for curb ramps).

Recommendations: The complete replacement of material for sidewalks and paths allows 

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 means or the displacement 

of the sidewalk or path is so significant that replacement is the only 

feasible measure. Replacement is also recommended where smaller 

defects may appear (that may not present a tripping hazard such as 

surface cracking), but a circulating sidewalk replacement program is 

targeting that area of the community for that year.

Technique: The damaged sections are removed either by hand or a small skid-steer 

loader after they are broken up by a jack hammer. For projects where 

many concrete sidewalk pieces are being removed, a heavy piece of 

equipment is used which makes use of a strong, telescoping boom with 

an attached digging bucket that can lift individual sidewalk panels from 

the sidewalk grade. After removal, steel or wooden forms are pinned in 

place. The existing grade is adjusted and in some cases additional fill is 

used to level off the grade. Tree roots are very carefully cut if at all 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

75

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 exists. 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

76

5.2.7 | 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 the way a concrete slab is formed and 

functions. When there is an underlying problem 

in the subgrade, it is not unusual to have just 

one or two bricks become displaced creating a 

localized tripping hazard. In contrast, concrete 

sidewalks might be able to withstand smaller 

more localized pressures until a time the entire 

slab faults or cracks. Gaps between bricks and 

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 vibrations 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/pavers, 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. 

Figure 29: Damaged pavers have been repaired with 

asphalt to alleviate a hazard.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

77

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 existing 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 

pavers 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 fix 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

78

5.2.8 | Repairs to Curb Ramps 

Curb ramps are required to be in place at every intersection where an accessible route crosses a 

curb to allow access to crosswalks for people with ambulatory disabilities. Once ramps are in 

place, their maintenance is critical to enabling accessibility. This section discusses ramp repairs 

while Section 5.3 provides guidance on seasonal maintenance of ramps. 

Curb ramps should meet the same general thresholds for repair as sidewalks. Complicating the 

need for repairs for ramps are tight tolerances for running grade and cross-slope (see Section 

4). Curb ramps built to the maximum slopes can easily fall out of compliance with just a slight 

displacement. The repair methods for sidewalks are all applicable to curb ramps – patching, 

crack-filling, wedging, mud-jacking, grinding/cutting, and replacement. 

The other unique feature of curb ramps that separate them from sidewalks is the detectable

warning surface, which is used to alert people with visual disabilities that they 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 repair solutions. Depending on the 

initial type of detectable warning device put in place, further annual maintenance may be 

necessary. In many parts of the U.S. where the truncated dome panel will not be subjected to 

plow blades or inclement winter weather, a viable short term repair for the panel is to fasten or 

re-fasten them with glue or screws. This can be done with little effort and may hold up until the 

ramp is reconstructed.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

79

Material: Replacement material for ramps is concrete with truncated domes as 

the detectable warning field. Occasionally the ramp may have a brick or 

paver border

Most suitable: 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.

Least suitable: 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.

Durability: Replacement of curb ramps can be considered permanent fixes.

Characteristics: Ramp is removed and replaced with a new concrete ramp.

Recommendations: 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.

Technique: 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 existed. 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

80

5.2.9 | New Materials

Pavers made from recycled rubber and plastic 

have been in use in the public 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.

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 pavers. If they begin to pitch because of tree roots or subbase 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 manufacturer is providing 

a range of limited warranties from 5 to 25 years on these products. 

Other recently introduced 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 pavers. They have unique 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 excellent water infiltration to feed roots. These pavement types will be covered in 

more detail in Chapter 6 on new construction practices to reduce maintenance.

Figure 30: Porous pavement in Washington D.C. 

Photo by Melissa Anderson
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

81

5.3 | 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 markings; 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 | 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

82

recessed thermoplastic markings to decrease the likelihood of snowplow damage, but this is 

very expensive.

Another durability-related maintenance problem is the conspicuity or retroreflectivity of the 

markings. A large percentage of pedestrian fatalities occur in the evening when conspicuity is 

reduced. Crosswalk markings must retain their retroreflectivity, usually accomplished by 

adding beads or other retroreflective material to marking material. But when the markings 

wear, the retroreflective quality of the material is often lost first. This guide recommends that 

agencies use the methods as established in the MUTCD and described on this website to check 

for the proper retroreflectivity of crosswalks:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavementreg.cfm. 

A problem with thermoplastic markings and some pre-formed marking tapes is that they 

sometimes become more slippery with wear. Manufacturers of these materials have taken 

steps to significantly improve the friction factor of their materials, but slippery markings make 

it necessary to replace the markings sooner. Successful use of pre-formed thermoplastic also 

relies on applying the material to a dry, clean surface nearly completely devoid of existing 

crosswalk material. This can complicate applications on existing pavement. 

Epoxy markings involve a two-part system using a simple mixture of two bonding components. 

The most significant downside is that its application requires specialized equipment with a 

complex process control system which is required to assure proper blending of the two 

components. In some states, only a handful of private vendors have the equipment necessary 

for this application. Sandblasting of the pavement is normally required to remove existing 

materials and some epoxies have a relatively long cure time (up to 45 minutes depending on 

ambient conditions). 

Figure 31: Relative comparison of crosswalk marking materials

Material

Relative Cost

$=Low $$$$=High Lifespan (months)

Retroreflectivity

*=Low ***=High

Paint $ 3 – 24 *

Epoxy Paint $$ 24-48 **

Thermoplastic (sprayed) $$$ 48-72* **

Pre-formed Tape $$$$ 36 – 96* ***

Note: Estimates based on minimum standard crosswalk treatment and updated to reflect 2013 comparative costs.

16,17

Thermoplastic and tape have shortened lifespans in snowy areas where they are often damaged by snowplows. Inlaid 

thermoplastic or pre-formed tape may last significantly longer than standard surface applications.

 16 Cuelho, Eli, Jerry Stephens and Charles McDonald. “A Review of the Performance and Costs of Contemporary Pavement 

Marking Systems.” Western Transportation Institute. Boseman, MT. 2003.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

83

Figure 31 displays characteristics of four common 

crosswalk marking materials. It should be noted 

that costs vary widely across the country and the 

ranges provided are approximate. Similarly, 

material lifespans are strongly impacted by the 

volume of traffic passing over the marking, and 

the use of snowplows on streets. Depending on 

the crosswalk marking material used, snowplows 

can snag or cut into markings.

This guide includes a number of broad 

recommendations for marking crosswalks, 

however, there are considerations that will affect 

those recommendations which are summarized 

in the next section. 

• To promote a longer lifespan when 

using paint, a “high build grade” is recommended with glass beads for 

retroreflectivity. High build uses an acrylic cross-linking emulsion that allows for 

applications of up to 20 mils.

• According to the national Bicycle and Pedestrian Information Center, the most 

durable, and recommended, crosswalk marking material for new pavements is inlay

tape. It is highly retroreflective, long-lasting, slip-resistant and requires little to no 

maintenance. Although initially more costly than paint, both inlay tape (preformed 

tape) and thermoplastic are more cost-effective in the long run. Inlay tape is 

recommended for new and resurfaced pavement while thermoplastic may be a 

better option on rougher pavement surfaces. Both inlay tape and thermoplastic are 

more visible and less slippery than paint when wet.

• Use a long-lasting marking for crosswalks at the time of new construction, 

reconstruction, or 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.

High Visibility Crosswalk Markings

Brookline, Massachusetts

Many communities have general policies 

that support highly visible and durable 

markings. The Town of Brookline, 

Massachusetts has a policy which states 

“because it is highly 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.”
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

84

5.3.2 | Crosswalk Marking Considerations

Life-Cycle Costs

Unit costs for crosswalk marking materials vary 

considerably across the country. But given 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 

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 important to note 

that costs and durability ranged significantly in this study. There is a clear trade-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 per year, whereas 

thermoplastic 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 impact on the longevity of crosswalk markings. Also, frequently 

repainting crosswalks in high-traffic areas incurs traffic control costs that agencies should take 

into account as an important cost factor. Products that may be more expensive 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 bars. Since turning 

vehicles can significantly increase degradation of pavement markings, locating markings out of 

turning areas, when possible, can reduce maintenance. However, this should never be done 

when it will compromise the appropriate placement of a crosswalk, thus this recommendation

may have limited applicability at most intersections.

Figure 32: Old crosswalk markings removed for new 

crosswalk marking tape.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

85

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 

flaking is removed. Liquid thermoplastics can generally be placed over worn paint or liquidapplied 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 

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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

86

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 somewhat 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 winter months 

where snowplows are in use.

Many agencies use more expensive inlay markings on new street, reconstruction, and repaving 

projects when these materials are covered by construction budgets. But the cost 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 expensive 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 or 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 make decisions 

about remarking independently of the original application. Traffic volumes, pavement 

surfacing type, initial marking material that will be marked over, cost, and availability of 

application equipment will be factors in the how agencies will need to consider a mix 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 remarking 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-application. 

5.4 | MAINTENANCE OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS

5.4.1 | 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

87

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 | 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 fixed 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 signalization updates and upgrades.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

88

Inspection regimes may need to be changed with the installation of Accessible Pedestrian 

Signals (see below).

Accessible Pedestrian Signals

Accessible Pedestrian Signals may be required for all pedestrian signal systems 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 existing traffic signal controllers and usually require no 

additions to equipment in the signal controller cabinet for installation and operation. The 

NCHRP report Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices indicates that agencies 

will have to monitor these new devices for malfunctions relating to WALK indication, locator 

tone, and signal interaction which may fail to work correctly, to avoid dangerous crossings for 

pedestrians with vision impairments. The overseeing agency should conduct an audit or 

checkup of APS installations on a regular basis, and more frequently if the weather is harsh. At 

a minimum, APS should be inspected every 6 months, after repairs to the intersection signals, 

poles or controller, and after changes to signal timing.

Occasionally an agency may receive a complaint that a locator tone on an APS is too loud or 

needs maintenance. The volume of the tones and messages can be adjusted and should only 

be audible 6-10 feet from the signal pole. The volume adjusts according to ambient noises, but 

if the environment around the pole changes significantly, the volume settings may need 

adjusting. Pushbutton manufacturers should be contacted with questions 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 acquainted 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 fixtures 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, there are new maintenance considerations with LED lights. First, LEDs generate so 

little heat that they do not melt off accumulated snow and/or ice as readily as incandescent 

systems. Second, because LEDs last much longer than incandescent bulbs, regular lens 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

89

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 | 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/faq_part4.htm#q22
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

90

• Clean signs. This includes power washing signs to maintain their visibility.

• Enlist 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 in 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 excluded 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 | 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 responsibility. This section will discuss the most common types of everyday 

maintenance and the techniques that are used.

5.6.1 | 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 communities as one of 

their most important assets in the street right-of-way. 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

91

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 paths;

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 

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

92

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 closer 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 obvious tools to 

maintain sidewalks including rakes and leaf blowers. Agencies often have specially equipped 

trucks with baskets to collect piled leaves.

5.6.2 | 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 support 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 weekly. The City of 

Concord, NH, sweeps sidewalks citywide every spring. In the absence of a coordinated citywide

or Business Improvement District approach to sweeping, adjacent property owners more 

commonly perform this work and are often required to by a community ordinance. 

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 loader 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 usually 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

93

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 sections of sidewalks or multi-use paths where water 

settles provide conditions for dirt to settle as well. When still wet, the silt that remains is 

extremely slippery. Secondly, paths must be 

closely observed for sweeping needs or swept on 

a weekly or bi- weekly basis. Paths are

sometimes plagued with broken glass which is 

especially troublesome for bicyclists’ tires. Given 

the unpredictable nature of debris or refuse left 

on paths, relying on reports from users is often a 

viable maintenance approach, assuming 

communities respond quickly to reports.

5.6.3 | 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 

Community-wide Snow Removal

Halifax, Nova Scotia

The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) 

in Nova Scotia, Canada, maintains 400 

miles of sidewalk with an operating 

budget for sidewalk snow removal of 

$4.2 million dollars and average snowfall 

of 81 inches per year. In an effort to 

make the cost of snow removal more 

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

94

removal. Other 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 the 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 responsibility that 

covers the entire public right-of-way. And since sidewalks are part of the public right of way, 

efforts to remove snow and ice need to occur in a reasonable time period following a snowfall. 

Elements of an effective snow and ice removal program include: timeframe for removal, 

responsibility for removal, ordinances, 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 where snowfall is infrequent and 

the climate is very temperate, many communities rely on a quick melting method or a “melt 

strategy” for responding to most of their snowfalls. Rather than remove snow and ice, a 

community may rely on warmer temperatures shortly after a storm to melt snow and ice 

before mobility becomes an issue. Although this may be a reasonable approach for light 

snowfalls or those that occur in relatively warm weather, communities still need 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 compared to snowfalls in November, March, and April.

In parts of the country where snowfall is more frequent, communities will need to be prepared 

to respond to all snowfalls. Expecting snow to melt without impacting pedestrian travel is not 

realistic. It is also common and appropriate to require a shorter timeframe to respond to 

snowfalls in high pedestrian zones such as in business districts, around college 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 specific 

time for when all snow must be cleared. For instance, a time of day can be set. Ann Arbor, MI, 

requires that any snowfall accumulation before 6 AM must be removed by noon while 

Alexandria, VA, requires different timeframes depending on the category of storm. 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

95

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 

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

96

requirements, guidance, inspection and 

enforcement provisions to ensure 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 all 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 

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 amount of time. As a result, communities in New Hampshire are encouraged to 

have a snow removal plan that outlines the requirements of “reasonable removal 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 New Hampshire State Title XX section 231:113 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XX/231/231-113.htm

Preparing Snow Removal in LowSnow Areas

Seattle, Washington

The City of Seattle receives only minor 

amounts of snow each year. 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, bridges 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 blog 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

97

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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

98

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 buildings. A snow 

removal plan that outlines clear responsibilities and assigns those responsibilities through 

written agreements are important when coordination is required 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. This scheme of establishing priority routes for clearing sidewalks can 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 Alexandria, VA, prioritizes sidewalks in the following order: 1) schools, 2) high 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

99

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 noncompliant 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 

increasing 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 taxes 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
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

100

• Stress the need for continuous improvements and performance measurements

• Mitigate risks and manage costs

• Utilize electronic communications and social media to enhance outreach

• Ensure compliance with federal and state laws

• Incorporate innovative and/or environmental sustainability practices that provide cost 

savings measures, foster efficiency of operations, and aid in efforts to preserve air and 

water quality

• Identify 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 consider making the plan an all-season plan by 

including vegetation removal for sidewalks and paths. Often sidewalk ordinances include yearround 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 reviewed 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 communities 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 Minnesota22

Outreach, Problem Reporting, and Help Programs

One of the most 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 valuable 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, the 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 itself 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/publications/SnowRemoval.pdf 22 http://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/handbooks/documents/snowice.pdf
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

101

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 Snow26 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 available. 26 Brookline MA, http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=193&Itemid=877

Figure 33: City of Boston fines for non-compliant snow removal

Type of Property

Failure to Remove 

Snow/Ice From 

Sidewalk

Removal of Snow/Ice from Private 

Property to Street or Sidewalk

More than one 

cubic yard

One cubic yard or 

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
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

102

• Bicyclist and pedestrian demand for the 

facility. Facilities located in 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 support. Are 

neighborhoods, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians asking that the facility be 

cleared of snow and ice? Are there many 

requests for maintaining the path for 

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-ofway 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 

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. 

The City of Madison, Wisconsin uses one 

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 handle the entire 

system. This helps expedite snowremoval, 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

103

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
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

104

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 online 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 nonemergency conditions in the city. In addition, the city has developed a brochure that 

provides clear 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 detailed 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 distribution:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/snow/whatyoucando/snowclearing.aspx

http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/snow/Resources/Publications.aspx

https://www.cambridgema.gov/iReport/reportanunshoveledsidewalk.aspx. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

105

6 | 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
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

106

Much of this damage can be avoided or delayed by using proper construction techniques that 

take into account 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 | 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 failures 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 guidance27 provides the following general best 

practices:

• Subgrade should be uniform material compacted to a minimum 98% standard Proctor 

density.

• Provide 100 – 150 millimeters (4 – 6 inches) of free-draining granular material under 

sidewalks for base material28

• 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 pavers

Providing an adequate subgrade of free-draining material may also reduce problems from 

nearby tree roots, as detailed below.

6.2 | PAVEMENT THICKNESS

6.2.1 | 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 Maintenance: A Best Practice by the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure. 

Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council. 28 Ibid.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

107

heavy vehicles may be as low as 3.5 inches; areas 

that experience a winter freeze and must 

accommodate heavy vehicles (known as vehicle 

loading) may require thicknesses 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 expected 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 

loading capacity of sidewalks. Similar to subgrade design, there is not one specific design 

solution 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 thickness29

• Four inches for light axle loading over sand/gravel

• Five inches for light axle loading over silt/clay

• Five to six inches for heavy axle loading over sand/gravel

• Six inches or slightly greater for heavy axle loading over silt/clay

Based on research conducted for this report, municipalities commonly follow these cited 

practices by requiring the following sidewalk thicknesses: 5 inches standard depth, 6 inches at 

driveways, 7 inches at commercial driveways. State DOTs require thicknesses of 4 or 5 inches 

for most sidewalk sections and 6 to 8 inches for sidewalk sections crossing driveways 

(consistent 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.

Figure 34: Five inches of concrete sidewalk
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

108

6.2.2 | 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 of4 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 

Practices for Bicycle Trail Pavement

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 | DRAINAGE

Proper sidewalk drainage is important 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 | 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 

Figure 35: Inadequate shoulders on a path resulting in 

edge damage.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

109

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 5 

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 trowelled.

Asphalt sidewalks typically do not need joints or scoring patterns.

6.5 | 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 Best Practice by the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure. 

Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council. July 2004.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

110

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 | 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 trees 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, such 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 street designs for 

trees and sidewalk preservation. At the national level, the AASHTO Guide for Planning, Design, 

and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities has some guidance as well as ITE’s Designing 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 Trees and Property Values, Arborist News (August 2007), PP. 34-36
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

111

6.6.1 | Soil Selection

One of the best ways to support healthy street trees and protect against sidewalk damage is 

provision, 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 ultimately 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 engineered 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 | 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 maximize soil volume appropriate to street tree 

species. In the confined street right-of-way this is often challenging and expensive 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 volumes 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 Design, 2008,PP. 3
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

112

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 in 

engineered soils to support root 

growth have been developed 

primarily for streets in urban and 

suburban locations with curb and 

gutter where plantings are 

desired in spatially constrained 

conditions. These strategies 

adopted from Up By Roots by Jim 

Urban34 are intended to increase 

the volume of rooting soil while maintaining accessible sidewalks: 

• Open Tree Trenches: Tree trenches are a common strategy used in areas where 

existing soil is not suitable for tree growth. Continuous soil trenches are planted with 

multiple trees and the trenches are covered with mulch, groundcover grass or other 

plantings; 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 in urban conditions where space is constrained. 

• Covered Tree Trenches: In areas where parking turnover is high or where there is a 

high volume of foot traffic, covered tree trenches are a good option. A continuous soil 

trench is covered with structural reinforced concrete around and between trees, 

enabling passive irrigation. As noted below, tree trenches can be integrated with the 

pedestrian furniture zone. Covered trenches are durable, in part because the soil under 

the concrete will settle and create an air gap that gives roots space to grow without 

damaging the sidewalk. This is a more expensive option but one that requires less dayto-day maintenance open tree trenches, which require management of mulch and 

vegetation. Covered tree trenches are normally installed in urban conditions with high 

pedestrian volumes and where space is constrained.

 34 Urban, Jim, Up By Roots: Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment. International Society of Arboriculture, 

Champaign, IL. 2008.

Figure 36: Tree size to soil volume relationship. Urban, Table 2.4.1, page 

205, 2008.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

113

• 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 | 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

114

The preferred size for a tree pit 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 for every square 

foot of crown area spread. Smaller tree pits, as 

narrow as 2’-6” wide, may be appropriate if 

sidewalk constraints prohibit the construction 

of a full size tree pit and sufficient soil volume 

is provided. However, tree pits are often the 

cause of sidewalk damage; trees can outgrow 

the pit and buckle the sidewalk. Solutions to 

small existing tree pits include using highnutrient amended soils, installing permeable 

pavers around the tree pit, expanding the 

opening of the tree pit or introducing mulch. 

Rubber sidewalks can also alleviate sidewalk 

buckling adjacent to tree pits. Modular rubber 

sidewalks and flexible porous pavements allow for root growth while reducing tripping hazards 

by providing a rounded rather than buckled surface.

6.6.4 | Tree Placement

Planting street trees in appropriate sites will help promote their successful growth and 

development while minimizing sidewalk and street maintenance issues commonly caused by 

poorly sited trees. Following are broad guidelines drawn primarily from Chapter 11 of the Los 

Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living Streets35:

• Establish and maintain 6 – 8 foot wide sidewalk furniture zones where possible. Many 

large trees need up to 12 feet in width, and are not suitable for placement in narrow 

furniture 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 with true permeable pavers (standard interlocking pavers are not permeable). 

• Establish wide furniture zones or planting strips and provide additional space for snow 

storage in snowy climates.

 35 Bogart, S; Snyder R. et al. The Los Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living Streets , Los Angeles County, 2011. 

http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com

Figure 37: Modular plastic pavers near a tree.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

115

• 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

116

Figure 38: Standard specification for street tree planting. Seattle Department of Transportation, 2011.

6.6.5 | Tree Selection

Street trees should be carefully selected to ensure that they will be compatible with their 

surroundings and will minimize the potential of future damage to sidewalks. Since appropriate 

trees will vary from location to location, work with an arborist horticulture specialist, landscape 

architect or other qualified professional to help assess the site and conditions that apply to the 

selection of proper tree species. Below are some points for identifying desirable features:
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

117

• 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 

(maple), Quercus (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 in 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. 

Figure 39: Partial list of approved street trees. Seattle Department of Transportation.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

118

• Choose trees that are compatible with overhead utilities if they occur on the same 

street. Conflicts can be minimized citywide if the jurisdiction 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 trainability. However, trees such as Populus (Poplar), Alnus (Alders) and 

Betula (Birch) and similar 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

119

7 | Funding

7.1 | 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 | 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. 

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

120

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 carry 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 well 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 sidewalks and paths 

that are open to the public. Homeowners associations are usually created when a new 

development is opened. Their popularity is increasing especially for condominium and 

townhouse developments. In parts of the U.S. many newer single-family subdivisions are 

organized around a homeowners association. 

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 maintenance for 

93 miles of path and walkways. While other services may require an additional user fee, the 

infrastructure for pedestrians is considered a public commodity that is included in the base 

assessment paid by all residents and businesses. Other homeowner associations 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

121

State Aid Funds

State-aid funds are aimed at distributing a portion of state fuel taxes and vehicle license fees 

and taxes 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 fixing 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 tax 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

122

Bonds

Bonds are often used by governments to address 

significant funding gaps by leveraging existing 

revenues to pay for large capital expenditures. 

Communities in some states use bonding to fund 

sidewalk repair or replacement programs, usually 

for an entire neighborhood or large section of the 

community. These bonds often have to be 

approved by residents through a referendum.

Utility Fees

Utility fees are used by some municipalities to 

fund street and sidewalk maintenance. 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 execute maintenance 

activities in a systematic way. Utility fees may be 

specific line items, such as a sidewalk 

maintenance fee collected directly by the 

municipality, or may be a tax on electric or 

natural gas service collected by the utility.

Sales Tax

Many communities indirectly use sales tax 

revenues to fund pedestrian facility maintenance 

by way of the general fund. Additionally, many 

states allow local municipalities or counties to 

impose a small local sales tax that could be 

earmarked for pedestrian facility maintenance. 

Sales tax revenue, direct or indirect, is a common 

source of funding for street maintenance and there are communities that use these revenues 

to also fund sidewalk repair and replacement programs.

The availability of this program to local communities is typically covered by state law and 

varies from state to state.

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 determined by 

taking the average yearly cost to repair 

defective sidewalks ($150,000) divided 

by the number of utility customers 

divided by 12. Prior to the imposition of 

the utility fee, property owners paid for 

repairs to sidewalks in the public rightof-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 voterapproved tax on electrical and natural 

gas services to fund maintenance of 

residential streets and sidewalks. The 

4% electric and natural gas tax 

generates roughly $380,000 annually. 

This dedicated funding paid for the 

repair of nearly 18 miles of existing 

residential streets and nearly 6 miles of 

existing residential sidewalks 

throughout the city over 14 years.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

123

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 taxes, 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 tax 

at the time of vehicle registration with the stipulation that that tax 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, Texas was the 

only community that explicitly mentioned red light cameras as a funding source for its 

pedestrian maintenance activities. Seventy-five percent of this revenue goes towards new 

sidewalk construction and 25% goes towards repairing existing 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-light 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

124

Enhancement grants (the last two programs have been combined into the Transportation 

Alternatives program and discussed in more detail below). A comprehensive federal website is 

www.grants.gov.

One of the more 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 deficiencies 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 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 rightof-way of former Interstate System routes

Tax Incremental Financing (TIF)

Some communities use tax incremental financing (TIF) as a means to address pedestrian 

facility maintenance needs in commercial areas undergoing extensive development or 

redevelopment. TIF is a method to use future expected gains in taxes to subsidize current 

improvements. TIF districts operate in most states and are typically targeted toward making 

improvements in distressed, underdeveloped or underused parts of a jurisdiction to encourage 

new development. 

Piggy-Back Funding

One of the best ways to maintain 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 within a certain distance of a 

project that involves 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 repair.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

125

7.1.2 | Property Owner Assessment for Repair 

Assessment programs assess abutting property owners for the costs of maintaining or 

replacing pedestrian facilities. Property owners may be held responsible for the full cost of the 

maintenance or the jurisdiction may pay part 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 

municipality; general fees or taxes that may fund transportation 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 for the 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 their 

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 

municipality have a system in place to assess 

property owners for the costs of maintaining 

abutting 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 

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

126

costs for assessment 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 facilities places a 

greater burden on homeowners in lower-income neighborhoods who are less able to pay. 

Many older parts 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 have 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 significantly to a need 

for the facilities among those who can least afford to maintain and repair it.

Pedestrian facilities 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 ordinances 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 additional concern over the potential for uneven quality in the repair work,

unpredictable schedules for completion, and the potential for a higher cost burden placed on 

homeowners than other systems taking advantage of economies of scale.

7.2 | 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

127

8 | 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 include 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 practices throughout the country.

There is no simple way to explain 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. Practices of 

over a hundred agencies, including cities, villages, counties, state transportation agencies, and 

homeowners associations were studied. The research identified many examples 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 owners; this shift changes the 

dynamic 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 

requiring 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 

pedestrians. 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

128

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 criteria 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 material - 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 facilities 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

129

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 wellmaintained. 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

130

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 public sidewalks. Public sidewalks 

vary in age and in quality of condition. Not every mere inequality or irregularity in the surface 

of the sidewalk rises to the level of a defect. The city recognizes that some sidewalk conditions 

create unreasonable hazards for pedestrians and other sidewalk users.

The city has limited employee and financial resources and cannot reasonably replace all 

sidewalks needing replacement or repair in the same year the sidewalk is identified as needing 

replacement and repair. Sidewalk replacement and repair can be costly. Comprehensive 

sidewalk surveys are expensive and require the use of limited city personnel and other 

resources. Under appropriate circumstances, some or all of the cost of sidewalk 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 need to be replaced or 

repaired. The city expects 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.

Sidewalk inspection procedures

The _________________ (Street Superintendent/Director of Public Works/City Engineer) shall 

establish procedures for regular sidewalk inspection. Those procedures will include:

• 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 sidewalk condition is in need of 

replacement or repair. Those criteria will include, but not necessarily be limited to, a 

deviation or difference in elevation greater than _________ (1⁄2, 3⁄4, 1) inch, as 

determined at the time of inspection.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

131

Sidewalk replacement and repair policy

Upon completion of the initial sidewalk survey, the ___________ (Street 

Superintendent/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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

132

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 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 periodically. Any review will consider comments and complaints since the last review 

and any other factors affecting the policy or its implementation.

Effective date of policy

This policy shall be effective as of ___________ (date). Modifications of the policy shall be 

effective on the date said modifications 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

133

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 corridor but are higher than 2.03 m (80 in) are not a 

problem for people with vision impairments because most pedestrians 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 

avoid 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.

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) into the sidewalk corridor.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

134

Pedestrians with vision impairments often travel close to the building line. According to the 

Americans with 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 mounted 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 walking 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/furniture 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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

135

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 orrepair within the same yearthe 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 sidewalk 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 expects that its agents, employees, and city officials will 

exercise discretion in identifying conditions requiring replacement and repair, in the scheduling

ofreplacement and repair, and in establishingpriorities forreplacement 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, prioritization, and

schedule of the potential repair and replacement. 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 take into consideration and 

weigh the following factors:
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

136

• 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 resources for sidewalk or trail 

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

4. Sidewalk and trail maintenance policy

City employees and/or private contractors will be responsible for removing snow from 

sidewalks and trails that abut or are located within city-owned streets, buildings, or parking 

lots. Adjacent property owners, including other public entities, are responsible for removing 

snow and ice from sidewalks and trails that abut or are located within their property. The city 

may, as a public service and forreasons of public safety,remove snow and ice fromsidewalks and

trails. The Public Works Supervisor will identify sidewalks and trails from which the city will

remove ice and snow and the prioritization for snow and ice removal subjectto the 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 residential 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 or official shall have full

December 28, 2004 City of St. Michael Sidewalk Inspection Policy
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

137

Appendix D: Risk Management Information

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 exist. Sidewalk inspection and maintenance policies serve many useful purposes 

including providing guidelines to city employees, conveying information to city residents, and 

preventing and/or minimizing lawsuits and exposure.

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 fix 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:
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

138

• Periodically inspect and/or rate all city sidewalk segments.

• Prioritize what city sidewalks to repair and/or replace.

• Decide whether to repair and/or replace a sidewalk based on certain criteria (i.e. 

difference of height between two slabs of concrete of one inch or more).

• Respond to resident complaints and concerns.

• Inspect sidewalks when performing other work, such as trimming trees or inspecting 

streets.

• Balance sidewalk maintenance duties with other public works functions.

While an unwritten policy is better than no policy, a written policy is better than an unwritten 

policy. A written policy serves to:

• Guide the city’s inspection and maintenance efforts by providing guidance and 

direction for city employees, providing information for responding to citizen concerns, 

and serving 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 decisions that are

based on a balancing of political, social, and economic factors. In other words, a

claimant cannot recover where she/he alleges negligent maintenance if the city

balanced social, economic, and political factors in formulating its sidewalk maintenance

policy. In maintaining sidewalks, a city typically balances political (cost of and 

resistance 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 liability exposure in lawsuits. Even if a city is not entitled to an 

immunity defense (which provides immunity from suit, not just liability), if a city 

establishes and follows a sidewalk maintenance policy, the city can prove that it

exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of its sidewalks.

• Communicate to the public. Specifically, a written policy (1) informs property owners 

about how the city treats sidewalks; (2) helps taxpayers understand the economic 

implications of sidewalk inspection 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 sidewalk deviations 

or conditions.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

139

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.
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

140

• Frequency of sidewalk re-inspecting, considering the location of the sidewalk, the

amount 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:

• Establishing priority criteria, considering location of sidewalk, amount of pedestrian 

traffic, overall condition of sidewalks in the area, cost versus effect, and resident 

complaints.

• Establishing 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, 

considering 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 replacement 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 owner; 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

141

Response to Resident Complaints and Concerns

A city’s sidewalk inspection and maintenance policy should contain a component for 

responding to resident 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 sidewalk 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 policy.

• 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.

• Communicate 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 in the past (inspection and maintenance policy) and what it will do in the 

future in response to his/her complaint. 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 

policy.

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

142

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 court 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 investigate 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 introducing 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 event of a lawsuit, the city’s attorneys can use these documents to 

prove the existence of city policies and the city’s adherence to the policies. They can also show 

that the city exercised 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

143

Appendix E: Eau Claire, Wisconsin Sidewalk Ordinance

City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin Ordinances – Sidewalk and Sidewalk Maintenance

Chapter 13.04

CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR*

Sections: 

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 installation 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 

conditions exist: 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

144

1. Vehicular and pedestrian conflicts present a potential danger to the health and safety 

of persons; or 

2. The number of small 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, outlying 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 for 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 sidewalk 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 exists 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; 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

145

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 

impractical. 

B. Decisions 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 exists, as much space as possible shall be retained on it to provide for the 

storage of snow. (Ord. 4510 §1, 1984).
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

146

13.16.010 Obstructing--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 clippings, 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 or disfigurement 

thereof, or tend to render the same unclean or a nuisance; nor shall any person cause or suffer 

any motor vehicle or other vehicle, or any box, crate, bale, package, merchandise 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 §5.01).

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 reasonably free and clear from snow and ice and shall clear the snow from such 

sidewalk within twenty-four hours following a snowfall. Any owner violating the pro-visions of 

this section shall be subject to 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 tax chargeable to such lot or parcel of land to be collected like other 

taxes 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 boundaries of such street. 

(Ord. 4262, 1982; Ord. 3599 (part), 1976; prior code §5.12).

_________________________________ 

* For provisions of general municipality law authorizing city councils to require 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

147

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 

condition, 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 

within 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 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

148

complete the maintenance 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 section 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 cost 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 protective 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 this article, from 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

149

taking any emergency action or nuisance abatement action, 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. 

(C85, § 23-2.01; O.11,361; C91, § 23-2.01; O.13,314, 14,092, 14,164, 14,800, 15,107) 

Sec. 102-43. Definitions—Maintenance of sidewalks.

As used in divisions 1 and 2 of this article, 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 more;

(2) Horizontal separations equal to three-fourth inch or more;

(3) Holes or depressions equal to three-fourth inch or more;

(4) Spalling over 50 percent of a single square or panel of sidewalk with one or more 

depressions equal to one-half inch or more;

(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 public; 

(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 more;

(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 section 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. 
A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

150

Sidewalk means the paved portion of that area between the curb lines of the roadway and the 

adjacent property lines intended for the use of pedestrians.