Recreational Trails Program: Report on State Trail Projects

For the Federal Highway Administration by the Coalition for Recreational Trails

January 15, 2001
(Order No. DTFH61-00-P-00299, Requisition No. 67-01-0059

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Contents

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Initial Database Findings
  • Trail Projects and Funding Statistics: 1993-2000
  • Trail Project Work Descriptions
  • Maintenance Project Funding Summary
  • Construction Project Funding Summary
  • Trail User Category Summary
  • Nonmotorized Trail Project Funding Summary
  • Motorized Trail Project Funding Summary
  • Education Project Funding Summary
• Conclusion

Recreation Trails Program Database Project

Executive Summary

In 1999, the Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT), working in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), developed a database of State trail projects that had received funding from the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) since the RTP's inception as part of, first, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and then the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. In July 2000, again in cooperation with the FHWA, CRT initiated an update of the database. By late December, reports had been received from 47 States, showing that the number of RTP projects had increased 58% to 3,983 while total RTP funding increased more than 97% to $103.6 million. In addition, States reported that more than $112 million in additional funding - a 109% increase over the previous total - had been obtained from other sources, including other Federal agencies, as well as State and local governments and trail groups.

The projects reported were varied, but the leading use of funds, by a substantial margin, was trail construction or development. Eighty-six percent more of the RTP funding - $22 million - is being spent on trail construction compared to trail maintenance. The types of trails that benefitted from the funding were also quite varied, but with hiking and walking trails leading the way. Approximately two thirds of the reported projects can be clearly identified as benefitting motorized and/or nonmotorized trail uses, with the trend clearly favoring nonmotorized uses.

Although each State is allowed to use up to 5% of its RTP funds for educational programs that promote trail-related safety and environmental protection, only 56 projects have been reported by 23 States.

Background

A Federal assistance program for recreational trail construction, renovation and maintenance was created under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Under the program, known initially as the National Recreational Trails Funding Program, funds were allocated to all States and the District of Columbia during three of the legislation's initial six years (a total of $37.5 million) as well as during the transitional period of October 1997 to June 1998.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) amended the program - now known as the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) - most notably by significantly increasing funds apportioned to the States (rising to $50 million annually for years three through six of the legislation) and providing contract authority for the program.

The legislation establishes requirements for project eligibility but provides substantial flexibility to the States on project selection. Presently, there is no unified reporting process from the States to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administers the program, on use of the funds. It should be noted, however, that most States have substantial, though not uniform, information available to the public on use of RTP funds.

The Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT), representing all major national trail interests, has taken an active role in the trail program since its inception and shares FHWA's interest in ensuring that the program is efficient, operating in full compliance with the law, and understood by all interests. CRT regards it as essential that RTP projects can be identified and evaluated by the Administration, the Congress, and program advocates. The increase in funding for RTP demonstrated the support for trails programs in the Congress, but this support will be sustained only if sufficient accomplishments can be demonstrated. Moreover, FHWA has a need to monitor projects for compliance with statutory direction.

For these reasons, in 1999, CRT worked cooperatively with FHWA and the States to collect initial information on projects funded under RTP since the program's beginning. The data requested included project date, location and description, contact name, amount of RTP funding and other funding, types of trail uses, the Congressional district involved, and project highlights. All the States and the District of Columbia reported information from their Recreational Trails Program, in varying levels of detail. CRT compiled this information into a database, which it has made available to FHWA, trail administrators, and major national trail organizations. A report highlighting key information from the database was prepared and submitted to FHWA. As part of that report, CRT recommended that the data-collection effort be continued.

In July 2000, again in cooperation with FHWA, CRT contacted the States to obtain information on RTP trail projects undertaken since the initial request for data in 1999. As of late December, 47 States had responded, reporting on their newest projects from 1999 and/or 2000. New information has not been received from Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and the District of Columbia because those jurisdictions have not allocated funding in those years. In addition, 16 of the States provided updated information regarding earlier projects. All of the States are paying closer attention to keeping track of the specific project information and are doing a better job of collecting and reporting the information. As CRT finished collecting information at the end of 2000, the value of the RTP database for the Federal and State governments and for trail organizations has been greatly enhanced. CRT's findings from the data collected are presented on the following pages.

Initial Database Findings

As of December 31, 2000, 47 States had submitted new data regarding their use of Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funds. Total trail project funding reported totals $103,610,502, an increase of $51,052,505 - or more than 97% - over the total reported last year for the first seven years of the program. The number of projects reported increased 58% from 2,524 to 3,983. In addition, the States reported that even more funding - $112,045,991 - had been provided by other sources, including Federal agencies like the USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as States, towns, counties, and trail clubs like mountain biking groups, equestrian councils, and snowmobiler associations. This total, which does not include data from all program years or all States, represents an increase of $58,398,735 - 109% - over the amount of other funding reported previously.

RTP Database Projects and Funding Statistics 1993-2000

The trail projects reported were varied and included: building new trails and adding trail connections; building restrooms; providing water fountains; developing and implementing educational programs; maintaining trails; resurfacing trail treads; providing accessibility for mobility-impaired persons; and more. The following table represents a categorization of the different projects reported. The percentages shown reflect the percentage of all projects that reported trail project descriptions. The leading use of funds, by a substantial margin, in both the current and previous reports was trail construction or development, followed by bridge construction or renovation. The percentages reported for each category did not change markedly, with the exception of trail maintenance, which nearly tripled in number and almost doubled (from 6% to 11%) its share of projects.

RTP Database Trail Project Work Descriptions Summary

Percentage of all projects that reported (3,518) trail project descriptions

A broader definition of trail maintenance was used for the following table, which includes projects reported as renovations, improvements and grooming, as well as maintenance. The 833 projects reported with those descriptions accounted for $25.7 million in RTP funding and another $25.7 million in matching funding.

RTP Database Maintenance Projects Funding Summary

While the quantity of projects incorporating trail construction and trail maintenance is similar (891 to 833), the total amount of funding for trail construction is more than double the amount used for trail maintenance funding. As would be expected, the average per project cost for construction projects is markedly higher than for maintenance projects: $118,453 vs. $61,860.

RTP Database Construction and Development Project Funding Summary

Trail users on trails that received RTP funding represented every category of trail-related recreation although data on trail use were not reported for all projects. The table that follows displays those categories. Hiking and walking were the dominant trail uses reported for both the 1993-1999 report and the 2000 update.

RTP Database Trail User Category Summary

As shown by the following two tables, 2,042 of the reported projects can be clearly identified as benefitting nonmotorized trail uses and 784 as benefitting motorized trail uses. While there is some overlap where projects accommodate both motorized and nonmotorized trail uses, the trend favoring the expenditure of RTP funds for nonmotorized trail uses is very clear. The average per project cost of projects benefitting nonmotorized trail use is also higher than for projects identified as motorized: $66,182 vs. $58,902.

RTP Database Nonmotorized Trail Project Funding Summary

RTP Database Motorized Trail Project Funding Summary

A State is allowed to use up to 5% of its RTP funds for educational programs that promote trail-related safety and environmental protection. Only 56 such programs have been reported by 23 States. Those programs used $1,036,247 in RTP funds and an additional $1,016,605 in other funding, bringing the per-program cost to $36,658. However, if substantial spending on three programs in California is eliminated from those calculations, the per-program cost drops to $28,715.

RTP Database Education Project Funding Summary

Conclusion (from FHWA)

The Recreational Trails Program has provided significant funding to the States for all kinds of recreational trails. FHWA will continue to monitor how States use RTP funds to benefit recreational trails.