Recreational Trails Program Report on State Trail
Projects October 30, 2002
Table of Contents
Trail Projects and Funding Statistics: 1993-2001 Trail Project Work Descriptions Maintenance Project Funding Summary Construction Project Funding Summary
RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM DATABASE PROJECT 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 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998.
In July 2000, again in cooperation with the FHWA, CRT initiated an update of the
database. By late December 2000, reports had been
received from 47 States showing that the number of RTP projects had increased
58% to 3,983 while total RTP funding had increased more than 97% to $103.6
million. The States also 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 trails group. In October 2001, FHWA and CRT entered
into a three-year agreement, with the American Recreation Coalition acting as
CRT’s agent, to continue the database project on a more systematic basis. As part of this most recent effort, a
preliminary report was prepared for the FHWA in March 2002, adding 797 projects
from 29 States and bringing the total number of projects to 4,780. This October 2002 report updates that
information – adding 792 projects in 22 States for a total of 5,572 – and marks
the completion of the first year of the three-year agreement. The total RTP funding now reported has
reached $160,228,492 and has been matched by $150,555,382 in other funding.
The information contained in this latest report has also been compiled into a
searchable database that will be accessible on the Internet through the FHWA’s
Web site (www.fhwa.dot.gov). According to this latest report, the leading use of RTP
funds – 38% – is trail construction or development, which continues the trend
observed in earlier reports. The
gap between RTP spending on trail construction or development and spending on
trail maintenance has widened slightly as 90% more in RTP funds – a difference
of $35.5 million – has been directed toward those types of projects, up from 86%
in December 2000. Hiking and walking
trails continue to attract more funds than other trails, with hiking’s share now
at 63% (up slightly from 61% in 2000) and walking at 51% (up from 48%).
Three quarters of projects can be clearly identified as benefiting motorized
and/or nonmotorized trail uses. The ratio of nonmotorized to motorized
projects has increased slightly and is now at 2.7:1 versus the 2.6:1 of two
years ago. Each State is allowed to use up to 5% of its RTP funds for
educational programs that promote trail-related safety and environmental
protection. However, the States
continue to focus on other priorities, reporting that less than 2% (90) of their
projects were educational. Two
years ago, the percentage was similarly low when 56 projects were reported from
a total of 3,983. 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 only 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 21st
Century (TEA-21) amended the program – now known as the Recreational Trails
Program (RTP) – most notably by significantly increasing funds apportioned to
the States (reaching $50 million annually for the last four of the legislation’s
six years) 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 RTP since
its inception and shares FHWA’s interest in ensuring that the program is
efficient, operates in full compliance with the law, and is 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 approved as part of TEA-21 demonstrated
Congressional support for trails programs, 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, in
varying levels of detail. CRT
compiled this information into a database, which it 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.
By December, 47 states had responded with data on new 1999 and 2000 projects and
16 States provided updated information regarding earlier projects. Arizona, Florida, Ohio and the District
of Columbia did not submit information because they had not allocated funding in
those years. In October 2001, a new
three-year effort to update the database was initiated by CRT under a contract
between the FHWA and the American Recreation Coalition. An interim report published in March
2002 included 4,780 projects. That
report has been updated and now includes 5,572 projects. As part of the contract, the data from this newest summary report
have also been compiled into a searchable database that will be accessible on
the Internet through the FHWA’s Web site.
In addition to reviewing the basic findings summarized in the following
tables, those accessing the database on the Internet will be able to search for
projects by specific criteria, including State, type of project, type of trail
activity and level of project funding.
By October 30, 2002, all the States had updated the data
that had been reported in December 2000 regarding their use of Recreational
Trails Program (RTP) funds. Total
trail project funding reported now includes 2001 projects and totals
$160,228,492, an increase of $56,617,990 – or nearly 55% – over the total reported previously for the first
eight years of the program. The
number of projects reported increased 40% from 3,983 to 5,572. In addition, the States reported that an
amount equivalent to almost 94% of the RTP funding level – $150,555,382 – 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 represents an increase of $38,509,391 – 34% – over the amount of other funding reported previously.
The projects identified as new in the chart below reflect data that have been
updated since the December 2000 report.
RTP Database Projects and Funding Statistics 1993 - 2001
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 trails 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, sign purchase or installation, trail maintenance, and trail renovation or relocation. The percentages reported for each category did not change markedly, with the exception of trail construction or development, which showed an increase from 32% to 38%. A new category, land acquisition (2%), was added to the 2002 report.
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 1,476 projects reported (representing a 77% increase over the 2000
report) with those descriptions accounted for $39.3 million in RTP funding (up
52%) and another $35.9 million in matching funding (up 39%).
RTP Database Maintenance Project Funding Summary 1993-2001
Includes
maintenance, improvements, renovations and grooming.
While the quantity of projects incorporating trail
construction versus trail maintenance is some 27% higher (1,878 vs. 1,476), 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:
$81,095 vs. $50,916.
However, since the 2000 report, the per-project costs for both construction and
maintenance have decreased by 32% and 18% respectively.
RTP Database Construction Project Funding Summary 1993-2001
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 have been the dominant trail uses reported since the
data-collection project was initiated.
As shown by the following two tables, 3,068 of the reported projects can be clearly identified as benefiting nonmotorized trail uses and 1,142 as benefiting 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 benefiting nonmotorized trail use is also higher than for projects identified as motorized: $67,436 vs. $59,898. Although per-project costs have risen slightly since the 2000 report (less than 2%), the spread between them has stayed roughly the same, $7,538 currently versus $7,280 in the 2000 report.
RTP Database Nonmotorized Trail Project Funding Summary 1993-2001
RTP Database Motorized Trail Project Funding Summary 1993-2001
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 90 such programs
have been reported by 26 States.
Those programs used $1,801,555 in RTP funds and an additional $3,091,258 in
other funding, bringing the per-program cost to $54,365. However, if substantial spending on three programs in
California and four programs in Vermont is eliminated, the per-program cost
drops to $34,219. Measured either
way, the per-program costs have increased, by nearly 48% overall, or if the
California and Vermont projects are eliminated, by more than 16% since 2000.
RTP Database Education Project Funding Summary 1993-2001
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
