|
ISTEA and TRAILS: Merging Transportation Needs and Recreation Values
Click HERE for graphic. ISTEA and Trails: Merging Transportation Needs and Recreation Values By Robert S. Patten Rails-to-Trails Conservancy with Amy Derry Hal Hiemstra and Marianne Fowler Published by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy & American Trails September 1994 for the 12th National Trails Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska Table of Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Section 1. An Introduction to ISTEA and Trails . . . . . . . . . . 1 Why Trail Advocates are Becoming Transportation Experts . . . 1 Trails are Eligible for ISTEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Section ][I. How to Make ISTEA Work for Your Trail . . . . . . . . 7 Trail Politics is Local. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Transportation Enhancements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 National Recreational Trails Fund Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Section II[I. What Has Been Achieved in Three Years: Enhancements & NRTFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Transportation Enhancements: A 1990's Gold Rush . . . . . . .13 NRTFA: Great Projects, Too Little Money . . . . . . . . . . .19 Section IV. Conclusions and Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Reauthorization Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Appendices Preface Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and American Trails are pleased to release this report at the 12th National Trails Symposium, September 1994, in Anchorage, Alaska. It is published jointly with two hopes: 1) that it will be of assistance to the trails community in securing funding for trails under the existing programs of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and 2) that it will catalyze cooperative action to secure and protect these new-found trail funding provisions during the ISTEA reauthorization process. RTC's Transportation Enhancements Research and Monitoring Project In November 1992, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) initiated the Transportation Enhancements Research and Monitoring Project focused on federal and state implementation of the Transportation Enhancements Provisions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). An initial survey of all fifty states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia culminated in our first report, Enhancing America's Communities, in the Spring of 1993; and continued surveying activity has informed numerous updates and allowed us to publish the Second Edition of Enhancing America's Communities in June 1994. Over the course of two years, RTC has compiled an extensive set of documents and data on each of the states and jurisdictions that receive an annual federal enhancements apportionment. The enhancements data used in this report comes from RTC's June 1994 edition of Enhancing America's Communities. For a description of the methodology used to collect, compile and analyze the Enhancements data provided in this report, please contact the author at Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. FHWA and the National Recreational Trails Fund Act The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is monitoring implementation of the National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA). The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy gratefully acknowledges FHWA!s contribution to this report and appreciates the agency's ongoing cooperation. RTC received a comprehensive set of data from FHWA in early September 1994. This data serves as the basis of the NRTFA analysis in this report. For a description of the methodology used to collect and compile NRTFA data, the reader may contact Christopher Douwes at FHWA in Washington, D.C. i Executive Summary The Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) has affected trail development and acquisition more than even the most optimistic trail supporters were predicting just three years ago. Federal funding levels from the two ISTEA programs highlighted in this report show that at least $261.5 million has been awarded to trail and pathway projects. And, that total rises to more than $375 million in federal spending when all bicycle and pedestrian projects funded under ISTEA are considered. These figures are even more startling and exciting when one considers that this spending level has been achieved while many states have not yet fully obligated all of the Transportation Enhancement funds available to them. Furthermore, this funding has come directly through state institutions that historically have been hostile to trail funding, and generally slow to adopt new ways of operating. Still further, this spending has been achieved with a minimum level of advocacy from the traditional trails community. Imagine the level of funding possible as the trails community becomes more informed and comfortable operating within the transportation arena, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state Departments of Transportation (DOTS) become more fully accustomed to ISTEA's new way of thinking. However, all the news is not good news. Formal obligations of federal enhancement funds lag far behind project awards made by state DOTS. Actual trail building and corridor acquisition lags still further behind, with a wide range of political and institutional barriers creating hurdles and delays. Without the trails community, bicycle and pedestrian community and related organizations pushing hard for full expenditure of all transportation enhancement funds, the true potential of ISTEA's enhancements provisions is not likely to be realized. Furthermore, today's meteoric rise in trails spending may level out or even decline as other nontraditional players become more informed and competitive in the project selection process. Similarly, as this report points out, only $7.5 million has been appropriated for the National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA) despite the fact that ISTEA authorized this program at up to $30 million a year. Without increased advocacy efforts on the part of the trails community and others, it is unlikely that this program will ever be fully funded during the remaining years of ISTEA. Obviously, enactment of ISTEA brought about major changes in the trails funding landscape. It has also changed the way the trails community seeks federal funding assistance for local trail projects. While ISTEA is not the answer to all trail funding needs -- particularly for more remote, long-distance trails -- in just three short years, ISTEA has made transportation agencies the trail advocate's agency of choice. This shift has been as difficult for many in the trails community as it has for many in the transportation community. Though the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture are still iii critically important players in developing overall trail policy, plans, and strategies, the financial resources available for acquisition and development through transportation agencies dwarfs the financial resources now available through natural resource and parks agencies. Developing a Nationwide Trail System: The expanded eligibility for funding and the revised programmatic structure created by ISTEA provides the vehicle for the trails community to develop a nationwide system trails that is an integral part of the internodal transportation system. After three years of monitoring and tracking ISTEA implementation, RTC believes that the recently articulated goal of the trails community to create a nationwide trail system is now tenable. Furthermore, RTC urges the trails community to recognize the importance of the following six tasks, so that federal transportation investments will remain central in achieving this goal: * Fully integrating trail and transportation planning at the state and local level. * Ensuring that ISTEA trails are designed to optimal standards, guidelines and specifications. * Minimizing the transportation / recreation distinction in questions of funding eligibility for particular facilities. * Promoting trail development as a key infrastructure component necessary for reaching the two goals set forth in The National Bicycling and Walking Study. * Recognizing the strengths and significance in both of the key trail programs in ISTEA: Enhancements and NRTFA. * Realizing that ISTEA is more than Enhancements and NRTFA. The Politics of Reauthorization: In the coming two years, trail advocates must become better informed players within the state and local transportation decision making arena and stronger advocates for maintaining the trail-enhancing language included in ISTEA. There is little doubt that many of the advances made in ISTEA which permit transportation funds to be spent on trails will come under attack during the reauthorization of ISTEA in 1996. There are strong interests in Washington and across the country who believe that the revenue generated by the federal gas tax should be spent exclusively on highways and auto/truck oriented projects, and not trails. How the trails funding provisions of ISTEA fare in this debate can be significantly influenced by the trails community. The concluding section of this report outlines the politics of the reauthorization process and includes a specific action plan for members of the trails community to undertake in the coming months. The plan asks trail advocates to get Members of Congress, their staff members and the press out on an ISTEA-funded trail in your community or state. There is no better way to convince members of Congress about the value of trails and their contributions to community livability and alternative transportation, than by arranging for a Congressional visit. Clearly, the proof is in the pudding. It is now up to members of the trails community to invite Congressional members to the table. iv Section 1: An Introduction to ISTEA and Trails. Why Trail Advocates are Becoming Transportation Experts or, Please don't give me another list of "acronyms to learn! Many trail activists and enthusiasts might ask, "why is there so much focus now on federal transportation legislation?...l thought federal trail building funds came through the Interior Department." Before 1992 most federal trail development funds were approved in the Interior and Agriculture Departments' appropriations bills. However, enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), in December 1991 brought major changes to the trails funding landscape. For the first time in the history of federal transportation law, ISTEA made rail-trail acquisition and development specifically eligible for federal highway funds through the transportation enhancements provisions; moreover, almost all types of trails, pathways, greenways and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities became eligible for enhancements funds. In addition, an entire new program was created to fund recreational trails: the National Recreational Trails Fund Act. At a minimum, ISTEA annually makes available over $500 million for ten specific enhancement activities, including trail development. With surprisingly little advocacy from the trails community itself, this legislation has allowed trails to take the greatest leap forward since the National Trails System Act was passed 26 years ago. Now, with three of ISTEA's six fiscal years nearly completed, the intent of the Act regarding trails is being realized -- $255.3 million has been awarded to trail and pathway projects as a result of the enhancements provisions, and an additional $6.4 million has been committed through the National Recreational Trails Fund Act. From all programs in ISTEA, RTC estimates that over $375 million in federal funds has been awarded to bicycle and pedestrian projects. While there are many factors contributing to this new-found trail funding, the policy thrust of ISTEA can be seen as the primary catalyst of this still-unfolding sea change. The preamble of ISTEA articulates a fundamental shift in national transportation policy, establishing energy conservation, protection of the environment and quality of community life as high priorities that must be considered and achieved through federal transportation spending. It also establishes greater parity between all of the surface transportation modes; bringing bicycling and walking, and thus trails, in from out of the cold (see box on page 2). (1) A federal Act that authorizes maximum levels of federal transportation spending for six federal fiscal years, 1992-1997. ISTEA and Trails 1 This new, trail-friendly policy environment is causing trail enthusiasts, citizen advocates and agency staff in the trails community to pay serious attention to the inner workings of the Act. Because transportation is a field where trail advocates have not traditionally looked for support, trail activists are now forming new relationships within the professional transportation community which is charged with implementing ISTEA. Selected statements from the preamble of ISTEA "It is the policy of the United states to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System (NITS) that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner. The NITS shall consist of all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner, including the transportation systems of the future, to reduce energy consumption, and air pollution while promoting economic development... Social benefits must be considered with particular attention to the external benefits of reduced air pollution, reduced traffic congestion and other aspects of the quality of life in the United States." The purpose of this report is to further introduce the trails community to ISTEA and explain what the Act is doing, and can do, for trail development across the nation. The report will focus primarily on two programs within ISTEA -- the Transportation Enhancements Provisions and the National Recreational Trails Fund Act - providing an overview of how funding decisions are made and how trail advocates can be involved. It will also provide an analysis of the trail projects that have received awards thus far and how implementation of these programs is working for trails. Trails are Eligible for ISTEA On a practical level, it is ISTEA's comprehensive inclusion of the bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel that has thrust trails firmly into the deep pockets of federal transportation funds. Fourteen major provisions of the Act directly refer to the bicycling and walking modes of travel.2 Because trails are considered a bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, trail development projects are now eligible for funding from eleven different funding programs within ISTEA (See Figure 1). While trail eligibility has been established in the law, there is no mandate or requirement to fund trails. Given political realities that govern the transportation decision making processes at state and local levels (which tend not to reflect the new way of thinking represented in ISTEA), the likeliest sources of trail project funding include only the top five programs listed in Table 1; and even so, trail funding from categories 3 -5 (the "core" Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program or Federal Lands Program) (2) Eleven provisions of ISTEA create funding eligibility for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, two provisions mandate inclusion of non-motorized modes in state and metropolitan transportation planning, and funding programs, and one provision mandates creation of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator in each state Department of Transportation. ISTEA and Trails 2 remains rare. For this reason, this report will focus on the first two funding sources on the list, while providing a brief explanation of the STP, CMAQ and Federal Lands programs. Figure 1 ISTEA Funding Programs for Tails 1) Enhancements (a 10 percent set-aside of the Surface Transportation Program) 2) National Recretional Trails Funds Act (NRTFA) 3) "core" Surface Transportation Program (STP) 4) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) 5) Federal Lands Program 6) Scenic Byways Program 7) Highway Safety Program 8) Bridge Program 9) National Highway System (NHS) 10) Federal Transit Funding 11) Demonstration Project (otherwise known as Congressional earmarking or "pork.") The Transportation Enhancements Program Within the Surface Transportation Program3 (STP) is a program for "non-traditional" activities called "transportation enhancements." ISTEA requires that ten percent of all STP funds be set aside for Transportation Enhancements Activities (TEAs). The legislation establishes only ten eligible enhancement activities (see Figure 2). Over $3 billion, nationally, will be available for enhancement activities over the life of ISTEA. This amounts to approximately $500 million annually. States are apportioned enhancement funds by federally established formulas. Annual state apportionments range from $2-3 million for small population states like Delaware, Vermont and Wyoming, to as much as $30-34 million for larger states like New York, Texas and California (see Appendix A for a table of authorization levels for each state). Enhancement funds can be used for many costs associated with trail development, including planning, engineering and design, land acquisition and construction. While not specified in ISTEA, a common structure for state Transportation Enhancements Programs (TEPS)4 has evolved. This structure includes 1) a regular application ___________________________ (3) For an explanation of the Surface Transportation Program see page 5. (4) The term Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) is used by the authors for convenience in referring to state level implementation of ISTEA's enhancement provisions. The ISTEA did not establish a TEP at the federal level and does not require states to establish TEPs per se. However, ISTEA charges state DOTs with responsibility to implement the enhancements provisions, giving the Federal Highway Administration only an oversight role. The ISTEA and Trails 3 process whereby local governments, state agencies and sometimes non-profit organizations can propose projects, 2) a project selection process which often utilizes selection criteria and newly formed advisory committees, and 3) a set of policies and guidelines that govern the first two processes, as well as project administration and implementation for those projects that are selected. Figure 2 The Ten Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEAs) (Categories under which trail projects qualify are in bold, however trail projects are sometimes incorporated into projects made eligible under the eight categories.) #1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities #2 Acquisition of Scenic Easements and Scenic or Historic Sites #3 Scenic or Historic Highway Programs #4 Landscaping and Scenic Beautification #5 Historic Preservation #6 Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Buildings, Structures or Facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals) #7 Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails) #8 Control and Removal of Outdoor Advertising #9 Archaeological Planning and Research #10 Mitigation of Water Pollution Due to Highway Runoff The National Recreational Trails Fund Act Another new program in ISTEA is the National Recreational Trails Fund Act (sometimes referred to as the Symms Act). ISTEA authorizes up to $30 million annually for this program, and explains in some detail how the funds are to be administered and which type of projects are eligible. Although the legislation called for a trust fund to finance the Act, and the Treasury Department created the fund, Congress failed to give the program contract authority, thus necessitating a yearly trek to Congress for an annual appropriation. No funds were appropriated for fiscal year (FY) 1992, only $7.5 million was appropriated for FY 1993, and no funds were appropriated for FY 1994. Funds from this program can be used for trail maintenance projects as well as trail planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, trailhead facilities, education and administrative costs. ________________________________ term Transportation Enhancement Program is commonly used to describe the procedures and policies that states are creating to implement the language of the Act. ISTEA and Trails 4 STP, CMAQ and Federal Lands Programs The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is one of the largest funding programs within ISTEA, providing more than $23 billion over the six year life of the Act. It is also the most flexible in terms of project eligibility. Funds can be used for a wide range of road, highway and bridge construction and reconstruction projects, as well as capital costs for transit projects, carpool programs, traffic safety and management activities, environmental mitigation, a wide range of transportation planning functions, and the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Most significantly for trails, all eligible transportation enhancement projects are also eligible to be funded with STP "core" funds. Thus, trail advocates should consider the enhancements set-aside as the "minimum pool" of funds available for trail projects. In addition to the 10 percent of STP which is set aside for enhancements, 10 percent must also be set aside for safety construction activities. The remaining "core" of funds must be split between metropolitan areas of over 200,000 population receiving 62.5 percent, and 37.5 percent reserved for use anywhere within the state. Because the STP is a primary source of road building and maintenance funds, as well as urban traffic management moneys, in most states competition among projects and political jurisdictions is fierce. Very few trail projects have received "core" STP funds, and prospects for the future remain slim. Funding for trails can also be awarded from the newly created Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). The purpose of this program is to make transportation investments that help achieve the clean air goals set forth in the federal Clean Air Act. If a non-motorized trail project is in a metropolitan area that is a non-attainment area (meaning that national air quality standards have not been attained for ozone and carbon monoxide), it may be funded with CMAQ moneys. This is because the Environmental Protection Agency has included bicycle and pedestrian facilities as eligible Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), those transportation activities and investments that States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NMOS) may employ to. help reduce air pollution. CMAQ funding is authorized for $6 billion, nationally, over the life of ISTEA. While these funds will be directed primarily to urban areas, each state receives a minimum apportionment regardless of its air quality problems, and can use the funds as if they were STP funds. Trail projects in Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Illinois; Washington, DC; and other cities have received CMAQ funds. Unlike the STP funds, prospects for trail projects to become priorities for CMAQ money are strong in many urban areas. Further details regarding the CMAQ program can be found in a number of excellent resources available from the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)5. In particular we suggest the February 1993 issue of the STPP Newsletter, Clearing the Air on Conformity; and the general guidance document Tools for Change: The Clean Air Act Amendments and ISTEA. ________________________________ 5 STPP may be reached at the same address as RTC or by calling 202- 939-3470. ISTEA and Trails 5 The Federal Lands Highway Program is an appropriate funding source for trail projects on federal lands, including National Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Forests, Bureau of Land Management lands, federal Parkways, or Native American Reservations. While primarily intended as a source of funds for road maintenance, repairs, or new road construction on federal lands, only a trail facility adjacent or parallel to a road could benefit from this program. The national total authorized for the program is $2.6 billion over the six years of ISTEA, with the Parks and the Park Highway Program receiving $83 million per year, the Public Lands Highway Program $171 million per year, and Indian Reservation Roads $191 million per year. The funds for all of these programs are discretionary, except for the Park Service and Forest Service, which have discretionary, as well as non-discretionary funds. Non- discretionary funding decisions are made by the state, rather than the federal agency. In 1993, through the Public Lands Highway Program, $2.8 million was spent on trailheads and bridge replacement in Colorado, along US 50 near the Arkansas River. There have been a few other minor trail and recreation-related projects funded through this program. ISTEA and Trails 6 Section 11: How to Make ISTEA Work for Your Trail Trail Politics is Local While ISTEA is a new federal law, the old adage "all politics is local" should govern the trail advocate's basic approach. Both NRTFA and Enhancements funding decisions are made at the state and local levels of government, and ISTEA has shifted an even greater portion of decision making power to the states than existed in the past. However, although Enhancements and NRTFA are both part of ISTEA, they are governed by different rules and are likely to be administered by different state agencies. This section of the report provides trail advocates with further advice tailored both for the state Transportation Enhancements Programs and NRTFA. Despite the fact that NRTFA funding has all been allocated, the program description is helpful to prepare the reader in understanding the program's analysis. Transportation Enhancements The Nature of the Federal-Aid System: Like all other federal- aid highway funds, enhancements moneys are allocated and expended by state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). At the beginning of each fiscal year, FHWA, using formulas established by ISTEA and past federal transportation laws, calculates the amount of each state's available enhancements funds and informs the state DOT. In essence, enhancements funds, again like all federal-aid highway funds, are given to the states on paper. State DOTs use revenue in the state treasury to actually pay contractors, vendors and consultants for their transportation work and then receive reimbursements from FHWA for the federal share of the project, as well as payments from local governments for non-state local matching funds. The federal shares are based on pre-agreed funding levels, called obligations, and corresponding project scopes. For this reason the federal aid highway program is often referred to as a cost-sharing, reimbursement program. Contrary to popular understanding, the enhancements program is not a grant program. The federal government does not grant money to the state and the state does not provide grants to project sponsors. This affects project sponsors by forcing them to abide by applicable federal laws and regulations. Project administration, management and financing procedures vary from state to state. In some states, the project sponsor has to put forward all funding for the project prior to eventual reimbursement from FHWA, through the state DOT. In other states, the state DOT requires the local sponsor to pay the state its required local share and the state fronts the 80 percent federal share as bills are incurred. Applicants and project sponsors should be aware that money spent o a project before an application is approved by both the state DOT and the FHWA will not be reimbursed, and cannot count toward the sponsor's provision of local matching funds. ISTEA and Trails 7 Because this is a federal transportation program administered at the state level, all applicable federal and state regulations will apply. As a "federal-aid" project, applicable regulations include those governing environmental protection, historic preservation, acquisition of property, contracting, wage rates, and others. Depending upon the state you are in, project applicants have varying degrees of responsibility for ensuring compliance with relevant federal laws and regulations. In some states, the state DOT will undertake all the work necessary for complying with federal laws and regulations. In other states, state laws may limit the DOT's ability to assume this responsibility, or state DOT policy may require significant involvement from sponsors as a way to reduce the state's burden. In these cases, project sponsors need to be prepared to play a major role in the federal compliance process. This usually entails preparation of special documents and often requires hiring consultants. In almost every state, to qualify as a successful enhancement applicant, a project must be endorsed by a local or state government. While independent citizen groups or non-profit organizations may (and often do) initiate project proposals by providing the vision, enthusiasm, and evidence of public support, nongovernmental organizations typically cannot proceed with an enhancements application without a local government agency's sponsorship of the application. Only a few cases exist nationwide where state DOTs are contracting directly with non-profit organizations to carry out the same project proposed and sponsored by them in the application process. The Decision making Process: Among the states, there are a variety of decision making structures for selecting enhancements projects. The most common method is an annual selection cycle in which a selection committee reviews applications. Some selection committees (commonly referred to as "advisory committees") are comprised solely of DOT staff, and some include government representatives from other state or regional agencies, such as a department of environmental management, parks and recreation, the state historic preservation office, or a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Finally, the most open selection committees, found in twenty states, will include citizen representatives, in addition to DOT staff and government agency representatives. Depending upon the state you are in, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) or other regional transportation planning bodies may be involved in endorsing or screening projects before passing them on for evaluation at the state level. Whether or not this is true in your state, it is wise to seek the endorsement of your MPO, or its equivalent, at the earliest stage possible. In a few states, enhancement funds are suballocated or distributed according to targeted amounts and the selection process occurs at the regional MPO level. Your state DOT Enhancements Program Manager is the best source of information regarding the particular selection process used in your state. RTC maintains a list of DOT Enhancements Program Managers. To order see Appendix B. ISTEA and Trails 8 Selection Criteria -- Making the Transportation Connection: A successful enhancement application will not only have gathered support from the key organizations and decision makers in the community, but will clearly state its relationship to the intermodal transportation system of a given community.(6) In determining eligibility for enhancements funding, the Federal Highway Administration requires that a project directly relate to the transportation system in one or more of three specific ways: function, proximity, or impact. For instance, a multi-use trail is an example of an activity with a functional relationship -- it will directly serve non-motorized travelers (bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians) in meeting their travel needs. A proposed enhancement may also be related by proximity - for example, removal of illegal billboards in the viewshed of a scenic highway is an activity related to the highway by proximity. Finally, if the proposed enhancement activity is intended to have a positive impact on an existing or planned transportation facility or the environment surrounding the particular project, it is eligible. If constructing a multi-use trail reduces auto use in an area, that is an impact-related enhancement; if restoration of a wetland adjacent to a road enables it to more effectively filter the highway runoff and improve a stream's water quality, that also demonstrates an eligible impact relationship. While your trail project will certainly have other benefits beyond its transportation value, to be a successful applicant the transportation-related benefits should be the central focus of an application and the function / proximity / impact connection should be made explicit with text, maps and empirical data. As you can imagine, many trail projects relate to the transportation system through two or all three of these considerations, and applications should highlight each of a project's transportation-related amenities. There are many specific transportation benefits which trail applicants should not fail to consider in the conceptual stage of the project, and thus in the enhancements application. They include bicycling and walking connections to, from and among any of the following areas: residential neighborhoods, bus and rail transit, schools, employment centers, commercial districts, shopping malls, parks and recreation centers, medical facilities, historic districts, libraries, government service buildings, etc. In addition, multi-use trails may score highly because of highway safety considerations, especially where a trail offers grade- separated crossings of dangerous highways or an off-road alternative to a high-volume highway or narrow arterial street.7 Other benefits your trail may offer, such as recreational opportunity, personal and mental health, economic development, environmental preservation, energy conservation, environmental (6) Because of ISTEA, the term "intermodal" is now frequently used to refer to the multiplicity of facilities (highways, waterways, rail lines, airports and trails) and modes (automobiles, trucks, freight railroads, bus and rail transit, intercity buses, AMTRAK trains, bicycles,in-line skates and walking shoes) that make up our transportation system. It also specifically relates to the connections n any of these facilities or modes. (7) However, please note that off-road trails or sidepaths do not improve safety if they must frequently cross side streets and numerous driveways, especially those with high traffic volumes such as those entering strip malls, commercial buildings and institutional parking lots. ISTEA and Trails 9 education opportunities, corridor preservation, and others, should also be highlighted. Examine the selection criteria, which is unique to your state's program, and highlight these or other aspects of your project accordingly. National Recreational Trails Fund Act The National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA) differs from the Enhancements Provisions in many ways, but primarily in three facets: 1) its separation from the reimbursement and cost-sharing provisions that govern all of the ISTEA Title I programs; 2) the likelihood that the program is administered by the state's parks or natural resource agency (not the DOT); and 3) its focus on recreational, rather than transportation trails. Eligibility requirements for the NRTFA do not include the function / proximity / impact test that exists for enhancements. Moreover, ISTEA was much more specific about the administrative structure of the NRTFA, which has made program development much easier for both the FHWA and the state implementing agencies. The following items are among the many specific parameters that ISTEA established for the NRTFA: a) funding minimums for both motorized and non-motorized trails, b) a specific, but wide range of eligible project activities, c) a specific list of eligible project sponsors and grant recipients, and d) a strong incentive for creation of state recreational trail advisory boards. At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation assigned FHWA the role of program administration and implementation. As called for by the Act, the Interior Department was asked to cooperate with and support implementation efforts. The Act gives state Governors the power to designate the lead implementing agency at the state level, and most Governors have assigned the program to the state Department of Parks and/or Natural Resources. Further, the act stated that NRTFA moneys are to be used on trails and trail-related projects which have been planned under otherwise existing laws, and which are identified in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Fiscal Administration: NRTFA is not subject to the twenty percent non-federal match requirements which are common for most ISTEA funding programs. NRTFA funds are dispersed to states on an annual basis according to the formula set forth in the Act; funds are distributed to projects and project sponsors as "straight" cash grants. The Act made private individuals, organizations, local governments and other state and federal government entities eligible to receive grants of NRTFA funds. ISTEA specifically requires that not less than thirty percent of a state's funds be used for motorized trail projects, and that another minimum thirty percent be awarded to projects accommodating non-motorized trail usage. Moreover, use of funds for projects that accommodate the greatest number of compatible recreational purposes and those that appropriately combine motorized and non- motorized uses are to receive funding preference. ISTEA and Trails 10 Finally, the Act specifies that states shall remain eligible for receiving NRTFA funds only if a recreational trail advisory board exists within the state. Users of both motorized and non- motorized recreation must be represented. Project Selection & Eligibility: The Act gave states the power to determine their own project selection procedures and to determine who should be involved in the decision-making process. States were also able to design an internal or external selection process. Eligible projects include trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance and grooming; restoration of natural environments damaged by trail use; provision of trail-side and trail-head facilities; access for the disabled; property acquisition; and operation of trail environmental protection and safety education programs. In the event that funding for this program should become available again, trail advocates should contact their State Trails Coordinator for information about the application process, selection procedures, selection criteria and any other policies governing the program. RTC maintains a current list of State Trails Coordinators. ISTEA and Trails 11 ISTEA and Trails 12 Section Ill: What Has Been Achieved in Three Years: Enhancements & NRTFA Transportation Enhancements: A 1990's Gold Rush A Look at the Numbers The significance of $341 million in federal investment in bicycle and pedestrian facilities from Enhancement funds is understood only when one recognizes that federal highway funds have never before flowed at such a high rate. In the eighteen years prior to ISTEA, a little more than $41 million, nationwide, was spent on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In the first three fiscal years under ISTEA (1992-94) RTC found a fifty-fold increase in funding of non-motorized transportation projects (see Figure 3) -- not including any bicycle/pedestrian funding from the CMAQ or other ISTEA programs. Of this $341 million, $255.3 million, or 75 percent, has been for trails and other off-road, multi-use pathways. Click HERE for graphic. In addition to these federal funds, local communities have demonstrated their strong interest in and commitment to trail development with $94.3 million in matching funds -- 27 percent of the total cost of the projects. ISTEA requires only a 20 percent non-federal match, which means that the local sponsors have provided, on average, a 7 percent over-match. ISTEA and Trails 13 Of the total 2068 enhancements projects identified by RTC nationwide, 744, or 36 percent, are trail projects8 (see Figure 4). What is most impressive about these trail projects is their geographic spread across the nation and across traditional American subcultures. Forty-one Figure 4 Enhancement-Funded Trail Projects Federal Match No. of Facility Type Share Share Total Projects Rail-Trails $113.6 $45.1 $158.7 268 Greenway Trails* $141.7 $48.9 $190.6 476 ----- ---- ----- ---- Totals $255.3 $94.0 $349.3 774 *Greenway Trails include a wide variety of off-road trails and sidepaths that are not rail-trails. states have funded one or more trail projects. Trail projects are top priority requests in rural, suburban and urban areas alike; in both cold northern states and warm southern climates; in the older, more traditional, cities and townships of the eastern United States as well as the younger, less traditional, communities along the west coast. A full range of project sponsors are involved in these trail projects as well, including cities, townships and county governments, state natural resource agencies and non-profit trail organizations. In some cases, even quasi-governmental economic development agencies or historic preservation organizations are the lead sponsors for trail projects. The vast majority of these funds are being spent on trail construction, however property acquisition is also being funded (see Figure 5). At least forty-three projects involved both acquisition of right-of-way and trail construction. For most trail projects, engineering and design costs are counted as a part of construction, however Illinois stands out as a state that often funds engineering and design costs in one fiscal year and construction costs the next. Funding of trail planning efforts remains rare -- RTC found only thirteen projects nationwide accessing $1.5 million in federal funds for this effort. ____________________________________ (8) In addition to these trail projects, another 330 non-trail, bicycle and pedestrian projects have been funded with enhancements moneys. The federal share of these projects amounts to $85.7 million. They include on-road bike lanes and shoulders, sidewalks, bike parking at transit facilities, funding of state bicycle and pedestrian program coordinators, etc. ISTEA and Trails 14 Click HERE for graphic. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on new trails, it is important to ask how many miles of new treadway is being built. Unfortunately, due to incomplete state reporting, current RTC data on mileage is only partial. Fifty-five percent (419) of the trail projects included a linear mileage figure -- whether that is miles of trail to be built, miles of corridor to be acquired, or miles of corridor being engineered or master planned. These partial numbers show over 1000 miles of trail funded for construction and nearly 700 miles of new right-of-way acquired (see Figure 6). Figure 6 Miles of Enhancements-Funded Trail Projects Project Type Linear Mileage Acquisition 699 Planning 73 Combination Const.& Acq. 100 Engineering & Design 111 Construction 1033 Total 2017 ISTEA and Trails 15 What are We Building? In the spirit of the Interior Department's Trails for All Americans report, enhancements funds are overwhelmingly being awarded to community trails that are close to home. Because of the importance of a trail's potential transportation function, back- country trails are not a primary recipient of state TEP funds. In a few instances, however, trails leading to state or locally managed natural areas, or related to National Scenic Trails are being funded. Figure 7 provides a more substantive description of the trends found by RTC. Figure 7 Trends in Enhancements-Funded Trails * Rail-Trails: Preservation of abandoned rail corridors and their conversion to multi-use trails is a common use of enhancements funds. Activities included acquisition of land and/or easements and construction of rail-trails and other improvements along rail- trails. * Rails-with Trails: RTC is finding an increasing number of rail corridor preservation projects where trails will be built along active rail lines. * Waterfront Trails: Another common trend is the development of multi-use greenway trails along water, including creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, oceans and various urban waterfronts. * Combining the TEAs: Increasingly, state selection processes seem to facor projects that combine two or more of the ten enhancement activities. Thus, as time passes, we are seeing more historic, scenic and landscaping projects with bicycle and pedestrian trail elements. RTC is also noticing more trail projects that integrate the adjacent historic and scenic resources in to the trail development plan, especially along rail-trails, canals, and river greenways. * Innovative Concepts: The most innovative projects have been emerging in the second and third rounds of funding. In Michigan, an historic mill property was rehabilitated as a trail support facility with restrooms, a bike repair and rental store and snack shop. The trail segment which crosses this property connects a major greenway trail with an on-street bike route along an urban arterial. In Oregon, "roads-to-trails" are being funded as abandoned sections of the historic Columbia River Scenic Highway are restored to provide critical additions to the non-motorized route through the Columbia Gorge. Prior to this project, Interstate 84 was the only passable public right-of-way for bicyclists and hikers. * Bridges: There are also a significant number of projects that focus on providing or upgrading major bridges. These bridges may make connections between opposite river bank trails or otherwise disconnected activity centers in a community, or they may provide relief for bicyclists and pedestrians from inadequate and dangerous conditions on existing highway bridges. ISTEA and Trails 16 Figure 7 (continued * Spot Improvements and System Completion: In states such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois, a significant share of the projects funded are what might be called "spot improvements" to well-used and expanding of, or improvements to, on-street segments which are necessary to retain travel continuity on otherwise off- street trails; 3) additions of overpasses or underpasses to eliminate at-grade road crossing; and 4) paving segments of heavily used trails that have only a dirt or crushed limestone surfaces. * Trails System Building: Project names and descriptions suggest that a fair number of awards are being dedicated to the initial segments of multi-phased projects. In Washington State, this translates to discrete segments of well-planned, comprehensive trail systems being funded. * Trails in College Towns: Many trail projects are oriented to serving colleges and universities and their surrounding neighborhoods. It seems these cities and towns are capitalizing on a predemonstrated need and/or use of bicycling and pedestrian facilities. * Park Agencies Gaining Access to Funding: In a number of states, including Indiana, Illinois, Oregon, Missouri, South Dakota, and West Virginia, it is clear that the state park/nature resource agency has successfully gained access to the TEP for funding of its linear park and trail development programs. * Rural Trails and Tourism: In many western states, including California, Colorado, South Dakota, and Utah, trail developments are taking place in small communities that are dependent on tourism and recreational resorts for economic vitality. In some eastern states, such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, rural trail projects are linked with industrial heritage projects and the tourism and economic development potential found in historic preservation activities. * National Scenic Trails: There are a few projects which relate directly to the National Scenic Trails: Virginia has approved a project to construct a new bridge across the James River for the Appalachian Trail (AT) which reroutes hikers around an unsafe highway bridge crossing, and New Jersey has funded improvements to an AT trailhead and parking area. There may be any number of projects that will ultimately become part of the American Discovery Trail including projects on the Katy Trail in Missouri and Anacostia Headwaters Greenway in Prince George's County, Maryland. In Oregon, development of the Springwater Trail and other trail segments from Portland to Estacada will enable hikers to make a primarily off-street trek from downtown Portland to the Pacific Crest Trail near Mt. Hood Finally, it should be noted that the terminology used to refer to multi-use trails in enhancements projects is far from consistent. Frequently used terms include trail, trailway, bikeway, bike path, sidepath, hiker/biker train, greenway, greenbelt, pathway, bike/ped path, walkway, and path. Other terms like rail-trail, esplanade, boardwalk, sidewalk, and towpath are found less often, and clearly indicate unique facility designs and settings. Use of such a wide range of terms that do not have commonly understood technical definitions makes exact analysis more difficult. ISTEA and Trails 17 Analysis of Policies, Project Selection and Implementation RTC research has identified three major issues of concern regarding state TEPs: 1) the low level of citizen participation in project selection processes; 2) sluggishness in implementing projects once funding has been awarded, and 3) unnecessary and counterproductive restrictions surrounding eligibility of private matching funds and in-kind matches. Other problems have surfaced in small numbers of states, however most of these problems are unique to the particular dynamics of the state's approach to transportation decision making. In most states, the process and procedures governing project selection and administration are generally adequate. As a result of FHWA's National Transportation Enhancements Conference in June 1994, many state DOTs are making improvements to their TEPs that will be implemented in subsequent funding rounds. Moreover, FHWA has promised to issue further formal guidance on Transportation Enhancements in the Fall of 1994. The Surface Transportation Policy Project's Committee has provided FHWA specific recommendations regarding additional guidance and needed policy changes. For a comprehensive examination of the issues noted above, refer to Enhancing America's Communities, Second Edition, June 1994. For in-depth technical assistance on these or other issues involving TEPs or enhancements-funded projects, RTC also distributes a technical guidance packet and copies of eight issue papers that were prepared for the National Transportation Enhancements Conference in June 1994. (See order form in Appendix B). A special note regarding equestrian use of trails Information gathered by RTC on equestrian use of ISTEA-funded trails suggests that states are treating this issue differently and it has become a major problem in a few states. Some state DOTs require strict adherence to the AASHTO Bicycle Facility Development Guidelines which strongly urge against multiple-use (bike/horse) trails. It appears that this guideline has become an excuse for some agencies to exclude horseback riders from trails. RTC believes that multiple uses can be accommodated on most trails by employing the appropriate design treatments. This is not to say that all corridors have the width or are otherwise appropriate for including equestrian use, however, RTC supports a policy that makes funding of equestrian elements on trails eligible for Enhancements moneys where this use is appropriate. A compelling case can be made that a significant share of trips by all modes, including automobiles, are recreational. Thus, to exclude equestrian use because it is purely recreational indicates a double standard and discriminatory practice that is not justified merely because ISTEA is involved. Equestrian advocates are beginning to argue, like bicyclists in recent years have argued, that the horse can and is used for utilitarian transportation. Finally, and maybe most importantly, where equestrians have had shared access to unpaved trailss which are now being hard-surfaced with Enhancements funds, this access should bot ne lost with ISTEA-funded trail improvements. ISTEA and Trails 18 National Recreational Trails Fund Act: Great Projects, Too Little Money A Look at the Numbers Three annual transportation appropriations have been passed since ISTEA became law. Of these three rounds, only one included funding for NRTFA, and it was partial funding at that -- $7.5 million in FY 1993. If funded at authorized levels of $30 million annually, Congress could have made available $90 million for this program in FY 1992 - 1994. Of the $7.5 million appropriated in FY 1993, $225,000 was set aside for program administration at the national level and the remainder ($7.275 million) was apportioned to states for project funding. As of September 1, 1994, over 93 percent of funds available to states have been committed to projects and other program related activities -- a total of $6,819,430. States were given two fiscal years (FY93 and FY94) to fully obligate available funds. According to figures provided by the Federal Highway Administration, two jurisdictions -- Puerto Rico and Ohio -- have yet to obligate any funds. Four states - Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia -- have spent less than 60 percent of their available funds (see Appendix C). While Congress has made very little money available, FHWA research shows that demand at the local level remains high. Thirty-six states reported $24.6 million in unfunded requests -- a total of 848 projects. Some of these requests are likely to represent low priority projects or even ineligible activities, however a 3 to 1 ratio of requests to available funding suggests that demand for this program is strong. This is despite widespread knowledge in many states that less than $300,000 statewide would be available. NRTFA is not subject to the standard matching requirements (80 percent federal / 20 percent non-federal). Nonetheless, many states instituted a matching policy or suggested that matching funds be offered in project proposals. Nationally, this resulted in the leveraging of as much in non-federal funds as federal funds9 -- $ 6.4 million to match the $6.8 million in federal funds obligated. Moreover, attached to the $24 million in unfunded requests was another $13.5 million in unused matching funds. 10 _________________ 9 Non-federal matching funds consisted of cash grants, the value of land donations, in-kind services and materials. 10 Some projects may be able to advance in a limited manner using only the matching fund allotment. However, it is often the case that without the federal funds, in-kind services and other donations cannot be effectively utilized. ISTEA and Trails 19 The Act specified that a minimum of 30 percent of each state's allocation must be spent for uses benefiting motorized recreation, as well as a minimum 30 percent benefiting nonmotorized recreation. The FHWA is tracking funding in five categories: Single Use Non- motorized, Diversified Non-motorized, Diversified Motorized and Non-motorized, Single Use Motorized, and Diversified Motorized. Figure 8 provides the nationwide obligation totals in each of these categories, as well as obligation percentages, and number of states making obligations in each category. Figure 8 NRTFA Nationwide Trail Obligations by Use Category Total Trail States Making Non-Motorized Obligations Percent Obligation> $0 1) Single Use $955,189 15.13% 30 2) Diversified Use $2,475,820 39.21% 44 Non-motorized Total: $3,431,009 54.34% 3) Diversified Non- motorized/Motorizded $1,364,992 21.62% 32 (Motorized) 4) Single Use $394,593 6.25% 18 5) Diversified Use $1,123,018 17.79% 32 Motorized Total: $1,515,611 24.04% --------- ------ --- Totals $6,313,612 100% 48 *The figures in bold are not part of the equation creating the totals at the bottom. With the information shown in Figure 8, calculations can be made on a national level to determine if the "30 percent minimums" are being met. However, the Act states that the minimums must be met on a state-by-state basis. To determine compliance, as the Act defines it, would take a more detailed analysis of FHWA data. 11 Analysis of nationwide FHWA totals, however, reveals that both of the "30 percent minimums" have been met (see Figure 9). ___________________________ 11 Because complete data for all states was not available in time for thorough analysis by RTC, this report examines this issue only from a national perspective. FHWA informed RTC in September that until additional funding is provided for this program, FHWA will not be able to make a formal determination regarding each state's compliance with the 30/30/40 funding minimums. ISTEA and Trails 20 In addition to the two "30 percent minimums," NRTFA requires that 40 percent of the funding must be allocated to projects that serve diversified trail use. FHWA defines diversified use as that which accommodates more than one distinct mode of travel regardless of the motorized/non-motorized mix. Hiking and bicycling are two distinct non-motorized modes, motorcycles and ATVs are distinct motorized uses. Again using the national totals, this 40 percent requirement for diversified use has been easily met (again, see Figure 9). Figure 9 "30/30/40" Minimums 30 Percent Minimum to Benefit Motorized Uses The 24 percent total for motorized use combined with 21.6 percent for Diversified Motorized and Non-motorized uses means that 45.6 percent of funds are benefiting trails for motorized uses.12 30 Percent Minimum to Benefit Non-motorized Uses The 54.3 percent total for non-motorized use plus 21.6 percent for the Diversified Motorized and Non-motorized projects totals 75.9 percent of funds benefiting non-motorized use of trails. 40 Percent Minimum to Benefit Diversified Uses 17.8% Diversified Motorized trails 39.2% Diversified Non-motorized trails 21.6% Diversified Motorized and Non-motorized 78.6% Total Funds for facilities serving diverse uses This analysis does not hide the fact that a majority of funding is benefiting non-motorized trail use. It appears that nationwide, state-established priorities for this program favor funding diversified-use trails. However ten states, including Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Utah, spent as much, or more, for motorized trails as for non-motorized. The set-aside structure established by the Act also states that up to seven percent of a state's apportionment can be used for local administrative costs, and up to five percent can be used for educational projects. According to FHWA, 42 states used all or a portion of their administrative funds -- representing 72 percent of the total available nationwide. Only 22 states obligated funds for educational projects, using 39 percent of the total funds available for this activity. Of the minimum $6.4 million (88 percent) that must be allocated to trail projects, 95.35 percent was so obligated. ____________________ 12 Some of the trail projects attributed to the Diversified Use, Motorized category are also open to non-motorized use. ISTEA and Trails 21 What are We Building? FHWA has developed a fairly detailed data set on all NRTFA projects. Project descriptions include funding levels, linear lengths, locations, land management agencies, allowed uses and other details about each project. In addition, some project characteristics have been quantified and aggregate totals calculated. This has allowed RTC to assess what NRTFA funds are actually accomplishing on the ground in both a qualitative and quantitative manner. Figure 1O provides a structured look at NRTFA-funded projects: Click HERE for graphic. ISTEA and Trails 22 Figure 11 illustrates, in a thematic way, how NRTFA money was used. Figure 11 Illustrations of NRTFA-Funded Trails * Accessibility for Disabled Trail Users: A significant number of projects included elements to make trails accessible. Activities included installation of Braille signs, developing accessible trails and accessible segments of larger trail networks, and other types of infrastructure improvements to make trails easily passable. * Urban Trails: A surprising number of trails funded with NRTFA funds were in urban and suburban communities. Often these trails provided linkages to natural areas like sanctuaries and refuges. They also provided utilitarian transportation options. * Innovative Intermodal Conversions: In Georgia, a forest road has been converted to a non-motorized trail using NRTFA funds, and in New Mexico an abandoned airport complex has been converted to a trail park. Also in New Mexico, a former cattle trail has been converted into a multi-use recreational trail. However, one of the most unique intermodal conversions took place in New Hampshire, where funds repaired a bridge which supports an abandoned railway. The railway is used by recreational rail equipment owners or "rail- riders." Rail-riders use specially equipped bicycles, or traditional hand pumped (or motor-driven) handcars, to ride on existing rails. The 8-mile corridor also includes a parallel trail used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skiers, and snowmobilers. * Traditional Intermodal Conversions, Rail-Trails and Canal Towpaths: RTC identified more than 30 rail-trail projects receiving NRTFA funding, and two canal trail (tow path) projects. * Public/Private Partnerships: Many NRTFA projects have involved partnerships between the private sector and public agencies. This included non-profit trail groups and user clubs private land owners and business partnering with county, state and federal agencies. * Projects on Federal Lands: Only 16 percent of obligated funds ($1,082,979) went to projects located on federal lands, primarily U.S. Forest Service lands, but also Bureau of Land Management lands, National Park lands, and properties of other federal agencies. *Projects on National Scenic and Historic Trails: RTC identified three projects on the Appalachian Trail (two on New Jersey, one in Virginia), one on the Continental Divide Trail in Montana and one along the National Historic Trail of Tears in Tennessee. Analysis of Policies, Project Selection and Implementation Very little data has been collected by the FHWA regarding the NRTFA project selection process. However, it is known that thirty- four states awarded funds to projects through a ISTEA and Trails 23 competitive grant making process which was advertised within the trails community and other relevant constituencies. Eighteen states awarded grants only to projects selected by the administrating agency or other authorities invited to assist in decision making. In the latter case, projects considered for funding were likely to be only those that were already high on the administering agency's priority list. Most states have established Recreational Trail Advisory Boards as a result of NRTFA, and many, but not all of these boards were involved in reviewing project proposals and making project selections. Some states already had statewide trail advisory committees in existence and simply assigned oversight of this new program to the existing committee. A few states claimed exemption from the 30/30/40 provisions based on the Small State Exclusion included in the Act, and at least one state advisory board voted to deviate from the minimum allocations, a provision also allowed for in the law. While a thorough analysis has not been conducted by FHWA, or any trail advocacy group, Mississippi is the only state that appears to be in non-compliance with the 30 percent minimum for the benefit of motorized uses and the 40 percent minimum for diverse use projects (without an approved exemption). A definitive list of states that have achieved an exemption either by advisory board vote or the small state provisions has not been assembled. ISTEA and Trails 24 Section IV: Conclusions and Action Plan Conclusions The revised programmatic structure and explicit trail eligibility created by ISTEA provides a well healed new vehicle for the trails community to truly develop a nationwide system of interconnected trails and greenways. While it is a typical American vehicle -- oversized, and slow to accelerate -- it has a large and relatively full gas tank, and it's already in gear! Anyone in the trails community who has not yet climbed aboard should do so immediately! Creating a Nationwide Trail System: After three years of monitoring and tracking ISTEA implementation, RTC encourages the trails community to be aware of six key issues if we are to ensure that a high quality, locally accessible, but nationwide trail system is indeed created as a result of ISTEA's federal transportation investments: * Full integration of trail and transportation planning at the state and local level. This includes continued increases in the levels of public participation in the transportation planning process, and greater cooperation and coordination between various government agencies at all levels, especially local, regional and state. * Ensuring that new trails being built and old trails being upgraded are designed to optimal standards, guidelines and specifications. Traditional guidelines and specifications, as well as more innovative micro-design solutions, are undergoing constant evolution in this rapidly changing field. Effective compilation and dissemination of a comprehensive set of design treatments is not yet done on a national basis. Because most new trails accommodate multiple-uses (meaning they are used by more than one mode of travel, and for both recreational and transportation purposes) it is critical that park trail designers, new to the transportation world, and highway engineers, new to the trails world, learn about, and have easy access to the best available ideas and resources. * Minimizing of the transportation / recreation distinction when it comes to questions of funding eligibility for particular facilities. This is a non-issue in the world of highways and auto use, and trails should not be subject to this double standard. The FHWA has an excellent policy on this matter ( FHWA Guidance Memorandum, May 7, 1991) which should be endorsed and used by all. * Promotion of trail development as a key infrastructure component necessary for reaching the two goals set forth in The National Bicycling and Walking Study: to double the percentage of all trips taken by bicycle and pedestrian modes, while reducing injuries and fatalities for bicyclists and pedestrians by ten percent. * Recognition of the strengths of and importance for both of the key trail programs in ISTEA: Enhancements and NRTFA. The analysis presented in this report suggests that Enhancements is a major source of funding which is effective primarily for trail acquisition and construction. NRTFA is a valuable source for projects that do not fit the enhancements mold, including small scale projects, maintenance activities, amenity development, and efforts that need the flexibility offered by relief from Title I restrictions. ISTEA and Trails 25 * Realization that ISTEA is more than Enhancements and NRTFA. Though gaining access to the nine other more highway-oriented programs is difficult, examples do exist of trail projects which have been funded with these moneys. Whether or not the trails community continues to make in-roads into these other programs will depend largely upon the degree to which trail advocates become adept at playing the transportation game. The Trail Advocate's Role in ISTEA Implementation: Trail advocates should observe ISTEA implementation of trail projects in their states and local communities with an eye toward these issues. They should take appropriate actions to encourage new ways of thinking and look for methods of cooperation to remedy problems created by the oversights of local community or agency implementers. Finally, when considering ISTEA and trails, trail advocates need to recognize that Congress authorized ISTEA at $151 BILLION, not just $3 billion for the transportation enhancements program, or $30 million for the NRTFA, or $6 billion for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). While tremendous strides have been made in securing ISTEA funding for trails, the ISTEA cooler has just begun to be tapped! ISTEA and Trails 26 Reauthorization Action Plan The Politics of Reauthorization There is little doubt that many of the advances made in ISTEA which permit transportation funds to be spent on trails will come under attack during the reauthorization of ISTEA in 1996. In the coming two years, trail advocates must become better informed players within the state and local transportation decision making arena and stronger advocates for maintaining the trail enhancing language included in ISTEA. The following discussion lays out a framework for understanding and a plan of action. Federal transportation law is codified in Title 23 of the Unites States Code. It is updated by Congress every five to six years through a process called reauthorization. The trail funding programs described in this report entered the code with ISTEA in 1991, the most recent reauthorization. The fight for NRTFA during 1991 reauthorization was visible and fractious. It is partially that legacy that has crippled funding for this program. The inclusion of trails among the ten eligible enhancement activities was far more subtle and obscured by the focus on bicycle and pedestrian facilities in general, and the details of transportation formulas and set-aside provisions. The potential windfall for trails was not clear during reauthorization, even to the most discerning trail advocate's eye. If legislative activities proceed on schedule, the next reauthorization debate will occur during the spring and summer of 1996, and the resulting law will become effective October 1, 1997. The trail-funding enhancement provisions will not slip by unchallenged again. There are strong voices in Washington who believe that revenue generated by the federal gas tax should be spent exclusively on highways for pavement for cars and trucks, not trails with a range of other users. The trails community must organize to participate in the reauthorization process on an equal footing with other interests. Its goal should be to assure that trails have stature commensurate with other transportation facilities under the new law and that funding levels are not diminished, but maintained or increased. Although reauthorizing legislation is not scheduled to be voted on until 1996, the process begins in 1995. Two Congressional Committees, and their Subcommittees, will play determinative roles relative to the content of the legislation: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation, Public Buildings, and Economic Development House Public Works and Transportation Committee Subcommittee on Surface Transportation ISTEA and Trails 27 Show Congress ISTEA-Funded Trails If carried out by trail advocates across the country, the following six step plan to show Members of Congress the trails that have been funded by ISTEA, will greatly strengthen our reauthorization position: 1) Immediately add your name to a reauthorization information mailing list. You can do so by filling out the form in Appendix (D) and returning it to Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. It offers three information options: the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy for the Show Congress Campaign, the Surface Transportation Policy Project for overall reauthorization updates, and the Coalition for Recreational Trails for specific information on NRTFA. 2) In February 1995, after the 104th Congress has been elected and reorganized, call your Representative and Senators and ask what Committee assignments they have. If the response includes serving on either Senate Environment and Public Works or House Public Works and Transportation, inquire about their subcommittee assignments. If any of these factors match, you will potentially play an especially important role in reauthorization. 3) In March of 1995 contact Marianne Fowler, Government Affairs Manager, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (202-797-5404), or other staff members of the RTC Policy Division. Ask for an updated list of all the trail projects funded through ISTEA in your state, and citizen contacts for each project. 4) In April of 1995 contact other trail advocates and trail groups in your state or Congressional District and begin organizing an ISTEA and Trails field trip and briefing for your Representative(s) and Senators when they are home for 1995 Summer Recess (dates unknown, but traditionally late July or early August). Be creative, have lots of fun, and arrange for the press. If your Representative or Senator is on one of the key subcommittees, strategize with RTC about the value of having an RTC representative (time and funding permitting), or someone else from the Washington, D.C. trails community, join you in the field. 5) Summer recess -- show the Congress how important ISTEA trails are to their constituents with a first-class field trip. Provide feedback to RTC. It will be invaluable in planning Congressional maneuvers. 6) Fall of 1995 to 1996: Stand by for next steps. ISTEA and Trails 28 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUNDING PROGRAM DEFINITIONS Assured Access Funding Category Definitions for NRT Projects: 1. Non-motorized single use: A project primarily intended to benefit only one mode of non-motorized recreational use. Projects serving various pedestrian uses (such as walking, hiking, access by wheelchair, running, jogging, bird-watching, nature interpretation, back-packing, etc.) constitute a single use for the purposes of this category. Also, projects serving various non-motorized snow uses (such as skiing,, snowshoeing, etc.) constitute a single use for this category. 2. Non-motorized diverse use: A project primarily intended to benefit more than one mode of nonmotorized recreational use. 3. Diverse use, both motorized and non-motorized: A project primarily intended to benefit at least one mode of motorized recreational use and at least one mode of non-motorized use. This may include a project where motorized and non-motorized activities take place in different seasons. 4. Motorized single use: A project primarily intended to benefit only one mode of motorized recreational use. It is not necessary that the project specifically exclude non-motorized use. 5. Motorized diverse use: A project primarily intended to benefit more than one mode of motorized recreational use. It is not necessary that the project specifically exclude non-motorized use. Definitions of Other Terms Motorized: Off-road recreation using any motorized vehicle. The most common modes are ATV, fourwheel drive (or other light utility vehicle), motorcycle, and snowmobile. At the discretion of each State, the term may exclude motorized wheelchairs as defined under "Motorized wheelchair". Non-motorized: Off-road recreation by a non-motorized mode. The most common modes are bicycle, dog-sled, equestrian, pedestrian, skate, and ski. Official Use: Use of motorized vehicles for official purposes (emergency, enforcement, maintenance, etc.) may be permitted on otherwise non-motorized trails at the discretion of the appropriate Federal, State, and/or local officials and/or land managers. Use of motorized vehicles for official purposes does not constitute diversified recreational trail use for motorized and non-motorized purposes. Pedestrian: Any person travelling by foot, and any mobility- impaired person using a manual or motorized wheelchair. This program is intended to treat a mobility-impaired person using a manual or motorized wheelchair as a pedestrian, and is not intended- to restrict the activities of such a person beyond the degree that the activities of a pedestrian are restricted. Manual wheelchair: A device that is propelled by human power, designed for and used by a mobility impaired person. Motorized wheelchair: A self-propelled wheeled device, designed solely for and used by a mobility impaired person for locomotion, that is both capable of and suitable for use in indoor pedestrian areas. Provided by the Federal Highway Admin. Appendix D YES! I want to receive ongoing information about the reauthorization process. Add my name to the following mailing list(s). Please check one or more: ---- Trail Advocates Database, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (for showing Congress ISTEA-Trails Campaign, and specific information on Enhancements) ---- Surface Transportation Policy Project (for overall ISTEA reauthorization updates) ---- Coalition for Recreational Trails (for specific information on NRTFA) Name: ________________________________________ Organization: ________________________________________ & Title Address: ________________________________________ City:_______________________ State:_________ Zip:______ Phone: _____________________ Fax:______________________ My Senators are: 1)________________ 2)_________________ My Representative is:_____________________ Other Members of Congress I know well: _________________________ TEAR OUT THIS PAGE AND RETURN TO: Marianne Fowler Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Suite 300, 1400 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
