Connecting Communities

Integrating Transportation and Recreation Networks

This webinar explored how to integrate transportation and recreation infrastructure. This webinar was also a concurrent session at the 2017 International Trails Symposium.

Presented by:

Event Details

** This event has passed **

September 21, 2017

10:30 AM to 12:00 AM (Pacific Time) {more time zones}

11:30 AM to 01:00 AM (Mountain Time)
12:30 PM to 02:00 AM (Central Time)
01:30 PM to 03:00 AM (Eastern Time)


FREE for members
FREE for nonmembers

Learning Credit Cost:

  • CEUs are FREE for this webinar.
  • Note:

    Closed Captioning is available for this webinar.
    Learning Credits are NOT available for this webinar.


    Webinar Outline

    This presentation demonstrates how to integrate transportation and recreation infrastructure. It describes a process in Columbus, Ohio, to assess transportation and recreation facilities for connectivity. It also describes several FHWA publications that highlight ways that planners and designers can apply the design flexibility found in national design guidelines to address common design challenges and barriers. These publications focus on reducing multimodal conflicts and achieving connected networks, so that walking and bicycling are safe, comfortable, and attractive options for people of all ages and abilities.


    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published several guidance memos and reports in 2015 through 2017 to help communities achieve safe, accessible, comfortable, and connected multimodal networks. The purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate how and why it may be appropriate to connect communities through an integration of transportation and recreational trail facilities.


    The participant will be able to:

    • Describe how planners and designers can use their skills and available resources to demonstrate how trails can help achieve connected networks, and describe specific project types that demonstrate best practices for connecting communities.
    • Describe key factors to consider when assessing communities for connectivity.
    • Describe specific publications that provide information on planning and design flexibility.


    Participants will be able to describe Federal surface transportation policy and design guidelines related to trails and nonmotorized transportation. They will identify processes to develop solutions to help communities achieve safe, accessible, comfortable, and connected multimodal networks. They will be able to recognize and evaluate planning and design sources that they can use to prepare nonmotorized transportation plans and construct projects that connect communities.


    Webinar Partners


    Christopher Douwes, Community Planner, Federal Highway Administration
    Washington, District of Columbia

    Christopher Douwes is a Community Planner with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in Washington DC. He has managed the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) since 1992, Transportation Enhancement activities since 2003, Transportation Alternatives since 2012, and has assisted with Bicycle and Pedestrian Activities since 1992. He manages contracts for research, technology development, technical assistance, and training for trail and bicycle and pedestrian-related activities. Christopher received his Masters of Science in Transportation from Northwestern University in 1990.


    Laura Toole, Planning and Environmental Specialist, Federal Highway Administration

    Laura Toole is a Planning and Environmental Specialist in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Ohio Division. She manages the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Recreational Trails Programs, as well as serving as the liaison to five Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and the point of contact for MPO transportation performance management and integration of safety into the planning process. Laura has a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a Master of Industrial Engineering with a focus on Human Factors Engineering from Virginia Tech.


    Webinar Resources

    Federal Highway Administration Resources



    Policy and Guidance

    Bicycle and Pedestrian Resources

    Recreational Trail Publications and Resources

    This page includes links to many U.S. Forest Service Trail Publications, such as:

    Cooperative Agreement Partners

    Questions and Answers from the live webinar

    How do trails connect communities?
    Trails can connect communities by adding connections between neighborhoods, using shared use as nonmotorized transportation through routes, providing bridges over rivers, highways, or other barriers, and providing nonmotorized transportation routes along highways and railroads.

    How can we improve access for all to outdoor recreational activities?
    We can plan, design, and develop trails to provide access for all by using trails to connect facilities, building trails of different skill levels, and building trail facilities that can be accessed by all (in regards to location). Trails can provide the last length from transit systems to outdoor recreation areas. Trails can provide safe transportation and access to outdoor recreation for children and people who cannot drive. Trail amenities, such as skill areas, can also provide a way for individuals to develop experience.

    How can we work together to ensure that recreational trails don’t lose their recreational beauty?
    Very carefully. We want to ensure that our trails retain context sensitivity. A 20-foot wide trail with separate sections for walking and bicycling might make sense in an urban, suburban, or industrial area. But don’t blast through a 20-foot wide trail through a dense forest or a sensitive desert or wetland. Pay attention to the setting and to the users. Do you want an equestrian-friendly trail? Do you want to accommodate OHVs within the right-of-way, or snowmobiles in winter? Are you looking for a narrow technical trail with twists and turns for mountain bikes or dirt bikes? Do you want to ensure direct and efficient routes for transportation trips? Make sure you include stakeholders with various interests.

    What happens when electric vehicles become a substantial part of the bicycle or OHV population?
    This is a great unknown. Modern electric bicycles are nearly indistinguishable from regular bicycles, and urban bike share systems are beginning to include electric bikes. They may make bicycling a desirable form of transportation. Electric bicycles may reduce sound levels on OHV trails. But we have conflicting laws and regulations when it comes to electric bicycles on unpaved trails on public lands and when using Federal-aid highway program funds. Some electric bicycles have the same impact as regular bicycles, but some may have impacts similar to OHVs, other than the sound. This topic needs research and discussion.

    Who do I contact to get trails included in my local transportation plan?
    Start with your local planning office, whether village, town, township, city, county, etc. For those of you in metropolitan areas (urbanized areas of population 50,000 or more), your trails need to be listed in the metropolitan transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to be considered for transportation funds. For everybody, you want at least the concept of trails to be included in Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plans if you will ever want Federal surface transportation funds and projects must be listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). For more information, see:

    Are States allowed to have their own planning and design manuals?
    It depends, but in general, yes. The primary exceptions are:

    In general, trails for transportation purposes will need additional width and may need to accommodate large maintenance or emergency vehicles. States can determine which planning and design manuals these want to use. See the Resources list.

    How can I get my community to have a trail assessment?
    One place to start is to suggest the idea to your local trail manager. If there are multiple trail managers, the suggestion could be given to the Recreational Trail Program’s Advisory Committee in your State. See resources at:

    Meredith asks:

    1. Are there any tips to keep planning, compliance and costs down when working with local government? I find that they tend to hire consultants and treat rural projects, projects that are already partially paved or disturbed (e.g. old agricultural roads or rail alignments) and look at the planning and compliance needs as they would a freeway and the costs quickly escalate to over 1.5 million a mile. And sometimes even more.
    Look at PlanWorks, a decision support tool built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders. PlanWorks can improve how you develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects; see There is a specific application for bicycles and pedestrians. Also look at Planning and Environment Linkages and Integrating NEPA and Permitting.

    2. When looking at alternative transportation versus recreation for funding purposes, do you have recommendations on what category should be pursued? For example, most multi-use trails, greenways, or separated paths are used for both commuting and recreation. Are there best practices or strategies to address both needs?
    See the FHWA funding opportunities table at

    • If the trail is primarily recreational, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is the best source.
    • If a trail connects communities and neighborhoods, try Transportation Alternatives (TA) funds.
    • Any project eligible under the RTP or TA is eligible under the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program, but State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) generally require that the facility demonstrate a transportation purpose.
    • If the trail provides access to transit and is likely to replace motor vehicle trips with pedestrian and bicycle trips, go for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds.
    • If the trail is along or crosses a National Highway System route, consider integrating the project with an NHS highway construction project using National Highway Performance Program funds.
    • For projects that provide access to or within Federal Lands, use Federal Lands Highway Programs.

    3. When local communities want separated bikeways or multi-use paths in a rural area that is dominated by State highways (rural settings, 2-lane roads) and the State DOT refuses to consider, are there recommendations on how to move forward? Should private land agreements be pursued? (this example may be somewhat unique to the islands, where you have only one road option that circles an island. Could also be on rural highways where there are no other connector roads I suppose)

    • Can the local government entities work with the State DOT to reconsider? If the State DOT simply won’t reconsider, sure, try working with private landowners. One of the early trails that integrated transportation and recreation was the Stowe Bicycle Path, Stowe VT, which used private property rather than the State highway right-of-way.

    4. This is great information, and you may be preaching to the choir here. The biggest issue is how to convince your local and State DOT/DPW to actually do this. Are there any tips in how to convince decision makers to consider?

    • Present facts, and don’t fluff up the facts. Some local FHWA employees have heard local officials ask to be educated on the importance of specific topics, such as connection with trails, especially if they do not have a lot of knowledge on the area. It is helpful for them to understand why the topic should be a priority and how it relates to other local priorities. Look at the resources that we provided in this webinar, as well as other local evaluations of trail systems, and feel free to copy and use them. Demonstrate how communities and States can save lives and improve the quality of life by replacing motor vehicle trips with walking and bicycling trips. If we reduce local trips, we free up capacity for long-distance trips. If we can seamlessly integrate transportation and recreation networks, we benefit both transportation and recreation simultaneously at a reduced cost.

    Mike says: City of Little Rock here. Thanks for the Big Dam Bridge love!

    • I enjoyed seeing it and other Little Rock area trails and bridges at the International Trails Symposium in November 2008. Bridges are essential links in any transportation or trail system. Arkansas leaders saw how bridges are necessary for complete networks. Another point is that the leaders allowed the system to develop: they didn’t demand all or nothing. When we demand all or nothing, we get nothing; be patient and allow your network to develop in pieces if that’s what it takes.
    • While on the subject of the International Trails Symposium, Syracuse, New York will host the 24th American Trails International Trails Symposium on April 28 - May 1, 2019.

    Peggy asks: Christopher, Is there a Federal law that prohibits ATV/dirt bikes to be on same trail as bike/ped - motorized and nonmotorized shared use? Just get along, cooperate? WV doesn't allow it, as far as I know.
    It depends on the original intent for the trail, the environmental documentation, and the funding source.

    • If the trail does not use any Federal-aid highway funds, then FHWA restrictions don’t apply.
    • Trails on land owned or managed by Federal Land Management agencies must follow their own rules, which may or may not have prohibitions based on the intended trail use.
    • If the trail is planned and designed as a multiple-use trail for both motorized and nonmotorized use, and if the environmental documentation supports multiple use, then there is no prohibition.
    • 23 U.S.C. 217(h): For trails using Federal-aid highway program funds, if a trail is built as a pedestrian or bicycle facility for nonmotorized use, then Federal law prohibits ATVs and dirt bikes. In general, any trail that used Transportation Enhancement funds from 1992 through 2012 must prohibit motorized use. For any project using Federal-aid highway program funds, if the project’s environmental documentation only anticipated nonmotorized use, then the project must prohibit motorized use. For exceptions, see the Framework for Considering Motorized Use on Nonmotorized Trails and Pedestrian Walkways.
    • 23 U.S.C. 206(g): The Recreational Trails Program has restrictions on motorized use:

    (g) A State may not obligate funds apportioned to carry out this section for—
    (2, 3, summarized): Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land unless consistent with agency plans,
    (4) upgrading, expanding, or otherwise facilitating motorized use or access to recreational trails predominantly used by nonmotorized recreational trail users and on which, as of May 1, 1991, motorized use was prohibited or had not occurred.

    Robert asks: Have you used to help promote and/or encourage better facilities for nonmotorized users?
    No, I don’t have personal knowledge or experience with this. You are welcome to consider or use any programs or processes that you find useful.

    Robert also asks: Has CPTED been used within the design process to help with keeping the trails safer and useable for all?
    CPTED is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. I don’t have personal experience with this, although I have heard of the concept. You are welcome to consider or use any programs or processes that you find useful. Based on a quick search, several national nonprofit organizations support the concept.

    Mike asks: How can we encourage AR DOT to maintain the road past the rumble strip? In Arkansas, we often see accumulated debris after the rumble strip.
    Contact your State bicycle and pedestrian coordinator and ask about the best way to work with your State officials. See Please do your homework first: see the Proven Safety Countermeasures at, and see the Rumble Strip Implementation Guide, which has information about longitudinal center line, edge line, and shoulder rumble strips and stripes, including information on maintenance.

    Jennifer asks: Since data is so important, is there a funding resource for collecting bike/ped data?
    Yes. If the data will be useful for transportation planning purposes, then Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) may use Metropolitan Planning funds. State agencies may use Statewide Planning and Research funds. There may be some eligibility for Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds. Contact your State bicycle and pedestrian coordinator for more ideas, see For more information on data, see Incorporating Qualitative Data in the Planning Process: Improving Project Delivery and Outcomes (March 2017). This report highlights emerging tools, techniques, and resources for gathering qualitative public and stakeholder input to inform the planning process, improve project outcomes, and contribute to streamlining project delivery.

    Ursula asks: What do we know about what cities have done to integrate 911 and maintenance reporting (i.e. integrating city services in transportation facilities) onto urban trails? Best practices?
    Ursula says: mostly address systems are the same for maintenance and 911
    Ursula says: so same underlying problem
    I don’t have specific information on this topic. In general, 911 is to report life-threatening emergencies, and the 911 systems should not be burdened with calls for routine maintenance. Some locations may have reporting programs: I recall hearing about reporting systems in Maine and in Seattle back in the 1990s. If a community can combine the address systems, it sounds like a good idea to me.

    Caitlin (EL) asks: Are there projects or initiatives that focus on connecting urban areas to outdoor areas? Particularly interested in using bike, pedestrian, or public transportation infrastructure to access outdoor areas.

    Caitlin also says:
    Hi Candace,
    That was my first American Trails webinar and I really enjoyed the presentation! Some recent updates about me, I have been offered an entry level pedestrian planning position at NYCDOT, so I was excited to think how the information I learned at this webinar could be useful for my new job. Thank you for organizing this and making the webinar free for emerging leaders!
    If you’re in New York City, perhaps meet with NACTO and PPS, listed above.

    Jennifer says: Research idea: Best practices for managing transition areas between different types of trails/shared use paths as you connect them together.
    Excellent idea. Thank you.

    Lew asks: Does FHWA plan to work with the USFWS's National Conservation Training Center for trail management training? Lew says: I do know and work with Nathan.
    The USFWS National Conservation Training Center managed the national trail management training course several years ago, in part with FHWA funding. NCTC did not have the staff capacity to continue the course, and we discontinued the agreement. We continue working with USFWS and other Federal Land Management Agencies to support trail training, in part through cooperative agreements with American Trails and other nonprofit organizations.

    Jan asks: How do we design the integration of equestrians in a transportation/trails system?
    Assuming this is the Jan that I know, see Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads and Campgrounds, which covers many of the concepts. Equestrians need to ensure that they have a voice in the transportation planning process, and get involved. Equestrians can get involved in county comprehensive plans that discuss transportation, and participate in metropolitan and statewide transportation plans. At a minimum, ensure that you protect riding areas. Also consider trail connections that can benefit from highway projects, and consider connections between riding areas that complete networks. Perhaps you can avoid having to load up your trailer if you can ride from one area to another.

    Raynold asks: Should you not designate a "Senior Trail" as nonmotorized if you intend to use some 4-wheel vehicles for rescue or maintenance purposes? [Followup: My question was that if you wanted to be able to use an ATV or Motorized Cart for a Rescue vehicle, what would it have to be designated?
    I was asked to help build a Senior Trail from the Senior Activities Center to the Senior housing area through the woods … It is intended to be "passable" with a wheelchair.]
    Wheelchairs suitable for indoor use are permitted on all trails whether the wheelchair is motorized or nonmotorized. For projects that use Federal-aid highway program funds, Federal highway law exempts wheelchairs from the motorized restriction (23 U.S.C. 206 and 217(h)). Furthermore, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule, specifying that “other power-driven mobility devices” (OPDMD) could be used on trails by “individuals with mobility disabilities.” See for the basic facts of how to apply this rule. In most situations, you would still designate the trail as nonmotorized, and allow individuals who have disabilities to use the trail. That does not open the trail to individuals who do not have disabilities or to companions. The land manager can still set restrictions such as a maximum noise level or speed.

    Sherwood says: San Marcos is a rapidly growing city of about 70,000 people, and the home of Texas State University. We are somewhat unique because we are well into the process of developing an integrated recreation/transportation network. Our network will involve several contiguous, concentric loops that will be connected with each other, forming a large number of smaller loops. It will be like a wagon wheel with the ‘spokes’ running along our two rivers & many creeks.

    It will connect outlying preserves, smaller urban parks, our neighborhoods, downtown & the university campus. While the greenways/trails network will have many connections to our street network and street bicycle lanes, it will be mostly separate from it and in most places the trails will go beneath railroad tracks and major streets.

    The greenways/trails system is part of the City’s official transportation plan and our master plan. We are also working with nearby cities to develop a regional network.

    While we began developing our network about 20 years ago, it has only been in recent years that we’ve begun realizing what an important part of our transportation system it will be. We are pretty ignorant about accessing government transportation funds, especially federal government funds.

    This webinar is great! We will download the documents you mentioned. Can you give us some recommendations for other funding information or contacts, especially at the Federal level?

    See the FHWA funding opportunities table at

    • If the trail is primarily recreational, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is the best source. In Texas, see
    • If a trail connects communities and neighborhoods, try Transportation Alternatives (TA) funds. In Texas, see
    • Any project eligible under the RTP or TA is eligible under the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program, but State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) generally require that the facility serves a demonstrated transportation purpose.
    • If the community is within an air quality nonattainment area, and the trail provides access to transit and is likely to replace motor vehicle trips with pedestrian and bicycle trips, it may be eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds.
    • If the trail is along or crosses a National Highway System route, consider integrating the project with an NHS highway construction project using National Highway Performance Program funds.
    • For projects that provide access to or within Federal Lands, use Federal Lands Highway Programs.

    Are there funding sources for acquiring right-of-way for multimodal greenway trails? Needless to say, the more we are able to connect greenspaces together, the more the trails through them will be able to function as an integral part of our transportation network, especially for bicycles. From Sherwood Bishop, San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance.
    It depends on what your State allows. From the Federal perspective, right-of-way acquisition is eligible for all Federal-aid highway program funds, including the RTP and TA. However, the RTP prohibits condemnation of any kind of property (eminent domain). Some States extend that prohibition to other funds and to other kinds of projects. Some States also might restrict funding land acquisition; even though allowed with Federal funds, the States may choose to be more restrictive.

    Liz says: Thank you for this very informative webinar!!
    You’re welcome. We love serving our country.

    photo of a man


    Closed Captioning

    We are offering closed captioning for our webinars, thanks to a partnership with VZP Digital. If you are in need of this service, please email us prior to the webinar. An unedited transcript will be sent to all attendees following the webinar.


    While we may individually agree (or disagree) in whole or in part with any or all of the participants, the views expressed in these webinars are not necessarily representative of the views of American Trails as an organization or its board and staff.

    Terms and Privacy Policy

    By registering for this webinar, you submit your information to the webinar organizer and associated presenters and sponsors, who may use it to communicate with you regarding this event and their other services. You can easily cancel your registration at any time.

    More Trainings by American Trails