Department Of Transportation - Warning!!
DOT warning You are accessing a U.S. Government information system. This information system, including all related equipment, networks, and network devices, is provided for U.S. Government-authorized use only. Unauthorized or improper use of this system is prohibited, and may result in civil and criminal penalties, or administrative disciplinary action.
The communications and data stored or transiting this system may be, for any lawful Government purpose, monitored, recorded, and subject to audit or investigation. By using this system, you understand and consent to such terms. View User Behavior Rules

Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
  • Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, and recommendations expressed in the group area discussions are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government, the Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration.
Edited: 4/24/2012 8:39 AM
Local Agency

Recreational trails - transportation facility

A local agency is creating a new park utilizing a state parks grant.  The park is in the city's master plan, and is the primary project.  The agency also received FHWA demo funds to improve and extend an existing trail for bike/ped use within the park.  It is not part of a regional or local trails system, and its location is entirely within the park.  It would not (and because of location, could not) serve any bicycle or pedestrian commute purpose.   Would that trail nonetheless be considered a transportation facility -- that is, if construction of that trail affected resources that are normally protected under Section 4(f), is a 4(f) analysis required, or would it be exempt from 4(f) requirements?  -- The question is not whether/not it is a 4(f) resource, but rather, when constructing a discrete recreational trail is part of a project creating a park, is 4(f) analysis of the trail's impact on resources required?
2011-02-25 13:49:53
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:39 AM
If you can show that the work on the trail meets one of the 4(f) exceptions under 23 CFR 774.13, then that might be the best way to handle it.  I'd look to see if (f) or (g) apply, although I think there is a better chance with (g).
3/18/2011 1:08 PM
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:39 AM
Letter of concurrence from entity with jurisdiction, put it in the file and you are done.
3/17/2011 1:36 PM
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:39 AM
If the trail is only for recreational purposes and the official with Jurisdiction over the park has included the proposed trail in the park plan, then it sounds as if 4(f) would not apply.  However, that plan and designation would need to be documented clearly.  See questions 16 and especially, 22 of the March 2005 policy paper ( )
#22 is more directly germane to your question, but I tossed #16 in too because if the trail were to be considered a transportation facility, you would want to be aware of it.
3/16/2011 6:59 PM