Multimodal Catalog

Summary Report

August 2018

Prepared for:

FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway

By the U.S. DOT Volpe Center
2 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

8/24/2018

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report (August 2013 - August 2018)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Multimodal Catalog Summary Report

5a. FUNDING NUMBERS

HW23A1 RD370

6. AUTHOR(S)

Christopher Timmel, Haley Peckett, Erica Simmons, Ryan Yowell, Josh Prescott, Danielle Kittredge,

Jaime Young, Anthony Lucivero, Lauren Deaderick, Michael Kay

5b. CONTRACT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-19-08

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Federal Lands Highway

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

FHWA-FLH-19-001

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Public Distribution/Availability

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report details the project team’s process to plan and develop the multimodal catalog, which is centrally located inventory of transit systems

and trails that provide access to federal lands. The purpose of the catalog is to assist Federal, State, and local transportation agencies in 

planning, performance management, and project prioritization. The first part of this report describes the process for developing the first iteration 

of the catalog that was released in 2016. The addendum includes the project team’s process to enhance the catalog through the development of 

an interactive map to display transit data, which was released in 2018, and concludes with intended next steps for the catalog. Lastly, the report 

concludes with a series of appendices that provide more detailed documentation of the project team’s work to create the catalog.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Multimodal transportation, trails, transit, federal lands, planning, programming, database

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

59

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unlimited

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

Multimodal Catalog Summary Report
3

Table of Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................4

Overview of Multimodal Catalog Components and Key Milestones........................................................5

Initial FLMA Outreach ...............................................................................................................................7

Summary of Definitions Memo.................................................................................................................9

Data Fields for Inclusion..........................................................................................................................10

Primary and Secondary Data Sources.....................................................................................................11

Data Organization and Management .....................................................................................................13

Data Verification .....................................................................................................................................14

State Trails Database Research...............................................................................................................15

GIS Pilot...................................................................................................................................................16

Cost Estimate – Trails..............................................................................................................................18

Cost Estimate – Transit ...........................................................................................................................21

Data Summary.........................................................................................................................................26

Catalog Distribution ................................................................................................................................29

Upkeep and Maintenance.......................................................................................................................30

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................30

Addendum ..............................................................................................................................................34

Appendices..............................................................................................................................................38
4

Introduction

For the millions of visitors to federal lands across the United States, multimodal transportation systems 

are not only a means of access but also an integral part of their recreation experience. Trails and transit 

systems help visitors get to and around parks, refuges, forests, and recreation areas, while also offering 

benefits such as reduced environmental impact and cost savings. However, due to disparate ownership, 

operation, and maintenance of these systems across 50 states, five Federal Land Management Agencies

(FLMAs), and numerous partner agencies, there has never been a central database with information on 

all multimodal systems on federal lands.

To address this data need, the Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH, part of the Federal Highway 

Administration, or FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) enlisted the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) to develop a tool that would help the USDOT, FLMAs, and 

partner agencies manage and communicate data for multimodal transportation systems providing 

access to or within federal lands.

This first part of this report includes a detailed description the project team’s process to plan and 

develop the first iteration of the Multimodal Catalog that was released in 2016. The addendum includes 

the project team’s process to enhance the Catalog through the development of an interactive map to 

display transit data; this new tool was released in 2018. Lastly, the report concludes with a series of 

appendices that provide more detailed documentation of the project team’s work to create the Catalog.

Purpose

The purpose of the Multimodal Catalog is to gather data of all existing and currently programmed

multimodal systems that provide access to or within FLMA lands. The Catalog establishes a common 

dataset for transit and transportation trails, which helps communicate the role that multimodal systems 

currently play in federal lands transportation.

Additionally, FHWA and FTA identified several needs for the Catalog:

1. Develop an inventory with condition information that can lead to the identification of highpriority multimodal systems and/or projects for each FLMA partner, and for each region.

2. Identify defensible program-level multimodal investment needs over a five-year time period to 

help with long-term planning, including planning for reauthorization of surface transportation 

legislation.

3. Establish baseline data for FLMAs to use in planning, performance management, and future 

reporting.

Goals and Objectives

FHWA and FTA set the following goals and objectives for the Multimodal Catalog:

A. Estimate program-level investment needs for multimodal systems under the Federal Lands 

Transportation Program (FLTP) and Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), organized by region 
5

and by agency. The estimates could be shared through a data-driven communications tool that 

quantifies the needs for multimodal systems across FLMAs.

B. Identify existing systems and their long-term needs for each region and for each agency. The 

goal of identifying these systems has several objectives:

i. Assist FLMAs in identifying multimodal projects for FLTP and FLAP, at the national, 

regional, and unit levels.

ii. Provide a planning tool for FLMAs to prioritize their key needs and aid in performance 

management.

iii. Identify and prioritize multi-agency projects that meet joint DOT and FLMA goals, such 

as improving public access to public lands, with an emphasis on population centers, 

high-use recreation sites, and economic generators.

Project Team

FHWA and FTA managed the project, using FTA funds associated with the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in 

Parks (TRIP) Program. The Volpe Center entered into an interagency agreement with FHWA to develop 

the Catalog, with direction and guidance from FHWA. The Volpe Center staff led initial outreach, 

developed definitions for inclusion in the Catalog, collected data from FLMAs and other sources, 

developed cost estimates, and created a database for searching and accessing the data. FHWA and FTA 

reviewed documents and data at key milestones, identified outreach opportunities, and provided 

direction through monthly meetings. The FHWA, FTA, and Volpe Center staff are referenced as “the 

project team” in this report.

Externally, the project team engaged FLMA Headquarters staff during scoping stages of the Catalog to 

better understand their data needs and enlist their participation in the Catalog development. FLMA 

Headquarters staff provided baseline data on trails and transit systems and pointed the project team to 

additional data sources to populate the initial Catalog.

Once initial data collection was underway, the Volpe Center convened a Steering Committee composed 

of FLMA staff at the Headquarters and Regional or State Office levels. The Steering Committee served as 

a connection between FLMA staff and the project team for data verification and designing a product 

with the end user in mind. It also provided input on strategic direction, definition of multimodal 

systems, and review of draft products. The Committee met approximately quarterly by phone and 

contained representatives from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and National Park Service (NPS). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) did not provide representatives to the Steering Committee but were informed about 

activities.

Overview of Multimodal Catalog Components and Key Milestones

Figure 1 and the following outline list the major activities and deliverables completed. The outline also

serves as a map to the sections of this report, documenting the Catalog’s development.
6

Figure 1: Timeline of Activities1

Catalog Completed Components and Milestones

A. Initial FLMA Outreach. The project team conducted individual outreach meetings with five FLMAs 

and all three FHWA divisions to introduce the Catalog, and to refine the purpose and need for the 

project. The project team also discussed criteria for inclusion in the Catalog and sought input on the 

Definitions Memo.

B. Data Fields for Inclusion. The project team worked with stakeholders to identify and prioritize data 

fields related to trails and transit assets for inclusion in the Catalog. See Appendix A for a list of data 

fields included in the Catalog.

C. Primary and Secondary Data Sources. The project team worked with stakeholders to identify 

multimodal data from existing inventories, studies, grants, and plans.

D. Data Organization and Management. The project team aggregated, filtered, and organized data 

into separate FLMA databases. After initial data collection efforts, assets were consolidated into 

databases for all trail and transit entries.

E. Data Verification. The project team verified data with USFS, USFWS, and BLM contacts at the 

regional level and conducted outreach for verification with other stakeholders.

F. State Trails Database Research. Non-FLMA transportation partners identified and provided trails 

data.

G. GIS Pilot. The project team used transit data from non-FLMA sources in a geospatial exercise to 

determine applicability in future Catalog iterations.

H. Cost Estimate – Trails and Transit. The project team estimated the costs of existing and planned 

systems, with separate methodologies for transit and trails.

I. Data Summary. The project team created a visual summary of the data contained in the Catalog.

J. Catalog Distribution. The project team developed the functional requirements for publishing the

Catalog.

K. Upkeep and Maintenance. The project team will determine future processes to update the tool.

 1 See Addendum for post-2016 work and updated timeline.
7

Initial FLMA Outreach

Initial outreach to Multimodal Catalog stakeholders began in late 2013. Through early 2014, webinars 

and in-person meetings were held to brief both FLMA2 and FHWA division staff on the project and to 

receive feedback. Table 1 provides an overview of the project team’s initial outreach efforts. Materials 

used in stakeholder outreach efforts are available in Appendix B. The goals of initial stakeholder 

outreach were to:

1. Introduce the purposes of the Catalog and its value to FLMAs and FHWA;

2. Understand priority applications or potential uses of the Catalog for FLMAs;

3. Gain FLMA support and participation in the Catalog;

4. Identify existing data sources and points of contact for transit and trail assets; and

5. Prioritize data fields for inclusion in the Catalog.

Table 1: Initial Outreach Efforts

Date Organization Format

December 12, 2013 FHWA – Western Federal Lands Division Webinar

January 8, 2014 FHWA – Eastern Federal Lands Division Webinar

January 9, 2014 FHWA – Central Federal Lands Division Webinar

January 16, 2014 TRIPTAC3 In-Person

February 18, 2014 BLM Webinar

February 24, 2014 USFWS In-Person

February 25, 2014 USACE In-Person

February 25, 2014 USFS In-Person

Conversations with FHWA and FLMA staff resulted in comments regarding (1) data collection and 

availability, (2) definitions, (3) Catalog applications, and (4) risks and opportunities. Stakeholder 

comments on these themes are listed below. 

• Data collection and availability. Some FLMA staff expressed reluctance to reach out to the field 

for data collection. Instead, staff suggested starting with existing resources, identifying data 

“gaps,” and then approaching specific regions or units for this data. Additionally, some staff 

noted that the quality and quantity of data available at a regional or national level varies widely 

between modes and agencies. It was also noted that FLMAs are most likely to have asset data, 

such as trails and vehicles, but may lack the service or condition details needed for cost 

 2 Because the project team had access to existing NPS transit and transportation trail national databases, the project team did

not meet with NPS staff during initial outreach efforts. NPS staff was included in regular updates on the status of the project. 3 The Transit in Parks Technical Assistance Center (TRIPTAC) supported FTA and FLMAs in implementation of the TRIP program 

and served as a clearinghouse for resources on alternative transportation systems on public lands. The TRIPTAC convened 

regular meetings of FLMA representatives from 2012 to 2014.
8

estimates. Some FLMAs are cautious of releasing data publically (e.g., USACE noted security 

concerns with releasing their asset data) but agreed to share data initially with the project team.

• Definitions. Most FLMAs do not have formal definitions for multimodal systems, although TRIP 

did establish definitions for multimodal transportation for the purposes of its program. In many 

cases, transit and trail inventories do not distinguish assets that serve a purely recreational or 

interpretive purpose from those that serve a transportation purpose. Some FLMA staff initially 

expressed interest in a “three tiered” approach to categorizing the location of multimodal 

transportation system:

1. Systems within FLMAs;

2. Systems that offer direct access to FLMAs; and

3. Systems that are within a half mile of a FLMA site boundary (“opportunities” or “missed 

connections”).

Others expressed concerns about the use of inconsistent definitions for inclusion in the Catalog.

• Catalog applications. FLMA staff expressed interest in multimodal projects being able to 

compete on a level playing field with roads projects for planning and project funding. A 

consolidated Multimodal Catalog could communicate the importance of multimodal systems

within regions and to transportation partners. FLMA staff were interested in the possibility of a

“living document.” FLMA and FHWA staff mentioned the need for the convenience of a 

searchable database; some emphasized their interest in a spatial or GIS component of the final 

Catalog. Some FLMA staff suggested – and others responded positively to – the idea of using 

data in connection with project selection and performance management.

• Risks and opportunities. Through outreach, the project team realized that the “lowest common 

denominator” for data across agencies (in terms of what is currently available or easy to collect) 

would likely be lower than the level needed for accurate cost estimates. Some FLMA staff noted 

that the most valuable data is from systems that are within a half mile of the site, or the “missed 

connections.” However, the project team determined that these assets are a lower priority from 

the standpoint of establishing a baseline of existing systems within and directly accessing FLMA 

units. FLMA staff also suggested exploring opportunities to collect data from partners. For 

example, USACE noted that its partners or friends groups regularly build trails to provide 

recreation access. Finally, FLMAs called for inclusion of national trails (including Scenic and 

Historic Trails) that can offer access to FLMA sites.

Initial outreach to stakeholders affected the rest of the project in a number of ways. Specifically, 

outreach to FHWA and FLMA staff:

1. Verified points of contact for each agency;
9

2. Provided the project team with initial data sources or directions to data sources without 

contacting additional FLMA staff;

3. Helped the project team identify and verify data fields to include in the Catalog;

4. Helped the project team understand the feasibility of working with FLMA staff in the field for 

data verification; and

5. Provided the project team with desired product deliverables.

Summary of Definitions Memo

Based on FHWA and FLMA feedback during the project team’s initial outreach, the project team needed 

to create a definition for eligibility in the Multimodal Catalog. The project team developed the 

“Multimodal Definitions” memo (see Appendix C), which articulates criteria for inclusion that meet the 

Catalog’s goals of estimating program needs for FLTP and FLAP, identifying FLTP and FLAP funding 

opportunities, and serving as a planning tool for FLMAs to prioritize their key needs. 

Definitions Memo Considerations

In the Definitions memo, the project team developed a definition of multimodal transportation systems 

for inclusion that considered the following:

1. Previous efforts of Congress and FLMAs to define multimodal transportation systems;

2. The new funding landscape;

3. The needs and potential Catalog applications of a diverse stakeholder group; and 

4. Limitations in data availability and staff capacity among FLMAs.

Although the project team recognized that a single, standard definition may not encompass all 

multimodal transportation systems across all agencies, the memo delineated how the Multimodal 

Catalog would define multimodal systems to accommodate sometimes-conflicting priorities and could 

be feasibly developed with existing resources. 

Criteria for the Multimodal Catalog Definition

After reviewing pre-existing definitions and the Catalog’s needs, the project team developed the 

following three criteria for eligibility in the Catalog:

1. A clear and direct physical connection to the land: The Catalog includes systems that operate 

within, directly connect to, or operate within close proximity to Federal Lands.

2. The system serves a transportation purpose: The Catalog definition differentiates between 

systems that are purely recreational versus ones that have a transportation component, while 

realizing that these categories are indistinct for most transportation on federal lands. All transit 

systems meet this criterion. Trails that provide an alternative to automobile travel, provide a 
10

high degree of connectivity to or within FLMA lands, or improve safety for motorized and nonmotorized users may be considered eligible under this criterion.

Because the most feasible way to gather trail data is to draw from existing FLMA databases, 

each FLMA defined its own parameters for identifying trails with a transportation focus (fitting 

with the Multimodal Catalog definition) from its own data set. Each FLMA applied the 

transportation purpose criterion to their own datasets differently, so the Multimodal Catalog’s 

trail data does not reflect one uniform application of the data, but a snapshot of each agency’s 

best approximation. As FLMAs refine their datasets for transportation trails, future updates to 

the Catalog may evolve.

3. Connection to FLMA mission: FLMAs have established multiple ways that their multimodal 

systems advance their missions and goals, including resource protection, visitor experience, 

congestion management, or safety improvements. The Catalog assumes that assets owned and 

operated by FLMAs have a mission connection. For non-FLMA-owned systems, the Multimodal 

Catalog includes both transit systems and trails whose owners have a formal agreement with an 

FLMA and other systems that the FLMA identifies that have a mission connection. 

Definition Flexibility

The Multimodal Catalog recognizes the challenges in defining transportation systems across FLMAs, all 

of which have different missions, visitation patterns, and transportation needs. The multimodal systems 

definition provides a focus for the Catalog and bounds for the types of systems to prioritize for inclusion.

• Any system that meets all three criteria listed above shall be included in the Catalog; and

• Any system that meets two of the criteria above may be included but shall be designated 

separately for inventorying and cost estimation purposes.

The project team recognizes that FLMAs assign importance to a number of multimodal systems that do 

not fit within the Catalog’s definition. The Catalog can provide a framework for data collection, as well 

as sources for information on multimodal systems. FLMAs can then use this framework to add additional 

systems that are not contained within the Catalog but that are priorities for the respective FLMA.

Because each FLMA applied the Multimodal Catalog definition differently to filter their existing datasets, 

the Catalog reflects the variation in agency interpretations of the definition criteria. It is also a living 

dataset that can be updated as FLMAs refine their definitions or asset data systems.

Data Fields for Inclusion

The project team reviewed existing transit and trail databases to develop a list of potential data fields 

for inclusion in the Multimodal Catalog. As feasible, each data field would be assigned a limited field of 

drop down options to facilitate standardized responses across all agencies. Applicable data fields are 

organized into seven themes:

1. Location and Context;
11

2. System Description;

3. Mode-Specific Questions;

4. Management Model;

5. Funding and Finance;

6. Relation (to the FLMA unit); and

7. Administration.

The project team shared the list of potential data fields with FLMA partners and asked them to prioritize 

and comment on their inclusion in the Multimodal Catalog. FHWA also provided extensive comments on 

potential data fields. With this feedback, the project team identified data fields that would be most 

useful to stakeholders and for estimating high-level costs. See Appendix A for a list of data fields 

included in the Catalog.

USFS, USFWS, and USACE prioritized data fields for inclusion in the Catalog. They preferred data fields 

that could be used to identify an asset, such as its location and owner. The project team also prioritized 

fields that would help determine funding eligibility, such as an asset’s physical relation to federal lands.

Stakeholders commented that data for certain fields (e.g., current replacement value) would not be 

available across all FLMAs. Fields that would be incomplete across FLMAs but were still critical for the 

purposes of the Multimodal Catalog were ultimately included, in part to encourage all FLMAs to provide 

this data in future iterations of the Catalog. Fields that were not universally available and that required 

subjective responses (e.g., interpretive elements, uses permitted/prohibited) were ultimately excluded.

Primary and Secondary Data Sources

The project team collected data from all FLMAs between February 2014 and April 2015. The outreach 

efforts with FLMA staff resulted in the primary sources listed in Table 2 for each agency. Primary data 

sources are those provided directly from an agency database; these sources were critical for populating 

the majority of the Catalog. Since the data was provided in different formats and at various levels of 

detail and completeness, the project team reviewed and formatted the data to fit a consistent 

organizational structure that also met the definition provided at the outset of the project.

This definition (see Summary of Definitions Memo) of “multimodal transportation systems” was the 

basis for the type of assets and level of detail to include in the inventory. Each FLMA, however, has its 

own unique mission and system in place for defining “transportation purpose,”4 so the project team 

largely left it up to the discretion of each organization to provide data that they felt met the needs and 

purpose of the Multimodal Catalog. The full Definitions Memo contains more detail on how agencies 

designated data for inclusion or exclusion.

 4 These are two criteria for defining “multimodal transportation system.”
12

Additionally, during the preliminary conversations with each agency, it became clear that each FLMA has 

its own goals relating to both multimodal transportation and the Multimodal Catalog, whether it be

emphasizing multimodal transportation investments as a method for mitigating impacts on sensitive 

habitats, or prioritizing access, seamless connections, and the overall user experience.

Table 2: Primary Data Sources

Organization Source

BLM AD_HOC Report

BLM 2010 ATS Inventory

2014 BLM Trails Data

USFWS USFWS Trails Database, Cycles 2&3

2010 USFWS Transit and Trail Connections Report

USFWS Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluations

NPS 2013 NPS Transit Inventory

2013 NLRTP Trails Database

USACE FY13 USACE Facilities Database

2013 USACE OMBIL 

USFS USFS Draft NFST TC3-5 Inventory

RO Engineering, Recreation and Trails Programs

2013 USFS Reauthorization White Paper

2014 USFS Trails Database 

Secondary data sources include previous reports, applications, and other documents that aggregated 

multimodal data separately from the Catalog. Secondary sources also include data sets provided by nonFLMA agencies, such as state trails databases. These secondary data sources are listed in Table 3. 

Table 3: Secondary Data Sources

Organization Source

BLM 2012 RRCNCA Transportation Feasibility Study

2012 SR 159 Environmental Assessment

USFWS 2010 Transit Trail Connections

TRIP Back Bay NWR Alternative Transportation Study

NPS 2014 NPS Transit Inventory

National LRTP Trails Inventory (2015)

USACE FY 2011-2012 Transit in Parks Discretionary Program

USFS Volpe-FLAP Assessment for USFS

Region 10 Engineering, Recreation and Trails Inventory

Multiple Agencies National Recreation Trails

FLAP Applications and Selected Projects (2013-2015)

AmericanTrails.org

TAG Reports 

Recreational Trails Program Database

TRIP Applications (2007-2012)

Idaho State Trails Inventory

Colorado Trails Project
13

The first iteration of the comprehensive inventory was completed during summer 2014, at which time it 

was presented to the participating FLMAs. This was a chance to request feedback on the overall format, 

as well as to seek assistance in filling data gaps. As mentioned earlier, while some FLMAs preferred that 

field staff not be directly contacted, the project team reached out directly to BLM, USFS, and USFWS

staff at the region and district levels to collect and verify data (see Data Verification for more detail).

Data Organization and Management

Data was initially organized for the Multimodal Catalog in a series of Excel workbooks by FLMA, with a 

transit and a trails workbook for each FLMA. The Excel format matched the format of most data received 

from FLMAs. In some cases, the project team had to edit the data in terms of units of measurement or 

standardizing data for consistent drop down options. The project team filtered out data fields not 

identified for inclusion in the Multimodal Catalog. Many data entries had missing data fields; the project 

team conducted additional research and added some missing data fields selectively throughout the 

Catalog development process. For the most part, this was based on Volpe Center staff knowledge of 

specific multimodal systems or need for additional information to develop cost estimates.

After the initial data gathering was complete, the project team combined the FLMA-specific workbooks 

into two consolidated databases: transit and trails. This helped the project team efficiently add 

secondary data sources that often included data from multiple agencies. The consolidated Excel

workbooks also allowed for the project team to develop cost estimate frameworks for multimodal 

assets.

Interim Access Database

The project team planned to create an online database to be hosted on FHWA’s website that would 

meet the data query needs of the Steering Committee. The functional requirements for this online 

database are described in the Catalog Distribution section of this report. However, because of the time 

required to meet FHWA’s security measures, the project team decided to create an Access database 

designed with the same query and reporting functionality, and which could be distributed to the FLMAs 

and their partners in a timely fashion. (See Catalog Distribution for more information.)

Within this database, all transit and trails data is available in two unique tables. However, the database 

has options for users to run standard queries to locate the data that is most relevant to them. At a basic 

level, users will be able to manage queries by utilizing either the trails or transit “forms” available within 

the database. From here, users will be able to select one or more attributes from each provided field to 

build and run the query they need. The very basic, standard queries include the following fields: FLMA, 

State, Trail Surface (trail only), Trail Condition (trail only), Trail length (trail only), Transit Mode (transit 

only), and Transit Fuel Type (transit only). In addition to the basic query, the project team will continue 

working with FLMAs independently to develop customized queries, incorporating any of the 42 data 

fields (see Appendix A), to fill their needs. The project team sees these customized queries as more 

relevant and powerful tools to assist data users with planning and data analysis.

The user will then be able to run and publish a report in either Access or Excel depending on the user’s 

needs and preferences. For Access, the report is designed to include only the fields available in the 
14

original query. For Excel, the report can be exported and will include all the fields available within the 

complete database. The project team created an instructional video that provides guidance through the 

steps outlined above. In the future, FHWA may support the development of a basic online database to 

support a wide range of users. For access to the Access Database and instructional video, visit the FLH 

website.

Data Verification

The project team had over 35,000 entries from existing and readily available data sources, but some of 

those sources were known to be incomplete and/or outdated. Most of these entries had many missing 

data fields. Data verification with the FLMAs was intended to update existing data sources with new 

information and add new entries to the Catalog. The project team decided to only conduct verification 

with BLM, USFS, and USFWS state and regional staff. NPS used its Transit Inventory and National LRTP 

trails datasets, which were recently updated, and NPS did not want to ask its staff to re-verify this 

information. USACE requested that the project team not do outreach to its Division staff for workload 

management reasons.

The project team provided state or regional FLMA staff with known transit and trail systems specific to a 

state/region and FLMA. The staff was then asked to verify or add missing information. To reduce the 

burden on FLMA staff that did not have time to go through each data system, the project team asked for 

known trails, transit systems, or other multimodal systems in their regions, with enough basic 

information that the project team could do additional research to fill in the gaps.

Approximately 75 percent of regional FLMA offices had at least one staff member that responded to the 

data verification request. Of the 29 state and regional offices contacted, 11 of them (38 percent) 

provided actual data changes or suggestions. The remainder either had no changes or deferred to 

someone else.

The nature of responses varied by respondent. A small number of FLMA staff closely reviewed each 

transit and trail in their states and provided information on missing data fields and new entries for trails 

or transit systems not previously included. Many offered names of trails or transit systems and the FLMA 

unit that they accessed so that the project team could research and add to the Catalog. Still others 

provided ideas for additional data sources in their states or regions.

The project team was able to fill in hundreds of new data entries and identify many new data sources to 

research, but the new data was piecemeal and not uniform across FLMAs or regions. Ultimately, the 

project team was not able to complete all data fields for known systems nor update most systems that 

were known to be from data sources that were outdated. The project team hypothesizes reasons for the 

low response: the volume of entries at the state or regional office may have been too great for staff to 

thoroughly review; regional staff may not have had detailed knowledge on individual trail or transit 

systems (and soliciting field staff was unfeasible); and/or staff did not feel that multimodal data was 

critical to their mission or job duties. 

In early 2015 the project team met with the Steering Committee and decided to move forward with a 

first iteration of the Catalog using this level of data verification. Additional outreach to FLMAs and other 
15

stakeholders was not likely to yield a higher response rate or additional results. The Steering Committee 

suggested it would be more productive to get a working data set out to the field and allow them to 

submit changes in the future.

State Trails Database Research

To build a more comprehensive nationwide inventory of trails, the project team conducted a statebased research effort to identify the non-FLMA-owned trails that serve as critical links between 

communities and Federal lands for pedestrians and cyclists. These state-based trail systems are often 

eligible for funding under the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), providing a valuable management 

tools embedded in the Catalog. More data collected from each state results in greater functionality of 

the Catalog for prioritizing maintenance and capital improvement projects with available funding.

The project team selected a sample of twelve states, varying in size and geography, and conducted webbased research on the availability of public accessible trails data in tabular or geospatial formats. From 

this preliminary search, six states either had a geospatial file or some level of state trails/recreation 

database available to the public.5 The project team contacted some of these states to gather more 

information on existing databases and the feasibility of transferring this data to the Catalog. The states 

highlighted in Table 4 are those states that the project team contacted and interviewed.

Interviewing state trail leads was valuable, but produced mixed results. For example, Idaho was able to 

provide an Excel database and accompanying KMZ file to visualize a comprehensive map of state-wide 

trails. However, it was evident that the data was inconsistently tracked and included many duplicative 

entries. While this produced 20 new trails for the Catalog with limited detail, the resources needed 

outweighed the benefits. For Kentucky, each region holds its own geospatial data, but due to this 

decentralized management, the acquisition and availability of detail was limited.

The state databases did not always clearly indicate a connection to Federal lands. Montana and 

California did not have comprehensive statewide trail databases but instead shared Recreational Trail 

Program (RTP) data, including a filter indicating Federal land connections. While the state directed 

research did not provide comprehensive results for non-FLMA-owned trails, it introduced valuable new 

data sources, like the RTP trails.6

The project team acquired the national RTP database, dating to the Program’s initiation in 1993. Many 

of the RTP’s recreational trails fall under the multimodal transportation definition, and its large scope 

and detailed information on funding, capital improvements, and managing organization provided a 

valuable national resource. Nearly 100 trails were either added or updated as a result of this effort.

 5 The project team searched for datasets in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, South 

Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Of these, CO, ID, KY, SC, UT, and VA had available data. The project team contacted CA, 

ID, KY, and MT for more information.

6 Beyond collecting trail systems to populate the Catalog, the RTP database was also used to estimate trail cost maintenance. 

See the Cost Estimate – Trails section of this report.
16

GIS Pilot

The project team introduced a spatial analysis component to further identify non-FLMA-owned transit 

systems. This pilot, conducted only in Oregon and Washington, was also intended to assess the 

feasibility of adding a geospatial component to the Catalog nationally. The Steering Committee chose 

these states because they are the site of the Pacific Northwest Federal Lands Collaborative Long Range 

Transportation Plan (CLRTP), an initiative led by FHWA. Pilot results could be beneficial for the Catalog 

and the CLRTP.

Overview of GIS Pilot

Since individual transit agencies and state DOTs have limited GIS transit data, the primary data source 

for this analysis was the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). The GTFS is a national data standard, 

and the GTFS Data Exchange is a clearinghouse for data at a national scale. While most rural transit 

agencies do not have GIS data, this pilot is meant to visualize preliminary connections using the available 

data and gauge the feasibility of using this analysis on a national scale.

Data Sources

The project team used the following data sources for this analysis: 

Table 4: Summary of data sources

Dataset Description Source

World Water Bodies, 

U.S. Federal Lands, & 

U.S. State Boundaries

ESRI (2010)

OR & WA Transit Routes7 All available public transit route shape files for Oregon 

and Washington. GTFS Data Exchange was used to 

collect available GTFS data for Washington. Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) manages its own 

GTFS database and was used for Oregon transit 

because of the ease of downloading aggregate data. 

Additionally, ODOT and Washington Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) were used to fill in spatial data 

not available through GTFS. WSDOT was used solely to 

collect ferry routes.

GTFS Data 

Exchange (2015); 

ODOT (2015); 

WSDOT (2015)

OR & WA Transit Stops All available public transit stops associated with the 

transit routes dataset for Oregon and Washington.

GTFS Data 

Exchange (2015); 

ODOT (2015); 

WSDOT (2015)

OR & WA Trails Compilation data for multiple public lands agencies in

Oregon & Washington, including federal, state, and 

local agencies. 

BLM (2015)

 7 Washington and Oregon have approximately 145 public and private transit agencies, but only 60 of these have route and 

stops data available spatially.
17

By mapping all of these data layers, the project team could identify intersections between transit routes, 

trails, and FLMA boundaries. Where these intersections occurred, the project team added or verified 

data in the Catalog. Three maps showing results of the GIS pilot can be found in Appendix D.

Key Findings & Lessons Learned

• A total of nine new transit agencies were added to the existing inventory of 22 agencies for 

Washington and Oregon, resulting in an increase of 40% for this geographic subset.

• From these nine transit agencies, 23 new transit systems were added to the existing inventory 

of 25 systems for the two states, resulting in an increase of 92% for this geographic subset.

• GTFS is a useful resource for collecting and visualizing transit routes and stops not available in 

other GIS databases.

• GTFS can show stops in relation to FLMA boundaries to help with access planning.

• Only 45% of public transit agencies in Washington and Oregon have transit data available in a 

spatial format. Most rural transit agencies do not have available data (see Table 5). Therefore, 

GTFS cannot be used for comprehensive transit data at this time. Non-geospatial data could be 

valuable to supplement this analysis. 

• The GTFS data that is available is inconsistently documented (e.g., agency sources, route 

descriptions, etc.), making the process of identifying transit routes and agencies more difficult.

• 68% of trails in the BLM’s trails layer have limited to no data on ownership and use type, which 

makes the data far less valuable for the purposes of the Multimodal Catalog. Future research 

and data assurance and control would make this data more useful.

Table 5: Statistics on transit agency coverage by GTFS in Washington and Oregon

State Transit Agencies Transit Agencies with GTFS % GTFS

WA 76 16 22%

OR 70 49 70%

Total 146 65 45%

Potential Next Steps

There are some additional steps that may be implemented to improve the usefulness of this analysis.

• Acquisition of spatial data on rural transit systems would fill data gaps to provide a more 

complete geospatial analysis. Alternately, Catalog managers could digitize data in high-priority 

locations where spatial data is unavailable. Both of these were seen as too time-intensive to 

complete as part of the initial Catalog.

• FHWA and FTA may consider conducting network analyses using streets data and GTFS transit 

stops to calculate more precise accessibility to FLMA lands. 
18

Because of the time-intensive nature of this pilot and the limitations in data, the project team decided 

not to extend this work to other states and regions. However, it may be beneficial to add geospatial data 

to the Catalog in the future as it becomes available.

Cost Estimate – Trails

This section explains the assumptions and methodology used to develop a broad estimate of the cost to 

maintain all of the trail systems identified in the multimodal catalog at their current conditions. It is 

intended to help FLMA staff at the national, regional, and unit levels consider maintenance needs for new 

and existing trail projects. The project team consulted sources related to trail construction and 

maintenance from the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the National Trails Training Partnership, and the U.S. 

Forest Service, and found a range of approaches to defining and quantifying trail maintenance.8

For purposes of this analysis, the trail maintenance costs include all regular and routine maintenance of 

the trails managed by FLMAs. This includes ongoing cleaning, clearing, mowing, and minor repair of rutting 

and washouts. It also includes infrequent but expected rehabilitation and reconstruction of a trail due to 

natural degradation.

The project team calculated annual trail maintenance costs as the total cost of regular and routine 

maintenance, plus a fraction of the rehabilitation/reconstruction cost, based on the expected lifetime of 

the surface. For example, if a surface is expected to last 10 years, then the annual cost would be that of 

routine maintenance plus one-tenth of the rehabilitation/reconstruction cost. This means that FLMA 

annual maintenance budgets needs to account for planning and saving for the bigger expenses that they 

incur on a less frequent basis, so as to avoid deferring trail maintenance.

The project team conceptualized the following model for trail cost estimation:

AAAAAAAAAAAA TTTT TT CCCCCCCC = � MM MM SSSSSSSSSSSSSS TTTTTT × AAAAAAAAAAAA CCCCCCCC pp MM MMSSSSSSSSSSSSSS TTTTTT

SSSSSSSSSSSS TTTTTT

where

AAAAAAAAAAAA CCCCCCCC pp MM = RR MM MM MMMM + (MM MM RR h aa ×

1

EEEE EE LL LL LL )

Because every trail situation is unique and there is limited national data on trail maintenance, FLMA staff 

should be cautious if considering these estimates for specific projects. These estimates may be used for 

an initial order of magnitude to help guide more detailed analysis.

Note that the current version of the multimodal catalog does not include comprehensive or consistent 

data on trail surface condition; therefore, the cost estimate assumes that all assets are starting from at 

least “good” or “fair” condition, and are not in need of immediate, non-routine repair. Also note that this 

model does not account for other factors such as differences in typical trail usage, climate, topography, 

differences in materials and labor costs around the country, and availability of volunteer labor. FHWA is 

working to develop consistent condition data across FLMAs; in the future, it may be possible to use the 

improved data to support more detailed estimates. 

 8 See the References section.
19

Maintenance Costs and Expected Lifetime by Surface Type

The project team developed a range of per-mile maintenance cost estimates for five trail types: native, 

gravel, paved, concrete, and boardwalk. Given the difference in maintenance needs, the estimate does 

not include costs for snow trails or water trails. The estimate also focuses only on the trail surface itself, 

and does not include bridges, culverts, or other facilities associated with parking areas, bathrooms, or trail 

heads.

The project team combined some categories in order to standardize the surface type calculations. Table 

6 provides the trail surface types and mileage.

Table 6: Trail Surface Type Categories and Mileage

Surface Type 

Provided in MMC

Total 

Mileage

Revised Surface 

Type

Surface Type 

Provided in MMC

Total 

Mileage

Revised 

Surface Type

Admin Road 521 Gravel Paved 2,085 Paved

Aggregate 489 Gravel Paver Block 26 Paved

Asphalt 728 Paved Puncheon 6 Gravel

Boardwalk 130 Boardwalk Recycled tires 3 Gravel

Chunk Wood 10 Gravel Riprap 7 Gravel

Concrete 116 Concrete Snow 14,108 N/A

Gravel 1,146 Gravel Unknown 5,869 

Applied 

proportionally 

Imported 

Compacted Material 857 Gravel Unpaved 223 Native

Imported Loose 

Material 642 Gravel Water 170 N/A

Hard surface 20 Paved Wood Chip 19 Gravel

Mowed 325 Native (blank) 11,127 

Applied 

proportionally 

Native 74,445 Native N/A 2 

Applied 

proportionally 

Other 222

Applied 

proportionally Total 113,293 

For the trail miles for which the surface was known, the project team calculated the percent coverage 

for each of the five trail types by FLMA, and then applied that to the trail miles listed as blank or 

unknown, again by FLMA. Table 7 displays trail mileage by surface type and FLMA.

Table 7: Trail Mileage by Surface Type and FLMA

Surface Type BLM USFWS NPS USACE USFS Total

Boardwalk - 91 95 - - 186

Concrete 4 40 108 - 7 160

Gravel 667 1,423 866 395 1,766 5,117

Native 16,442 10,434 3,567 - 57,806 88,248

Paved 317 1,198 458 1,713 1,617 5,303

Total 17,430 13,187 5,094 2,108 61,196 99,014
20

Trail Maintenance Data 

In developing estimates for trail maintenance costs, the project team consulted local and national 

resources related to trail building, and the FHWA Recreational Trails Program (RTP) project grant 

database. While these sources differ in context from many FLMA trails, they provide useful information 

on comparable situations. Trail maintenance needs and costs will vary depending on typical trail usage, 

climate, topography, differences in materials and labor costs around the country, and availability of 

volunteer labor. 

The RTP project database was most useful for estimating native trail costs (based on RTP native trails), as 

the typical RTP project is likely more complex or expensive than an FLMA context. The RTP database also 

included some data on whether the projects were for new construction, reconstruction, renovation, or 

maintenance, as well as a large variation in per-mile project costs.

Due to limited available data for comparable concrete and boardwalk trails, the project team used 

maintenance cost estimates based on other paved trails and rehabilitation cost estimates. Also note that 

the sources used to develop the cost estimates ranged from those developed very recently to those 

developed as early as the year 2000. The project team did not adjust for inflation to 2016 dollars or project 

inflation of maintenance and rehabilitation cost into the future.

Based on these data limitations, the project team decided that it would be most useful to provide a cost 

range for each trail type (see Table 8), which helps to provide a general order of magnitude estimate of 

the maintenance needs for individual trails and for the system as whole. FLMA staff looking to use these 

estimates for their own planning purposes can assess where in the range their trails might be, depending 

on factors such as topography, trail complexity, geographic location, and availability of volunteer labor.

All referenced data sources are included in Appendix E.

Table 8. Trail Routine Maintenance Costs by Surface Type (Annual)

Surface Type Native Gravel Paved Concrete Boardwalk

Range of 

Maintenance 

Cost per Mile

$1,0009 -

$5,0009

$1,00010 -

$11,00010

$1,00011 -

$2,00011

$1,0005 -

$2,00011

$1,0005 -

$2,00011

Range of 

Rehabilitation 

Cost per Mile

$1,50010 -

$40,00010

$2,00010 -

$80,00010

$7,00010 -

$150,00012

$150,000-

$900,00013

$1,000,000 -

$1,800,000

Expected 

Lifetime 

(years)14

9 9 17 25 12

 9 Estimated from “Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operation.” 10 Estimated from the Recreational Trails Program Database. 11 Estimated from a survey of 100 trails in the northeastern United States. See “Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operation.” 12 Estimated from “Trail Maintenance & Management: Construction and Maintenance Costs for Trails.” 13 Based on construction cost for 8’-10’ wide concrete trails. See Rio Grande New Mexico Study 2008:

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/RioGrandeSurfaceStudy.pdf. 14 From “What’s Under Foot? Multi-use Trail Surfacing Options.”
21

Surface Type Native Gravel Paved Concrete Boardwalk

Annual 

Cost/Mile 

(Range)

$1,000 –

$9,000

$1,000 –

$20,000

$2,000 –

$10,000

$7,000 -

$38,000 

$89,000 -

$156,000

Total Trail Cost

The above assumptions for trail cost and lifetime produce the following total trail cost for all the trails 

managed by FLMAs, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Total Annual Cost of Maintaining the FLMA Trail System in State of Good Repair

Surface Type Native Gravel Paved Concrete Boardwalk All

Total Miles 88,248 5,117 5,303 160 186 99,015 

Min 

Maintenance $88.2 M $5.1 M $5.3 M $159,750 $186,154 $99 M

Max 

Maintenance $441.2 M $56.3 M $10.6 M $319,499 $372,308 $508.8 M 

Min 

Replacement $14.7 M $1.1 M $2.2 M $958,498 $16.4 M $35.3 M 

Max 

Replacement $92.2 M $45.6 M $46.8 M $5.8 M $28.7 M $519 M

Total Lower 

Limit $102.9 M $6.2 M $7.5 M $1.1 M $16.5 M $134.4 M

Total Upper 

Limit $533.4 M $101.7M $57.4 M $6 M $29 M $1 B

Cost Estimate – Transit

The purpose of the transit cost estimates is to understand high-level needs across all FLMAs and 

communicate these needs with DOT and FLMA leadership. The estimates are not meant to serve as a sitelevel planning tool for FLMAs, but the project team will reference resources for FLMAs to estimate 

maintenance costs for current and future systems.

Transit costs include driver wages, fuel, and preventative and corrective maintenance (including parts 

replacement and repair). It also includes the price of the vehicle, aggregated over the vehicle’s lifespan. 

Transit costs do not include marketing or administration costs, as these vary widely depending on the 

owner and operator of the system, the agreement with the FLMA, and other factors. 

Developing cost estimates for the Multimodal Catalog is challenging due to incomplete data. The project 

team used best available information to fill in data gaps to calculate annual vehicle miles traveled and 

hours traveled, vehicle type, seasonality, and ridership. Very few systems in the Catalog contained 

complete and accurate information on all of these data fields needed to estimate cost.

Assumptions

To simplify the cost estimates, we have made several generalizations and assumptions. We also 

categorized transit system by vehicle types to come up with estimates.

• Vehicular (bus, tram, van) systems are calculated separately from water-based and air systems.
22

• We assume vehicle age is at half-life span when calculating average costs (rather than 

calculating individual cost estimates based on age of each vehicle).

• Maintenance and operating costs are similarly aggregated for an entire system, not individual 

vehicles.

• Maintenance facilities are not included in this estimate, as most operators have facilities that 

serve larger systems (of which FLMA components are only a small fraction).

• Where possible, the project team calculated costs separately for large buses (31 or more 

passengers) and small buses (30 or fewer passengers). Where data on capacity is not available, 

the project team calculated based on large bus costs.

The project team did not calculate costs for air-based systems (53 systems), trains (27 systems), or snow 

coaches (7 systems). The overall number of these modes is very low and lack sufficient data to make 

estimates that could be applied generally across FLMAs. Future iterations of the Catalog may include 

cost estimates for these modes if they would be valuable to FLMAs or partners.

Vehicular Systems

Data Sources

The primary data elements used to calculate vehicular maintenance and operating costs are route length, 

number of vehicles, vehicle hours per year, unlinked trips, and annual vehicle miles. The primary sources 

of this data were:

• Multimodal catalog data from FLMAs, planning studies, Volpe Center reports, and FLAP and TRIP 

applications;

• NPS Transit Inventory;

• Targeted research and/or discussion with public transit representatives and FLMA staff; and

• General Services Administration (GSA).

Additionally, the model includes the total capital cost of the vehicle divided by the vehicle’s lifecycle. 

Average vehicle costs are from the American Public Transit Association.15

Conceptual Model for Vehicular Systems

The project team used the following equations in estimating transit maintenance and operating costs:

BUS

System Cost = [$18.95 / hr (driver wages) * Vehicle Hours] + [$1.00 / mile (O&M cost) * 

Vehicle Miles] + [(Vehicle Cost * # of Vehicles) / 12 years]

VAN

System Cost = [$18.95 / hr (driver wages) * Vehicle Hours] + [$0.75 / mile (O&M cost) * 

 15 http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Table23-VehCostTransitLength-2015-Vehicle.pdf.
23

Vehicle Miles] + [(Vehicle Cost * # of Vehicles) / 7 years]

The equations above use seven data points to estimate system cost. Three of these are fixed costs, using 

standardized estimates across all transit systems. The other four data points are drawn from the 

multimodal catalog transit system data to create an individualized system O&M estimate. See Table 10

for these seven data points.

Table 10. Cost Drivers for Vehicular Transit O&M and Source

Cost Driver Cost Source

Driver wages $18.95 / 

hour 

(Fixed)

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) median annual wage for transit 

bus driver = $36,600 = $17.58 / hour. Local government bus 

driver median wage is $45,390 / year = $21.82 / hour.

Source, BLS: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-andmaterial-moving/bus-drivers.htm#tab-5

Operations and 

maintenance cost 

per mile

$1 / mile 

(bus)

$0.75 / 

mile (van)

(Fixed)

Approximate breakdown: $0.158 (propulsion-related system 

maintenance) + $0.857 (fuel costs) + $0.003 (emissions 

equipment) + $0.049 (facility maintenance) = $1.067

Van costs of $0.75 / mile from Department of Interior (DOI) Bus 

Lifecycle Cost (https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9548) 

Lifecycle of Vehicle 12 years 

(bus)

7 years 

(van)

(Fixed)

DOI Bus Lifecycle Cost: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9548

Note: Vans have a lifecycle of 4 years or 100,000 miles, but the 

vast majority of vans have estimated annual VMT of under 

15,000 miles. Therefore, the project team used 7 years as a more 

appropriate lifecycle.

Vehicle hours of 

operation per year

Varies Multimodal Catalog system data

Calculated by multiplying hours per week (collected from FLMA 

or estimated from system description or Internet research) times 

weeks per year times number of vehicles

Vehicle miles 

traveled per year

Varies Multimodal Catalog system data

Vehicle 

replacement cost

Varies Multimodal Catalog system data

Number of vehicles Varies Multimodal Catalog system data

Validation

The project team validated this model through matching estimated costs with approximately a dozen 

systems for which annual O&M costs are available (such as through planning studies or FLMA data). The 

project team adjusted assumptions, calculations, and estimates so that the model produced a cost that 

was similar to the actual O&M costs.

The labor costs for the transit operator is one of the largest components of operating costs. However, 

many small-scale systems operated by FLMAs or friends groups use volunteer drivers or include bus tours 

as part of an interpretive responsibility of the FLMA staff. Therefore, they do not count staff or volunteer 

time in their operating expenses (or it is counted as a very minimal expense). In the case of larger systems 

or those owned and operated by private or non-profit partners, the driver’s labor is important to include. 

Since the Catalog data does not include whether systems are run by volunteers, the model assumes all 
24

systems have paid operators. The volunteer-operated systems all have much lower annual vehicle hours 

traveled (VHT) than paid-operator systems, so this assumption will not significantly affect overall cost 

estimates, but it should be considered by agencies with more volunteer labor available.

Conceptual Model for Water-Based Systems

The project team investigated a separate model to estimate ferry costs, based on a methodology 

established in the DOI Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model for Federal Land Management Agencies (2011). Please 

see the Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model User’s Guide16 for detailed rationale on the elements listed below.

System Cost = 

LABOR [(Annual Vehicle Hours Traveled) * 1.25] *

[(Sailor wage)*(# sailors) + (Captain wage)*(# captains)] +

FUEL [(0.5 * Annual Vehicle Hours Traveled * Slow Service Fuel Efficiency) + 

(0.5 * Annual Vehicle Hours Traveled * Fast Service Fuel 

Efficiency)]*$2.03 + [Total Fuel Amount * 0.4% * $8]

MAINTENANCE [3.5% * (60% * Vessel Cost)] + [[3.5% * (40% * Vessel Cost)]/(Annual 

Vehicle Hours Traveled / 1000)] +

INSURANCE [(2% * Vessel Cost) + ($0.35 * Annual Ridership)] +

INDIRECT COSTS [Annual ridership * $0.60]

To simplify the equation for the purpose of this high-level analysis, the project team made the following 

assumptions or generalizations to the model:

• Annual maintenance costs do not increase based on age of the vessel (because vessel age is not 

available).

• Diesel costs remain constant at $2.03 per gallon.

17

• Vessels operate at service speed for approximately half of their Annual Vehicle Hours and at a 

slow or idle speed for half of their Annual Vehicle Hours.

• All vessels purchased new and are “average” price for the vessel size and type.

• Average number of captains and deck hands.

The equation above uses 11 data points to estimate system cost. Six of these are fixed costs, using 

standardization based on the vessel size or type. The other four data points are drawn from the 

multimodal catalog transit system data to create an individualized system O&M estimate. All data is from 

the Ferry Lifecycle User’s Guide, unless indicated otherwise.

 16 https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/department-interior-bus-and-ferry-lifecycle-cost-modeling. 17 Cost of diesel gasoline on February 1, 2016 (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/).
25

Table 11. Cost Drivers for Transit O&M and Source

Cost Driver Cost Source

Captain and sailor wages Seaman/Deckhand $20 / hr

Captain / Mate $35 / hr

(Fixed)

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

Number of staff per 

vessel

1 captain, 1 deckhand for most 

vessels18

(Fixed, based on vessel size)

Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model

Vessel type / size Estimated based on system 

description

Multimodal Catalog data

Vessel cost $195,000 to $12.5 million 

(Fixed, based on vessel size)

Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model

Fuel cost $2.03 / gallon

(Fixed)

Cost of diesel gasoline on 

February 1, 2016: 

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum

/gasdiesel/

Fuel efficiency 6-20 gallons / hour slow to 18-354 

gallons/ hour fast

(Fixed, based on vessel size)

Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model

Lubricant cost and 

amount

0.4% of fuel amount at $8 / gallon Ferry Lifecycle Cost Model

Vehicle hours of 

operation per year

Variable Multimodal Catalog data

Vehicle miles traveled 

per year

Variable Multimodal Catalog data

Annual ridership Variable Multimodal Catalog data

Number of vehicles Variable Multimodal Catalog data

The Catalog identifies 106 systems as boat/ferry. Of these, an estimated 60 are boat ramps or ferry 

terminals) without further detail about the type of boat service (if any) serving the FLMA.19 The project 

team did not provide estimates on annual maintenance costs of docks or terminals. That leaves 46 ferry / 

boat systems with estimates included.

Total Costs

Table 12 contains the total annual cost for operations and maintenance of transit systems in the 

Multimodal Catalog, organized by vehicle type and by agency.

 18 For small boats (under 30 passengers), the staff is limited to a single captain. For a few of the larger vessels, there are up to 

five deckhands in addition to the captain. 

19 The project team distinguished these 60 systems because they have the word “boat launch,” “boat ramp,” or “ferry terminal” 

in the system name. Two additional systems are included as “Boater’s Trails.” The project team did not investigate or calculate 

ferry systems that use these ferry terminals, including the Alaska Marine Highway System.
26

Table 12: Summary Costs for Multimodal Catalog Transit Systems

Vehicle 

Type

Total 

O&M Cost

Average 

per 

System

NPS FWS FS BLM USACE

Van $5.3 M $89,671 $140,17520 $38,127 $187,85121 $18,269 $23,206

Small bus $20.2M $396,705 $436,72022 $219,449 $374,216 $628,81923 N/A

Large bus $84.3 M $685,218 $1,710,721 $394,194 $368,903 $624,967 N/A

Tram $1.4 M $80,456 $89,290 $27,670 $432,06724 N/A N/A

Trolley $513,000 $102,611 $93,822 $137,770 N/A N/A N/A

Ferry $35.3 M $784,771 $683,805 $55,000 -

$6M25

$540,000 N/A N/A

Grand total annual O & M: $147 million

Data Summary

The dataset includes information from all 50 states and five US territories, with trails and transit systems 

owned and operated by five FLMAs as well as their partners. The information below is a snapshot of the 

current catalog data, representing a baseline of all transit and trail systems operating to and within 

federal lands. In the following charts, the number of assets corresponds to the total number of trails and 

transit systems, not total mileage. 

Figure 2: Number of Assets by FLMA Figure 3: Transit Assets by FLMA

 20 This figure would be $107,803 if you remove Glacier National Park’s very large, van-based transit system. 21 This figure is high due to the large number of long-distance routes. 22 This figure would be $233,315 if you remove Acadia National Park’s large bus system.

23 This number is high because most systems accessing BLM lands are public transit systems with higher annual vehicle hours 

and ridership.

24 The only tram system in the Forest Service is Sabino Canyon.

25 The only two ferry systems serving FWS lands ranged in annual costs from $55,000 to over $6 million.
27

Figure 4: Asset Relationship to FLMA Unit

Figure 5: Number of Assets by Mode

Figure 6: Distribution of Transit Systems by Mode and Vehicle Type
28

Figure 7: Number of Transit Systems by State

Figure 8: Number of Trails by State
29

Funding eligibility of transit and trail systems can help FLMA staff and state and local governments to 

plan for future upgrades and connection. The trails and transit systems that are owned or operated by a

local or state government or public transit agency are eligible for FLAP funding, while those systems 

owned by an FLMA are eligible for FLTP funding.

Figure 9: Funding Eligibility of all Assets

Catalog Distribution

While developing the Multimodal Catalog, the project team needed to determine the format and means 

of distribution that would best meet users’ needs. To understand available options and distinguish 

between required features and preferred features, the Volpe Center developed a memo detailing 

functional requirements and additional options for the Steering Committee. The memo reviewed the 

following options:

1. Basic option: an online database with a “simple” search option, which would allow users to filter 

the data by key fields and save results in an Excel or PDF format.

2. “Advanced” search option: This option would build off of the basic option, allowing users to use 

more complex search features, such as text field searches.

3. Additional features considered included:

a. Summary Catalog data.

b. Spatial component. Because the Catalog does not include GIS data, this would have to 

be in the form of a “pin on the map,” either to the nearest town or FLMA unit included 

in the database.

The Steering Committee decided to pursue the most basic option, allowing users to perform simple 

searches. This choice would fulfill most users’ needs while still being simple to use and maintain. This 
30

would also give the Steering Committee the option to develop additional features in the future if 

desired.

However, creating an online searchable database posed additional challenges. The project team agreed 

that FHWA’s website would be the preferred host for the website, but FHWA’s review process for 

creating a new online database that complies with data security requirements would have prevented 

the project team from distributing the Catalog in a timely manner. Therefore, the project team decided 

to distribute the Catalog as an Access database, which meets the basic query options listed above.

FHWA will continue to pursue the feasibility of an online database, subject to agency policies.

Upkeep and Maintenance

The Multimodal Catalog released in 2016 is a snapshot in time. It represents the best data that the 

project team could compile based on FLMAs’ datasets and available resources. However, new 

multimodal transportation systems may be developed in the future, and agencies will update their 

datasets over time. There also may be a need to include different types of data if funding sources 

change. Therefore, there is a need for future updates for the Catalog to remain current.

The plan for future updates of the Catalog has not been developed but will depend on users’ needs and 

opportunities for data upkeep and maintenance. When developing a plan for data updates, FHWA will 

consider: 

• Frequency (e.g., every 1-2 years);

• New data sources (e.g., data from LRTPs or FLMA data updates, new FLAP application cycles); 

and

• Updating the catalog to reflect new funding or legislation.

Conclusion 

The Multimodal Catalog is the first attempt to aggregate all FLMA transit and trail transportation 

systems into one database. While there are many future improvements needed, this baseline dataset 

offers valuable short- and long-term applications for FHWA, FTA, FLMAs, and partner agencies. 

Using the current data, short-term applications may include:

1. Briefings to agency leadership, legislatures, Project Decision Committees (for FLAP), and other 

stakeholders about the current value of multimodal systems and the need for upkeep;

2. A planning tool at the unit, regional, and national level for FLMAs;

3. A tool for State DOTs and State trail coordinators (and transit agencies) for identifying needs and 

potential partnerships;

4. A tool to help identify new funding sources for transit and trail systems, or to identify eligible 

projects for discretionary funding programs; and
31

5. Data source for FLAP calls and project evaluation.

As a planning tool, the query features of the Catalog can help FLMAs, State DOTs, and trail coordinators 

identify transit and trail systems for funding eligibility, systems planning, and long-range planning. Table 

10 shows a few examples of how Catalog data may be immediately put to use, including potential users 

and relevant data fields.

Table 13: Example Applications for the Multimodal Catalog

Application User Relevant Data Fields

Identify other transit agencies 

serving National Forests

Transit agency in small or 

medium city

USFS unit or regional 

planners

Owner, Transit Agency, FLMA, 

State, System Description, FLMA 

Contact

Identify private or non-FLMAowned transit systems within a 

region to coordinate routes and 

access public lands. The transit 

agency may want to coordinate 

data, GTFS coordinates, schedules, 

marketing, and trip planning.

Transit agency in small or 

medium city

FLMA unit planners

State, Location, System 

Description, Owner, Operator

Identify trails eligible for a statespecific grantFLMA state trails lead FLMA, State, [depending on 

eligibility criteria: Surface Type, 

Ownership, Condition]

Identify trail connections 

between an FLMA unit and other 

FLMAs

State or National FLMA 

trails lead

State DOT planners

Trail NGO

State, Ownership, Distance from 

FLMA Unit, Relationship to FLMA 

Unit, FLMA Contact, Cost 

Estimate, Condition, Visitation

Identify all transit and trail 

systems serving FLMAs in one 

location 

FLMA unit planner

Local/county government

Location, State, System 

Description, Ownership, FLMA 

Contact

Identify comparable units 

elsewhere in the U.S. that have 

multiuse regional trails

FLMA state or unit planner FLMA, Location (locations may 

be similar in geography/size to a 

target unit), Trail Length, Trail 

Surface, Relationship to FLMA 

Unit

Identify all existing trail systems 

within a state near population 

centers

State DOT planner 

FLMA state trails lead

State, Location, Relationship to 

FLMA Unit, System Description

Identify routes in a state best 

suited for road biking

State DOT planner 

FLMA state trails lead

State, Trail Surface, Length, 

System Description

Once the Catalog data is in use, FLMAs and other users will provide updates that will form a more 

complete data set. These data can then have additional applications in the long-term, such as:

• Formal communications from FLMAs to their leadership, partners, and lawmakers about assets 

and needs;
32

• A resource for FHWA to inform guidance on the FLTP and FLAP;

• Data to inform policy and investment strategies for FLMAs to meet their multimodal needs; and

• Online, multiagency trip planning tools (once FLMAs have added geospatial data to the Catalog).

Lessons Learned

In creating the first edition of the Multimodal Catalog, the project team recognized and overcame 

challenges with data availability and quality, FLMA engagement, geospatial components, and web-based 

publication. The original goals and needs of the Catalog evolved throughout the process, and the project 

team relied upon its Steering Committee and other partners to help determine the best direction in light 

of project constraints. The project team determined that publishing the Catalog as a best-available 

database of transit and trail systems, even while recognizing known gaps and inconsistencies, would 

offer significant value to transportation planners and managers working on federal lands.

The project team identified several lessons learned over the development of the Catalog:

1. The consistency and completeness of the Catalog is strengthened by the full participation of 

FLMAs and the capacity of FLMAs to collect high-quality data. FLMAs vary widely in their data 

availability and consistency across regions. Developing a fully consistent and comprehensive 

Catalog – especially one with spatial data available – will require more significant data updates 

and commitments from FLMAs. This first iteration of the Catalog asked for the FLMA’s voluntary 

participation. Some FLMAs did not have the capacity to call for data updates that would be 

necessary for a more comprehensive Catalog. Also, many FLMA staff asked for a geospatial 

component, but agencies did not have capacity to consistently provide GIS data for all of their 

transit and trail systems.

2. Defining transit and trails for inclusion in the Catalog is linked to agency priorities and values. 

FLMAs vary in terms of what they want out of a Multimodal Catalog and how they see 

multimodal systems adding value to their agencies. For example, NPS frequently use transit 

systems to provide congestion relief, whereas USFWS seeks resource preservation and 

interpretation, and the BLM seeks access to “backyard” recreation. The types of systems that 

FLMAs want to include therefore vary. The project team tried to be as consistent as possible in 

systems to include. Where consistency was not possible due to FLMA data availability or 

priorities, then the project team tried to be transparent about why certain types of systems 

were included for each FLMA.

3. The best tools and data sets are ones that can be put to use. Transportation and land 

management agencies are both interested in improving data and making it consistent, but data 

will always be imperfect and incomplete. Data that agencies are using on a regular basis is more 

likely to be updated, verified, and useful. Ultimately, this lesson was the driver behind publishing 

the first edition of the Catalog in its current form, without geospatial data and with known 

inconsistencies and gaps in the data set.
33

With data shared among a wide user group, FLMAs and transportation agencies will discover new 

lessons about opportunities and constraints of the current data sets. This can result in future updates of 

the Catalog to improve upon the current features. Future editions of the Catalog will help FLMAs and 

their partners create robust, multimodal transportation systems to offer transportation choices to 

millions of visitors to America’s public lands.
34

Addendum

After the first iteration of the Multimodal Catalog was released in 2016, the project team continued 

investigating ways to enhance the tool and make it more useful. Between 2016 and 2018, the project 

team conducted research on the capabilities of georeferencing the Catalog’s data. Given the findings, 

the project team focused on developing an interactive map of geospatial transit data that provides 

access to FLMA boundaries. Figure 10 builds off the timeline of the Catalog’s development in Figure 1, 

listing the major activities and deliverables completed to date. 

Figure 10: Timeline of Activities (Extended)

Trail Geospatial Research

In 2016, Volpe Center staff assessed the viability of a GIS-based trails component to the MMC. The Volpe 

Center contacted trails leads and GIS specialists at each FLMA to determine the current status of their 

data, including coverage, storage, and maintenance regimes. High level findings are as follows:

1. Two agencies have developed very robust GIS systems for asset management, and two more are 

on similar trajectories towards standardized enterprise GIS (EGIS) asset management systems. 

USACE has limited current capability and no substantial change is foreseeable in the near future. 

2. USFS and USFWS already maintain GIS trail inventories in EGIS, with planned updates in the next 

few years. It will take approximately five years for NPS and BLM to implement EGIS, as well as to 

publish national trails mosaic geospatial layers.

3. In the short term, it would be time- and resource-intensive to link agency geospatial data to the 

existing MMC tabular data without an additional data call due to the lack of a unique trail 

identification number shared between spatial and non-spatial data sets.

Based on these findings, the Volpe Center makes the following recommendations:

1. All near-future FLMA multimodal planning efforts that would have used the geo-enabled MMC 

should instead use local corporate data as they do now, and be sure to update emerging agency 
35

EGIS systems throughout the process. This will cultivate the data underlying the future geoenabled MMC over time.

2. In the long term, FHWA should maintain a script by which it may harvest component FLMA EGIS 

trails data on a case-by-case basis from appropriate data warehouse locations. These can 

include corporate EGIS servers, public-facing servers, GIS web services, and GIS data webstores 

(e.g., Data.gov).

Transit Geospatial Component

Building off of the GIS pilot in 2015, the Volpe Center worked with FHWA to georeference the transit 

data in order to develop an interactive spatial component of the Catalog. The goal was to use spatial 

analysis tools to verify the existing data while also adding new transit assets to enhance the dataset. The 

following provides a summary of the process used by the Volpe Center and FHWA to develop this tool.

Adding new transit assets

1. The project team created a central table of transit systems (i.e., Transit Agency Matrix). This 

table was used throughout the process to store all the qualitative data attributes, as well as 

technical and tracking information used during the development of spatial data. 

2. The Transit Agency Matrix was initially populated with all transit systems from the National 

Transit Database (NTD). Additional sources of transit systems included the systems which 

previously had been captured under the Multimodal Catalog, systems from the National Transit 

Map, and the NPS Transit Inventory. 

3. Any transit systems added from the additional sources were either matched to existing systems, 

or were created as new entries in the Transit Agency Matrix.

4. Transit systems which existed in the NTD used the unique identifiers from that dataset, prefixed 

with a “P”. Any systems which were added as new entries were given a new unique ID, prefixed 

with a “VOL”.

Building the geospatial dataset of transit systems

1. The project team acquired GTFS data from national clearing house and individual agency 

websites (see GIS Pilot for more information on GTFS).

2. If GTFS data was not available, shapefiles were acquired. If shapefiles were not available, then 

PDF/paper maps were acquired. In some cases, very small systems with limited stops only had a 

description of the stop location(s) and no map.

3. Data preparation for the interactive map in ArcGIS Online included the following:

• GTFS URLs were added to the attributes for corresponding systems in the Transit Agency 

Matrix. 

• A python script was run which performed two primary tasks:

o Build a directory for each transit system which was identified as having either a 

GTFS feed, shapefiles/feature classes, a PDF map, or other available spatial data.
36

o For transit systems which had a GTFS URL listed in their attributes, download 

GTFS data, process it into spatial data, and copy to the appropriate directory.

• Shapefiles or feature classes where no GTFS data was available, were downloaded 

manually and copied into the appropriate directory.

• The following was implemented for PDF/paper maps, and text descriptions:

o Digitized points manually using a template creating only enough points to 

roughly define the extent of the system. The FLMA boundaries were used as 

reference during this process, so that points were created where the transit 

systems were closest to the FLMAs. No route lines were built in this initial effort.

o The intent, given the scope of this effort, was to create a spatial representation 

of the extent of a transit system, which was needed to perform the spatial 

analysis with the FLMA boundaries.

4. Developing an FLMA base layer and unique IDs

• The project team reached out to the FLMAs to collect the best spatial data for their 

lands owned by that agency. These datasets were compiled into a single feature class 

representing the boundaries of individual federal land units, called the fla_boundaries 

feature class. 

• If the FLMA did not have a unique ID for each of their land units, the project team

created one. Several FLMAs had unique IDs and names for their land units, and these 

were transferred to the fla_boundaries Unit ID field. Several of the FLMAs, however, did 

not divide their lands into individual units with unique IDs or names (e.g., BLM). In these 

cases, the project team divided the large swaths of land into parcels by county and 

assigned unique IDs based on the county and state Federal Information Processing 

Standard (FIPS) codes.

• Projection used: USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic USGS version.

• Datum used: D_North_American_1983.

5. Spatial Analysis

• With the transit agency spatial datasets, and the federal lands boundary feature class, 

the project team ran a second python script to perform a spatial analysis.

• Any transit systems which had a component within at least 1⁄2 mile of a FLMA boundary 

or access point qualified for placement in the interactive map. 

• The output from this process was a many-to-many relationship table. This table uses 

unique IDs to identify which transit systems are within 1⁄2 mile of which FLMA.

6. Overview of ArcGIS Online Web Application

• FHWA’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division uploaded the Federal land boundaries 

feature class and transit systems point and line feature classes into an ArcGIS Online 

web application.
37

• The relationship classes the project team generated as part of the spatial analysis were 

loaded into the web application as well, enabling a natural connection and flow 

between attributes of the Federal lands and attributes of the transit systems. 

• Queries and filters were built to allow users to specify either Federal lands of interest or 

transit systems of interest using a variety of attributes.

• The raw data behind the layers displayed in the web app can be downloaded, as can the 

tabular attribute data, for further analysis by the tool’s users.

7. Data summary

• The transit system spatial data search process resulted in the collection of spatial data 

for over 630 transit systems that provide access to Federal lands, out of 2,638 total 

transit systems added to the Transit Agency Matrix.

• These transit systems were identified as 69 rural and 558 urban systems.

• Federal lands for the BLM, NPS, USACE, USFS, and USFWS had a total of 3,276 individual 

land units identified.

• The spatial analysis process identified 1,512 high-confidence relationships between 

federal lands and transit systems.

Next Steps

The 2018 release of the Multimodal Catalog focused on adding more descriptive information to the 

Catalog’s existing transit inventory, adding additional transit systems, and building an interactive map to 

spatially display all transit systems across the country that provide access to FLMA lands. FHWA expects 

the Catalog to be continually updated and enhanced moving forward to better accommodate user 

needs. Intended next steps for the Catalog include, but is not limited, the following:

• Integration: FLMAs, along with State and local partners, could adopt this collaborative tool and 

integrate it into their ongoing planning and project development processes.

• Maintenance: The Multimodal Catalog is a living dataset that will require periodic updates to 

remain current and relevant. FLH will oversee maintenance, but will rely on FLMA participation 

for data updates. FHWA will work with FLMA partners to determine how to best leverage efforts 

to maintain complementary data sets and systems.

• Enhancement: FLH would like to transition the trails database to an interactive geospatial 

format like the transit database to make it a more valuable tool for FLMA partners.
38

Appendices

Appendix A: Complete List of Data Fields Included in the Catalog

The project team worked with stakeholders to identify and prioritize data fields related to trails and 

transit assets for inclusion in the Catalog. The final list is included below:

Table 14: Multimodal Catalog Data Fields

Theme Components Trail Transit Location & Context

FLMA X X

Region / USACE Division X X

District (USACE only) X X

Unit Name / USACE Project Site Name X X

Subunit / USACE Project Site Area Name X X

Location (Closest City or County) X X

Location (State) X X

Unit Visitation per year X X

FLMA contact X X

System Description

System Name X X

System Description X X

# Unlinked Trips per year X

Mode X X

Total Length of trail or transit route X X

Seasonal only? (Y/N) X X

Planned improvements X X

Status (Existing, Planned, Existing with Planned Improvements) X X

Mode-Specific 

Questions

Trail surface X

Trail condition X

Transit agency (if applicable) X

# Vehicles / Vessels X

Type of vehicles X

Fuel type X

Hours per week of operation X

Weeks per year of operation X

Mgmt. 

Model

Owner

Operator / Maintenance X X

Multi-agency partner 1/2 X X

Funding & 

Finance

Private funding source(s) X X

Public funding source(s) X X

Funding eligibility X X

Capital replacement cost (or current replacement value) X X

Relation

Relationship to FLMA unit X X

Agreement with FLMA X X

Distance from unit X X

Admin.

Information Source X X

Year of Inventory X X

Notes X X

Field last updated X X
39

Appendix B: Stakeholder Outreach Presentations

• December 12, 2013 – “Multimodal Catalog: Presentation to Western Federal Lands Highway.”

• January 8, 2014 – “Multimodal Catalog: Presentation to Eastern Federal Lands Highway.”

• January 9, 2014 – “Multimodal Catalog: Presentation to Central Federal Lands Highway.”

• January 16, 2014 – “Multimodal Catalog: Presentation to TRIP TAC Peer Group Meeting.”

• February 2014 – “Multimodal Catalog: Status Meeting” (individual presentations to all FLMA 

partners).

• September 16, 2014 – Transit Research Board (TRB) ADA 40 Conference: Poster Presentation.

• October 29, 2015 – National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) Conference: “Presentation 

Federal Lands Multimodal Catalog: A Tool for Connecting Visitors to Federal Lands.”

• December 17, 2015 – “Introducing...the Multimodal Catalog! Presentation to the Federal Agency 

Coordination Team (FACT).”

• August 2018 – Multimodal Catalog presentation for partners (content prepared and 

presentation will be given at a future date).

Sample of Outreach Materials

Transit Research Board (TRB) ADA 40 Conference: Poster Presentation
40

Multimodal Catalog Factsheet (4 pages)
41
42
43
44

2018 Multimodal Catalog Presentation for Partners (17 slides)
45
46
47

Appendix C: Multimodal Definitions

The project team conducted individual outreach meetings with FLMAs and FLH Divisions to introduce 

the Multimodal Catalog early in development process, and to refine the purpose and need for the tool. 

The project team also discussed criteria for inclusion in the Catalog and sought input on the Definitions 

Memo, included below.

Multimodal Definition 

The project team must define the multimodal systems to be included in this Catalog in a way that serves 

the aforementioned needs and goals. The definition considers the following:

• Previous efforts of Congress and of FLMAs to define “alternative transportation systems;”26

• The new funding landscape;

• The needs and potential Catalog applications of a diverse stakeholder group; and

• Limitations in data availability and staff capacity among FLMAs.

The project team recognizes that a single, standard definition may not encompass all multimodal 

transportation systems across all agencies, due to the varying priorities, needs, and capacities of the 

FLMAs. This document delineates how the Multimodal Catalog will define multimodal systems to 

accommodate sometimes-conflicting priorities and can be feasibly developed using existing resources.

First, the project team lists previous definitions of alternative transportation and multimodal systems to 

establish a baseline. Second, the project team spells out three criteria for multimodal systems to be 

included in the Catalog. Finally, the project team builds flexibility into the criteria; it explains the 

prioritization of transportation systems for inclusion and how the Catalog (and its users) may treat 

systems that meet some, but not, all of the criteria.

Previous Definitions

Through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), FTA defined multimodal transportation systems that were eligible for TRIP grants as:

“...transportation by bus, rail, or any other publicly or privately owned conveyance that provides 

to the public general or special service on a regular basis, including sightseeing service. Such 

term also includes non-motorized transportation systems (including the provision of facilities for 

pedestrians, bicycles, and non-motorized watercraft).”27

The TRIP definition focuses on mode, schedule, and audience. FLMAs have developed complementary 

definitions that also focus on mode, as seen in Table 15. 

 26 FHWA and FTA decided to use “multimodal” instead of “alternative transportation systems” (ATS) in this Catalog 

because this language is more consistent with transportation practitioners outside of federal lands. Many of the 

previous definitions refer to ATS but will be used here as synonymous with multimodal. 27 SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5320)
48

Table 15: Previous FLMA Multimodal Definitions

FLMA Definition Source

NPS Alternative transportation systems integrate all modes of surface 

transportation, beyond traditional roadways and private vehicles, 

including motorized and non-motorized land and water-based 

transportation systems.

NPS Reauthorization 

Resource Paper 2013 

(x), Alternative 

Transportation 

Program definition

FWS Alternative transportation systems generally include any travel 

means other than personal automobile, such as:

• Motorized transportation systems operating internally within 

stations

• Shuttles and van transit connecting stations with other 

destinations

• Regional transit connections (bus, light rail, trolley, commuter 

rail, passenger rail)

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, paths, bicycle 

lanes, regional trails)

• Water-based transportation

• Publicly and privately operated systems

RATE Reports: 

http://www.volpe.do

t.gov/transportationplanning/publiclands/us-fish-andwildlife-serviceregional-alternative-0

BLM ATS include not only vans and shuttle services but also connections 

to regional transit systems, regular sightseeing tours, and nonmotorized connections for transportation purposes.

BLM ATS Inventory 

Report, 2010 (x)

USFS ATS refers to transit systems and transit or transportation 

enhancements eligible under Titles 49 and 23 that enhance 

transportation service or use and that are physically or functionally 

related to transit facilities, such as parking, pedestrian and bicycle 

access, walkways, and similar amenities that provide access to and 

within Forest Service lands.

Transit vehicles identified in this study include trams, standard 

transit buses, small buses, historic trolleys, trolley cars, waterborne 

vessels, and aerial tramways. Other essential transit investments 

include maintenance and storage facilities and ferry piers. Transit 

enhancements identified include parking facilities, connections with 

non-motorized trails, shelters, and signage and information services.

Summary of Forest 

Service ATS Needs, 

Federal Lands ATS 

Study, 2004 (x)

Criteria for the Multimodal Catalog Definition

The multimodal definition used in the TRIP program applies to all FLMAs, but it may be too broad for the 

goals of this Catalog. The Catalog should focus on systems that are important to the missions of the 

FLMAs and that enhance access to and within federal lands. The definition and prioritization of 

multimodal transportation systems for inclusion in the Catalog are based upon three criteria: (1) a 

clear and direct physical connection to federal land, (2) the transportation purpose, and (3) a 

connection with the FLMA mission.

1. Does the system have a clear and direct physical connection to federal land?

Multimodal systems in the Catalog must be used to access Federal lands. Systems that are completely 

contained within federal lands and offer access to amenities around the site clearly facilitate visitor 

access and mobility within federal lands. Additionally, many multimodal systems located within Federal 
49

lands also extend service beyond the FLMA boundary, whether offering a transit stop at an auxiliary 

parking lot or as part of a regional trail.

However, there are numerous transportation systems that operate completely outside of federal land 

boundaries but that help visitors to access the sites. These systems are seldom, if ever, owned or 

maintained by FLMAs, so data on these systems is less readily available. Under MAP-21, trails and transit 

that offer access to federal lands are eligible for funding under the Federal Lands Access Program, but 

the system owner (a local or state government) must apply for funds. One goal of the Catalog is to 

provide better data for making decisions about the Access Program, and therefore these systems must 

be considered.

The multimodal definition will consider area of service in the following three tiers:

i. Systems that operate, fully or in part, within federal land boundaries.

ii. Systems that provide direct access to federal lands. Examples include transit or ferry systems 

that provide service to a federal land access point and trails (or trail extensions) that terminate 

at a federal land. In most of these cases, the system owner is not a FLMA.

iii. Systems that provide service within close proximity of a federal land.28 FLMAs recognize these 

systems as important opportunities to improve access to their lands, but the systems do not 

currently provide direct access.

Systems in the first two tiers will always be considered to meet the criteria of clear and direct 

connection to federal lands.

For systems in the third tier, the project team will include these systems if the data is readily available or 

provided by the FLMA. Additional data gathering efforts for these systems may be further evaluated 

after data for the first two tiers (that also meet the two criteria below) are included. 

2. Does the system serve a transportation purpose?

FLMA transportation systems are often part of the visitor’s recreation experience. However, the 

Multimodal Catalog definition must differentiate between systems that are purely recreational versus 

ones that have a transportation component, while recognizing that these categories are indistinct for 

most transportation on federal lands.

Transit

The Multimodal Catalog identifies a transportation purpose for any transit system operating in a federal 

land, as the system is either offering new access to visitors or providing access in lieu of the use of a 

private vehicle. All transit systems meet the “transportation purpose” criteria.

 28 Close proximity is defined as within one-half mile of the FLMA boundary.
50

Trails

The Catalog must differentiate transportation trails from those that are purely recreational; all FLMAs 

have numerous trails for hiking, biking, interpretation, and other recreational activities. The Alternative 

Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL), a pre-cursor to the TRIP program, used the following 

three characteristics for non-motorized transportation system eligibility (simplified here as 

distinguishing between transportation and recreation trails):

1. Reduce or mitigate the number of auto trips by providing an alternative to travel by private 

auto;

2. Provide a high degree of connectivity within a transportation system; and

3. Improve safety for motorized and non-motorized transportation system users.29

Considering especially the first two characteristics of the ATPPL/TRIP eligibility, the project team 

identified types of trails that facilitate access to and within public lands by connecting critical visitor 

origins and destinations (see sidebar).

.

 29 Hodges and Faulk. 2007. Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program Manual. Federal Transit Agency. FTAMA-20-1001-06.1. p. 22.

Sidebar: Examples of Transportation Trails

The following trail types usually meet the criteria of “transportation purpose” and should be 

included in the Catalog if the trail passes through or is adjacent to federal lands and meets the 

other two criteria.

• Regional multi-use trails. These trails are open to various non-motorized uses, such as 

walking, bicycling, and scooters. These trails offer safe travel and recreational corridors 

in both urban and rural areas. 

• FLMA-designated and supported national trails. The National Trail System (NPS), 

National Scenic and Historic Trails (BLM), and National Recreation Trails. National 

Recreation Trails are designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Agriculture for local or regional significance but usually not federally owned. 

• FLMA trails that connect at least two vehicle-accessible amenities. Trails that connect 

at least two amenities that are also accessible by private vehicle allow visitors to travel 

by non-motorized mode to access these amenities. The types of amenities that may be 

accessed by trails include parking lots, visitor centers, bird blinds, and picnic areas.

• Trails that connect FLMA with gateway community. If a trail offers access between a 

gateway community or city and a federal land, it can be a travel corridor for visitors.

• Trails that connect FLMAs with each other. Any trail that allows visitors to access two 

FLMA sites through non-motorized modes has a transportation purpose.
51

The most feasible way to gather trail data is to draw from existing FLMA databases. Each FLMA, 

therefore, has helped to define its own parameters for identifying trails with a transportation purpose 

(fitting within the ATPPL definition listed above) from its own data set (see Table 16).

Table 16: Trail Data from FLMA Data Sets

Agency Criteria for Transportation Purpose Notes

NPS Front country, (usually) paved trails; class I and II 

trails with improved surfaces, most class III, IV, and V 

trails;30 includes boardwalks, sidewalks, walkways, 

bike, multi-use, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

designated/compliant, all-terrain vehicle (ATV), fourwheel drive (4WD), Alaska dog, and snowmobile

trails;31 interface between modes32

Regional definitions may 

vary; see also ATPPL 

definition

BLM Trail included in 2010 Alternative Transportation 

Systems Inventory Report33

Augmented with data from 

BLM State Offices

USACE Trail designated in OMBIL as multipurpose or bicycle

USFWS Trail identified in second and/or third cycle of the 

FHWA National Trails Inventory effort

USFS Maintenance level 3-5 trails USFS is currently 

developing criteria for 

FLTP-eligible trails, which 

may be included in future 

Catalog updates

The Multimodal Catalog will focus on the trails identified by FLMAs from their own datasets, as well as 

regional and national trails with data available to show their intersection with or adjacency to federal 

lands. The Multimodal Catalog also will work with FLMA representatives to identify any additional 

appropriate data sources.

3. Does the system serve the mission of the FLMA?

Through transportation plans and strategies, FLMAs have established how their multimodal systems 

advance their missions and goals. For example, FLMAs may use transit systems in connection with 

resource protection by controlling access to areas with sensitive species, or they may add a bicycle trail 

with interpretive kiosks to enhance the visitor’s experience. To simplify the many complex ways that a 

 30 See Federal Trail Data Standards for definitions of trail classes. Accessed 8 May 2014: 

http://www.nps.gov/gis/trails/Doc2/Appendix_A%20_Trail%20Class%20Matrix_11_08_2011_master.pdf. 31 NPS transportation trails were determined by: (1) filtering out all backcountry trails, horse trails, portage trails, water trails, 

pack animal trails, cross-country trails, and frontcountry class I and II trails that are native or gravel surface in the NPS’ national 

trails database, and (2) refining the resulting list using characteristics identified in Table 2. Description for trails included in the 

NPS National Long Range Transportation Plan provided in email by Charles Notzon, NPS Project Specialist (Economics). 2 May 

2014.

32 National Park Service. 2013. National Park Service Transportation Reauthorization Resource Paper. Accessed 8 April 2014: 

http://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/NPS_Reauthorization_Resource_Paper.pdf. 33 Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Bureau of Land Management Alternative Transportation Systems Inventory Report. 

Accessed 29 December 2015: https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/bureau-land-managementalternative-transportation-systems.
52

system could serve the FLMAs mission and goals, the Catalog assumes that assets owned and operated 

by FLMAs have a mission connection. 

For systems that are not owned and/or operated by an FLMA, the project team looks to the NPS transit 

systems definition in the NPS National Transit Inventory (2012):

i. Moves people by motorized vehicle on a regularly scheduled service;

ii. Operates under one of the following business models: concessions contract; service contract; 

partner agreement including memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, or 

cooperative agreement (commercial use authorizations are not included); or NPS owned and 

operated; and

iii. All routes and services at a given unit that are operated under the same business model by the 

same operator are considered a single NPS transit system.

The second component focuses on a business model that demonstrates that the system is important to 

the NPS mission. Transit systems in which the FLMA has a financial stake or a formal contract or 

agreement in place shows FLMA efforts to provide a service; NPS considers the business model an 

objective way to demonstrate mission importance.

The Multimodal Catalog uses this as the baseline definition for systems that operate within FLMA lands. 

FLMAs may also identify transit systems outside of these business models that have a mission 

connection and communicate these systems with the project team.34

Definition Flexibility

The Multimodal Catalog recognizes the challenges in defining transportation systems across FLMAs, all 

of which have different missions, visitation patterns, and transportation needs. The multimodal systems 

definition provides a focus for the Catalog and bounds for the types of systems to prioritize for inclusion.

Any system that meets all three criteria listed above shall be included in the Catalog.

Any system that meets two of the criteria above may be included but shall be designated separately

for inventorying and cost estimation purposes. FHWA and the FLMAs have less need for the cost 

estimates of capital, operations, and maintenance needs for those systems that are not owned or 

operated by – or through an agreement with – FLMAs. For these systems, the Catalog shall prioritize 

data that can help FLH and FLMA staff identify these systems and connect with the system 

owner/operator. This would include the following data fields:

• System name;

• Location;

 34 The project team anticipates that non-NPS FLMAs will have a small number of transit systems to include that do not meet this 

criterion but that the FLMAs will identify for inclusion in the Catalog.
53

• Organization and contact information for system owner, operator, and maintainer;

• FLMA unit connections;

• Other regional destination connections (including cities and towns); and

• Eligible funding sources.

FHWA recognizes that FLMAs assign importance to a number of multimodal systems that do not fit 

within the Catalog’s definition. The Catalog can provide a framework for data collection, as well as 

sources for information on multimodal systems. FLMAs can then use this framework to add additional 

systems that are not contained within the Catalog but that are priorities for the FLMA.

Multimodal Definitions from FTA and FLMAs

I. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Transit in Parks Program

“...transportation by bus, rail, or any other publicly or privately owned conveyance that provides to the 

public general or special service on a regular basis, including sightseeing service. Such term also includes 

non-motorized transportation systems (including the provision of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and 

non-motorized watercraft).”35

“...can help land managers maintain the balance between protecting natural resources and providing 

visitor access. ...services and facilities that provide visitors with a viable alternative to their automobile 

for traveling through and experiencing a park or public land.”36

“The goals of [TRIP/ATS] are to enhance the protection of national parks and federal lands and increase 

the enjoyment of those visiting them. This includes to:

• Conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources; 

• Reduce congestion and pollution; 

• Improve visitor mobility and accessibility; 

• Enhance visitor experience; and

• Ensure access to all, including persons with disabilities.”37

 35 SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5320). 36 TRIPTAC FAQ, http://www.triptac.org/AboutTRIPTAC/FAQs/Default.html#alter. 37 Guidance for Project Proposals, TRIP, 2010, (x).
54

II. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Alternative Transportation Program

“Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) integrate all means of travel within a park, including transit, 

bicycle and pedestrian linkages, and automobiles. Regardless of their size or location, parks follow the 

objectives of the Alternative Transportation Program (ATP): (1) improving the visitor experience, (2) 

protecting natural and cultural resources, (3) promoting economic development, (4) fostering strong 

partnerships, (5) enhancing visitor safety and security, and (6) enabling new services.”38

“...contribute to preserving resources, including improvements to air quality, soundscapes, and reduced 

wildlife/auto collisions ... reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”39

2012 NPS National Transit Inventory

“[NPS transit]:

1. Moves people by motorized vehicle on a regularly scheduled service;

2. Operates under one of the following business models: concessions contract; service contract; 

partner agreement including memorandum of understanding, memorandum of agreement, or 

cooperative agreement (commercial use authorizations are not included); or NPS owned and 

operated; and

3. All routes and services at a given unit that are operated under the same business model by the 

same operator are considered a single NPS transit system.”

III. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report

“Alternative transportation systems generally include any travel means other than personal automobile, 

such as:

• Motorized transportation systems operating internally within stations;

• Shuttles and van transit connecting stations with other destinations;

• Regional transit connections (bus, light rail, trolley, commuter rail, passenger rail);

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, regional trails);

• Water-based transportation; and

• Publicly and privately operated systems”40

 38 NPS Accomplishments in Alternative Transportation, 2003 presentation (x). 39 ATP Home Page, http://www.nps.gov/transportation/alternative_transportation.html. 40 RATE Report Outline & Template.
55

FWS National Long Range Transportation Plan INTERNAL DRAFT

“The three most popular alternative modes of travel are boats, offsite parking lots that provide trail 

access, and bus/trams that operate during special events to accommodate large, but infrequent influxes 

of visitors.

The access, mobility, and connectivity performance measure established in the National LRTP is the 

percentage of units accessible through alternative modes of transportation (such as transit, bicycle, 

pedestrian, or waterway).”

IV. BLM

“ATS include not only vans and shuttle services but also connections to regional transit systems, regular 

sightseeing tours, and nonmotorized connections for transportation purposes. ATS bring benefits to 

public lands, including conservation of natural and cultural resources, reduction of congestion and 

pollution, improvement of visitor mobility and accessibility, and enhanced visitor experience. These 

benefits align with the BLM’s goals for visitor experience and resource preservation.

“In BLM sites with limited financial and staff resources and low or dispersed visitation, effective ATS 

capitalize on existing resources that may not require intensive transportation planning and management 

capacities from the agency. The most successful of the BLM’s ATS, as captured in the previous sections, 

have looked to their current assets first before investing in new infrastructure or capital. These assets 

include:

• Transit service;

• Nonmotorized networks, often managed by local governments, adjoining public lands, or nonprofit groups;

• Major BLM-owned trail infrastructure or corridors serve as nonmotorized regional 

transportation networks;

• Tour buses that include BLM sites or pass through BLM lands as part of existing tours; and

• Local residents preferences to access trails from home by bicycle or by foot” 41

V. USFS

“ATS refers to transit systems and transit or transportation enhancements eligible under Titles 49 and 23 

that enhance transportation service or use and that are physically or functionally related to transit 

facilities, such as parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, walkways, and similar amenities that provide 

access to and within Forest Service lands.

 41 BLM ATS Inventory Report, 2010. 
56

“Transit vehicles identified in this study include trams, standard transit buses, small buses, historic 

trolleys, trolley cars, waterborne vessels, and aerial tramways. Other essential transit investments 

include maintenance and storage facilities and ferry piers. Transit enhancements identified include 

parking facilities, connections with non-motorized trails, shelters, and signage and information 

services.”42

VI. USACE

“In a recent year, the top recreational activities were: [walking, driving for pleasure, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, bicycling, viewing wildlife, camping, and hunting.]”43

 42 Summary of Forest Service ATS Needs, Federal Lands ATS Study, 2004 (x). 43 A definition for “multimodal” or “ATS” has not been defined by USACE, but multimodal activities do take place on USACE 

lands. Retrieved from:

Federal Lands Highways Transportation Bill [SAFETEA-LU] Re-authorization Resource Paper , 2007.
57

Appendix D: Maps from GIS Pilot
58

Appendix E: Trail and Transit Cost Estimate References

American Trails. “Trail Maintenance & Management: Construction and Maintenance Costs for Trails.” 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/MilwMaintcost.html

American Trails. “Trail Maintenance & Management: Trail Operation and Maintenance Requirements.” 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/Trail-Operation-Maintenance.html

Anasazi Trails, Inc. “Rio Grande Trail Corridor Study Trail Surfacing Report.” Prepared for the New 

Mexico State Parks Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. 2008. 

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/RioGrandeSurfaceStudy.pdf

Campbell Thomas & Co. “Feasibility Study for Various Rails to Trails Projects Within the County of 

Cumberland.” June 29, 2010. http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/CumberlandNJrailtrail.pdf

Hudson, George. “What’s Under Foot? Multi-use Trail Surfacing Options.” Alta Planning + Design. 

http://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=4587

Kusler, Jon. “Common Questions: Constructing Wetland Boardwalks and Trails.” Association of State 

Wetland Manager, Inc. 2006. https://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=4231

North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Albemarle Pedestrian Plan. Appendix E: Cost Estimates 

and Examples.” 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/municipalities/PlanningGrant/Sample%20Plans/Albemarle%20Sample%20Pla

n%20-%20Appendix%20E.pdf

Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission. “Ped and Pedal 2010. Appendix B: Trail Cost 

Analysis.” 2010. http://www.nirpc.org/media/3539/appendix_b___trailcosts.pdf

PermaTrak. “Boardwalk Construction Estimates: How Much Does a Boardwalk Cost?” 

http://www.permatrak.com/news-events/bid/97419/Boardwalk-Construction-Estimates-How-MuchDoes-a-Boardwalk-Cost

PermaTrak. “6 Design Differences: Timber Boardwalk vs. Concrete Boardwalk.” 

http://www.permatrak.com/news-events/bid/89876/6-Design-Differences-Timber-Boardwalk-vsConcrete-Boardwalk

Poole, Tim. “Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operation: Ensuring the Future of Your Trail – A Survey of 100 

Rail Trails.” Rails-To-Trails Conservancy Northeast Regional Office. July 2005. 

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/railtrailmaint.pdf

Rails to Trails Conservancy. “Trail Building and Design Toolbox: Surfaces.” 

http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-building-and-design/surfaces/

Searns, Robert. “Trail Maintenance and Management: Operations, Maintenance, and Stewardship 101.” 

National Trails Training Partnership. 2005. 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/searnsmaint101.html

United States Forest Service. “Forest Service Design Parameters.” October 16, 2008. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trail-
59

management/documents/trailfundamentals/National_Design_Parameters_10_16_2008.pdf

United States Forest Service. “Trail Assessment & Condition Surveys: User Guide.” 2011. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trailmanagement/documents/TRACS/TRACS_User_Guide_05_01_2011.pdf

United States Forest Service. “Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines.” 2013. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/FSTAG_2013%20Update.pdf

United States Government Accountability Office. “Forest Service Trails: Long- and Short-Term 

Improvements Could Reduce Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability.” June 2013. 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-618

Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center, United States Department of Transportation. “Bus 

Lifecycle Cost Model for Federal Land Management Agencies.” September 2011. 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9548

Wagner, Jed. “Trail Maintenance and Management: Maintenance Checklist for Greenways and Urban 

Trails.” American Trails.org. 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/MaintCheck.html

Weinstein, Jeff, Mike Sherrod, Noel Fearon, Derik Perez. “How Much Will That Trail Cost?” Trails and 

Greenways Conference. May 11, 2007. 

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/files/how_much_will_that_trail_cost_fri2007.pdf

Wilbur Smith Associates. “Trail Surface Cost Estimates.” 2006. 

https://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=4568