* Some of the planning that Ken is asking about has been done. We did work closely with the DNR in 1999 and 2000 as they developed the State Trails Network Plan. In this plan many corridors were identified that included state highways and active rail lines within the same corridors. That plan makes it clear that taking advantage of the rail opportunity for a trail is the first priority for these corridors, but in the absence of that, the highway itself could be considered. The plan states: " Appropriate "trail" improvements within a highway corridor could range from a separate path to a paved shoulder to no additional treatment at all on lightly traveled roads. The eventual recommended treatment would depend on traffic volume, width of the right-of-way, highway geometrics, cost, the number and type of anticipated users, and maintenance considerations." The vast majority of our system is comprised of 2-lane roadways where establishing free-standing trails is not feasible. That is a real limiting factor. Thus, bicyclists and occasional pedestrian traffic will be accommodated with wider paved shoulders in most cases.
* We are also very limited in our planning for trails that may be used by motorized users either exclusively or in a mixed situation. While 84.06 (11) clearly gives us the ability to include trails as a part of a highway improvement, the permitted trail types are limited to "a hiking trail, cross-country ski trail, bridle trail or bicycle trail under the management of a state agency, municipality....". Secondly, federal law prohibits the use of federal transportation funds (except Recreational Trails funding) for developing trails for motorized use, except snowmobiles when permitted by local ordinance.
* Building trails may also require condemnation, especially for our standard 66' rights-of-ways. Condemnation may be exercised only where "necessary" and only if land cannot be purchased at an agreed price. We have avoided using condemnation for trails in our highway corridors because it may be difficult to argue necessity, especially if the transportation value of the trail is questionable.
Given the above points, we are considering trails in our planning process whenever we convert 2-lane roadways to 4-lane roadways. Clearly we have the ability to designate ATV and snowmobile routes per state statutes for existing highways, but this will be done more on a case-by-case basis.