Classification: regional trails

The Met Council has defined two types of regional trails: destination (or greenway) trails and linking trails.  

Destination trails typically follow routes with high-quality natural systems that make the trail itself a destination. These routes may also include important cultural resources. Additionally, destination trails are often closely aligned with the RBTN. They provide a scenic setting, a compelling sense of place, and they often support bicycle commuting options. Usually, they follow natural or linear features that traverse areas of scenic appeal and/or historical, architectural, and developmental points of interest. They typically include wider corridors that improve wildlife habitat, protect natural features, and provide recreational opportunities beyond the trail itself. 

Linking trails provide vital connections between Regional Parks and Trails System units, the RBTN, state and federal lands, significant natural areas, schools, shopping, and other regional destinations. Regional parks and park reserves along the trail route offer important services to trail visitors, including places for picnicking and other desirable activities, parking, restrooms, and drinking water.  

Regional trail attributes 

The use, service area, and site attributes for both destination and linking trails are the same. Size and site location have minor differences.  
Use: Trails may be developed for one or more modes of nonmotorized recreational travel including hiking, biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and paddling. In general, e-bikes are allowed on regional trails. Trail use must be consistent with individual implementing agency rules and ordinances.  
 
With respect to bicycling, regional trails serve:

• Pre-teen bicyclists who are often accompanied by a parent and need access to local schools, libraries, recreation facilities, shopping, and neighborhoods. These bicyclists have a strong preference for separation from motor vehicles on protected bikeways and trails.  
• Adult and teenage bicyclists who may ride regularly for transportation but prefer comfortable access by a direct route on lower-speed or low-traffic streets. These bicyclists are more comfortable on designated bikeways such as roadway-adjacent or independent trails.  
• Adult and teenage bicyclists who are willing to travel along most roadways but prefer the more natural surroundings that regional trails can offer. They value direct access to destinations and can ride at higher speeds than average cyclists. This group will often rely on roads for transportation but will use trails when they are direct and enjoyable.
• Experienced bicyclists who want direct access to destinations with minimum delays. These bicyclists primarily rely on the road system for routes and value using roads for commuting, but occasionally enjoy independent trails if they are relatively direct and continuous and/or create a time advantage over parallel on-road routes by avoiding traffic lights.

Service area: 3-5 communities for both destination and linking trails.  

Site attributes: When feasible, off-road trails should utilize natural linear and/or human-made corridors such as stream or river valleys, along the edges of forests or prairies, utility corridors, railroad corridors, and highway rights-of-way. On-road bikeways should only be allowed for short segments where no other off-road solutions are reasonable/viable. Trails may still be within the roadway right-of-way, but they need to be physically separated from vehicle traffic by raised curbs, large planters, or other permanent vertical barriers.  

Regional trail types primarily include:  

• Roadway-separated, independent trails, including trails that run along abandoned railroad corridors, or along utility or private easements, and exist in their own independent rights-of-way. These trails are categorized as destination trails.
• Roadway-adjacent, multiple-use trails that run adjacent to public roadways, but not on the roadway itself. In urban areas, these would be at street curb level. These trails are categorized as linking trails.
• Occasional on-road protected bikeways designed exclusively for bicycles at street grade that are separated by a physical barrier from vehicle traffic. These trails are categorized as linking trails.

When an implementing agency receives state or federal transportation funding to develop a regional trail, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8820 applies. This rule requires that specific design standards be used, including variables such as design speed and expected users. When regional trails pass through a regional park, recreational standards should be given higher priority due to the natural and recreational context. Implementing agencies should examine each situation carefully, identify potential conflicts between recreational and transportation needs, and engage interested stakeholders, including transportation planners and the larger community, to come to a common solution.

Size: Regional trails should provide sufficient corridor width to protect and/or connect with natural and/or cultural resources and safely accommodate trail use. A regional trail should also be of sufficient length to be a destination itself or it may link regional park system units and/or link where people live to regional parks or trails.  

Site location: The trail treadway should be placed where it minimizes impacts to natural systems. For destination trails, the site location is preferably adjacent to high quality natural areas or areas of public interest. Linking trails should connect where people live with the units of the regional parks system. Linking trails should be at least 1.5 miles apart and not overlap the localized service area or other regional trails, unless significant barriers exist, such as highways, rivers, or other natural or human-made features that restrict access. Linking trails often connect people to population centers, schools, shopping areas, or other parks and trails along the route.  

Additional site qualities for linking and destination trails include:

• Serves as a backbone to the local trail network
• Fills a gap in the regional recreation system
• Passes through local parks and trails, utilizing service amenities along the route
• Does not duplicate an existing trail