For the most part, small local projects like street improvements or transit system expansions struggle to attract federal dollars, and lean heavily on state and city funding to come to life. But in 2009, the Obama administration introduced a new type of grant that, for the first time, enabled the federal Department of Transportation to invest in hyperlocal transit projects.

This was one year into the recession, and the number-one thing on everybody’s minds was economic recovery. Obama’s idea for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants was that the federal government could put funding–around $500 million annually–behind small projects that would boost local economies by increasing mobility and creating jobs. Some of the most successful TIGER-funded projects from the last nine years include the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, an eight-mile protected bike and pedestrian trail that serves as a linear park connecting six districts throughout the city, and a bike and pedestrian network along the interstate through the Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico, one of the state’s poorest regions.

Under the Obama administration, around 25% of TIGER funds went to bike and pedestrian projects, and as much as 30% went to mass transit like bus and commuter rail lines. Less than half went to roads and bridges.

But we are in the Trump era now, and the current president ran on a platform glorifying our nation’s auto infrastructure. Predictably, nearly 60% of this year’s TIGER grants went to highway projects–an all-time high. Mass transit pulled in just 3.8%, with bike and pedestrian projects getting 18%.

To local transit planners and economists, this new direction for the TIGER grants is worrisome. The overarching goal of Trump’s infrastructure strategy is, according to the White House, to “help ensure [that] Americans living in rural communities have access to the quality infrastructure they deserve.” That type of “quality infrastructure” generally means highways. And by excluding bike and pedestrian infrastructure from the equation, the administration is overlooking an enormous opportunity for economic growth in rural, more difficult-to-access parts of the country.

Designated, off-road trails for hikers and bikers can attract millions of dollars to state and local economies for relatively little up-front investment. The outdoor recreation economy, in 2017, generated around $887 billion in consumer spending, and created 7.6 million new jobs. Developing and prioritizing bike and pedestrian routes in less densely populated areas encourages people to move slower, and to spend more money in diverse ways along routes.

In cars, people tend to speed by smaller towns and rural areas, and spend money along the way only on gas and quick snacks. Trails support longer stays and more diverse spending, advocates say. “The reason there could be a great restaurant somewhere is because of a trail,” says Dennis Markatos-Soriano, the executive director of the East Coast Greenway. The popular Elroy-Sparta trail through Wisconsin, for instance, brings $535 million from tourism annually, and the near-constant stream of bikers, horseback riders, and hikers supports a network of local hotels, restaurants, and shops. And RAGBRAI (the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa) follows a different trail route throughout the whole state every year and brings thousands of participants and tourism dollars to an otherwise under-visited state.