Indiana Trails Study - IN.gov Institute for Parks & Public Lands School of Health, Physical...

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public LandsSchool of Health, Physical Education & Recreation

HPER 133, Indiana UniversityBloomington, IN 47405

Indiana Trails Study

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

Summary Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of Trails in 6 Indiana Cities

Funded by

Indiana Department of Transportation Indiana Department of Natural Resources

National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program

Completed by

Indiana University

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands Center for Urban Policy & the Environment Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Stephen A. Wolter Dr. Greg Lindsey Project Director Research Director

Project Associates

John Drew Scott Hurst

Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


Indiana Trails Study Group

The following individuals provided guidance and review on the Indiana Trails Study Group as representatives of State and Federal agencies, including the Indiana Department of

Transportation, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, Indiana Department of Commerce and Indiana

Governor’s Council on Physical Fitness

Dale Brier Bob Bronson John Goss Sharon Kendall Casey McIntyre Steve Morris Eric Myers Joyce Newland Michael O’Loughlin Rory Robinson Joe Tutterrow Mariana Weinzapfel

Participating Local Agencies The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and assistance of staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts for the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department, Greenfield Parks and Recreation Department, Goshen Parks and Recreation Department, Indianapolis Greenways Division of Indy Parks, Cardinal Greenway, Inc.(Muncie), and Portage Parks and Recreation Department.

Kathy Pargmann, Ft. Wayne Ray Irvin, Indianapolis Rich Fay, Goshen Diane Roach, Muncie Clark Ketchum, Greenfield Carl Fisher, Portage

i

Indiana Trails Study Table of Contents

Introduction page 1 Study Purpose 2 Study Locations 2 Study Methods 2 Study Findings 4

Trail Use & Counts 4 Trail Users 11 Trail Neighbors 19 Realtor Conversations 26 Conclusions & Recommendations 27

Appendices 31

Appendix A: Data Summary Tables 33 Appendix B: Methodology 41

ii

List of Figures and Charts Figure 1: Early Morning Bicyclists On A Trail page 2 Figure 2: Location of Indiana Trails Study Cities 3 Figure 3: Infrared Trail Counter Receiver Unit 11 Figure 4: Percentage Income Distribution of Trail Users 13 Figure 5: Indiana’s Historic Trails: The Country Road 19 Figure 6: Trail in Southern Indiana 25 Figure 7: Trail Crossing at Clear Creek, Bloomington, IN 26 Chart 1: Total Traffic Count For Study Cities in

September/October 2000 page 5 Chart 2: Average Weekday Traffic Count For Study

Cities in September/October 2000 6 Chart 3: Average Weekend Traffic Count for Study Cities in

September/October 2000 6 Chart 4: Highest Single Hour Count For Study Cities in

September/October 2000 7 Chart 5: Weekday Traffic by Hour of Day, September 2000 8 Chart 6: Weekend Traffic by Hour of the Day, September 2000 9 Chart 7: Weekday Traffic by Hour of Day, October 2000 9 Chart 8: Weekend Traffic by Hour of Day, October 2000 10 Chart 9: Trail Users Entering and Exiting at Same Location 11 Chart 10: Trail User Method of Travel To/From The Trail 12 Chart 11: Age Distribution Percentages of Trail Users 13 Chart 12: Distribution of Trail User Activities 14 Chart 13: Trail User Primary Reason For Visiting Trail 14 Chart 14: Percentage of Trail Users Combining Trail Use

With Other Activities/Places 15 Chart 15: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating More Participation

Due To Trail 16 Chart 16: Amount of Time Users Spent Weekly on Trail 17 Chart 17: Percentage of Trail Users Viewing Trail As Safe And

City As More Favorable Due To Trail 17 Chart 18: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating Willingness

To Pay User Fee 18 Chart 19: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Viewing Trail As

Having No or A Positive Effect on Adjacent Property 20 Chart 20: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Viewing Trail As Improving

Neighborhood or As Better Neighbor 21 Chart 21: Average Trail Neighbor Use of Trail By Season 22 Chart 22: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Using Trail

in Past 12 Months 22 Chart 23: Factors Leading To Dissatisfaction of Trail Neighbors 23 Chart 24: Trail Neighbor Ratings For Extremely

Important Public Benefits of Trail 24 Chart 25: Most Frequent Problems Reported By Trail Neighbors 24

Summary Report

1


Background The development of multi-purpose trails has become an increasingly popular initiative in communities across the country. Many successful trail development projects can be identified throughout the country, and trends in these communities show trail activities are a growing and preferred recreation activity among the populace. Federal, state and local government have made significant commitments to planning, and developing trails in the form of staff and funding. Indiana is among the states that have recently committed federal and state funds to developing trails in local communities. As a result, Indiana officials have become more interested in gathering data on trail use, trends in trail operations, and general attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors.

The Indiana Trails Study was developed to address the growing need for more information on trail use and the general attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors. Originally proposed as a summer-long research study of one trail, the study quickly became an overview, or reconnaissance level study, of six (6) different trails in Indiana. Funded by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) with additional funding by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) River, Trail, and Conservations Assistance Program, the Indiana Trails Study conducted research on trail use levels, trail management, economic impacts, property values, and attitudes toward trails in six (6) different types of communities in Indiana. The six (6) communities and trails were:

Summary Report

The Indiana Trails Study

Summary Report

2


• Fort Wayne, Rivergreenway Trail • Goshen, Maple City Greenway Trail • Greenfield, Pennsy Rail Trail • Indianapolis, Monon Rail Trail • Muncie, Cardinal Greenway Trail • Portage, Prairie Duneland Trail

Study Purpose The purpose of the Indiana Trails Study was to complete a reconnaissance level study of the use levels, user characteristics, management practices, economic factors, and impacts to adjacent properties for the selected trails. To assist in completing the study an ad-hoc advisory group, known as the Indiana Trails Study Group, was formed to advise

researchers in site selection, preferred information to be obtained, research methods and project completion. This group helped to clarify and specify the purpose of the Indiana Trails Study. Study Locations The six study trail sites were selected to reflect differing community populations, geographic locations, trail development-funding methods, trail types and community types. The common parameter for trail selection was that the trail had to be operating for longer than two years. Figure 2 on the following page shows the location and length of each trail selected for the Indiana Trails Study. Trail segments included in the study were determined in conjunction with the agencies responsible for managing the six (6) selected trails. Criteria for locations included:

• Selection of trailheads that were frequently used in order to intercept users when starting or ending trail use.

• Selection of trail segments where traffic counter deployment would be centrally located along the length of the trail, and easily accessible by a majority of the communities’ population.

Study Methods The Indiana Trails Study used a number of methods to obtain research data about the trails, trail use levels, trail management, trail users and trail neighbors. These methods included:

Figure 1: Early Morning Bicyclists On A Trail

Summary Report

3


• Traffic (user) counts using infrared trail counters at select trail segments

• User survey through use of intercepts and follow-up mail survey techniques

• Mail survey of adjacent property owners, referred to as trail neighbors

• Phone interviews with local realtors All research was conducted and completed between June and November 2000 by the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University. A detailed description of study methods is provided in Appendix B for further review. Maple City Greenway

Goshen Length: 10 miles Sept. Traffic: 10,530 Oct. Traffic: 9,107

River Greenway Trail Ft. Wayne

Length: 15 miles Sept. Traffic: 26,914 Oct. Traffic: 24,231

Prairie Duneland Trail Portage


Cardinal Greenway TrailMuncie


Monon Trail Indianapolis

Length: 7.6 miles Sept. Traffic: 55,148 Oct. Traffic: 45,606

Pennsy Rail-Trail Greenfield

Length: 3.1 miles Sept. Traffic: 5,218 Oct. Traffic: 6,108

Figure 2: Location of Indiana Trails Study Cities

Summary Report

4


Study Findings The Indiana Trails Study is a comprehensive review of trails, and significant amounts of data have been generated. Over 240 different variables were analyzed in the 4 different surveys and traffic counts completed between June and November 2000. The published study consists of 7 volumes, one each for the six (6) different trails studied, and this summary report of all trail research. The most complete and concise summary of data from the Indiana Trails Study is found in Appendix A of this report in the form of Trail Data Summary Tables. In this format, the findings from each of the six (6) trails studied are laid out side-by-side by topical area. The detailed analysis provided in the following summary report is based on the Trail Data Summary Tables. Trail Use & Counts In analyzing use patterns, the Trail Study utilized infrared traffic counters originally designed to track wildlife crossing at a specific point. The counters indicate date, and time of an “event” when the infrared light beam is crossed by a traveling object. The counters have a transmit and receiver unit that are mounted across from each other, and are adjustable so that object speed and size can be accommodated. In the case of the Trail Study, the counters were placed in one location along each of the trails over a 2-month period of September and October 2000.

It is emphasized that the trail counters recorded only “events”, not separate and distinct users, and could not ascertain the activity in which the user was participating. (i.e. walking, bicycling, etc.). In this way, the infrared trail counters acted much the same as traffic counters used by civil and traffic engineers in measuring use of a specific stretch of highway. The counters measured only the number of events or users that passed by a specific point along each trail. It is important to note that the trail count study was augmented by work completed by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) where an undergraduate class conducted research designed to estimate the accuracy of the trail counters. By observing activities on the nearby Monon Trail in Indianapolis during specific times in the same location as the infrared counter, this project determined that the infrared counter data represented a systematic 15% undercount of trail users. It is important to note that the traffic count information presented in the Indiana Trails Study has not been adjusted for this 15% undercount. Traffic Counts Individual trail counts recorded by the infrared counters were downloaded in the field onto information storage devices and then transferred to laptop computers. The traffic counts from trails in the six (6) subject cities were analyzed using descriptive and frequency statistics for trends, similarities and differences. Significant amounts of information were generated for each subject city and corresponding trail, which was aggregated to create more general findings. The traffic count data highlights the following summary findings regarding trail use levels.

Summary Report

5


• Total monthly traffic count by trail • Average weekday traffic count by trail • Average weekend day traffic count by

trail • Highest single hour traffic count by trail • Weekday traffic count by hour of day for

each trail • Weekend traffic count by hour of day for

each trail Chart 1 displays the total monthly traffic count for each trail in the months of September and October 2000. The chart indicates that significant uses of each trail occurred in September, with reduced use in October. The resulting findings indicate that trails do attract consistent use regardless of trail type, location and community; and that as daylight hours are reduced, trail use is generally reduced. It is important to note that the trail counters reported a high of 55,148

events on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis during September 2000 with a low of 5,218 events on the Pennsy Rail Trail in Greenfield during September 2000. While one could assume that each event translates into 1 person using these trails, it is unlikely that this is the case. More probable is that about every 2 events translates into 1 person using the trail based on findings presented in Chart 9. Briefly, this chart indicates that between 81% and 98% of trail users surveyed reported they entered and exited the trail at the same location. This would support the view that the number of trail users is between 50% and 60% of the total trail count for the specified time period. Therefore, the best estimate of trail user visits reported for the project ranged from 27,574 on the Monon Trail to 2,609 on the Pennsy Rail Trail.

Chart 1: Total Traffic Count For Study Cities in September/October 2000

55148

12766

5218

10530 9275

26914

45606

8430

24231

90639107 6108

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Fort Wayne Goshen Greenfield Indianapolis Muncie Portage

September October

Summary Report

6


Chart 3: Average Weekend Traffic Count For Study Cities in September/October 2000

2352

541

192

447 408

1025

398

2181

1017

372430 252

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


September October

Chart 2: Average Weekday Traffic Count For Study Cities in September/October 2000

166

1618

376310 270

835

243

1133

684

252251 175

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000


September October

Summary Report

7


The information displayed in Chart 2 provides an analysis of the amount of weekday traffic for each of the trails studied during the months of September and October 2000. As shown, the daily traffic count ranged from a high of 1618 to a low of 166 events, both in September. A comparison of event counts between September and October generally finds that October events range from 65% to 95% of September events, with an average October event count of 19% less across the six trails. This reduction in trail use is attributed to the reduction in the amount of daylight and/or an increase in cooler weather. It is important to note however, that in all cases, daily events for each site remain at fairly high levels. Chart 3 shows weekend daily traffic for each of the trails in September and October 2000. Again, it is generally observable that the number of events on each trail was lower in

October in comparison to September. October weekend counts were on average 88% of September counts, and ranged from 76% to 99% of September counts. Trail use levels as measured by events apparently remained more even between October and September in those communities where the trail was more centrally located in an urban community. Specifically, the trail use levels in October, as measured by events, averaged approximately 95% of the September use level in Fort Wayne, Goshen, Indianapolis, and Muncie. In these 4 cities, the trails are located in more urban places. The highest single hour count of trail events for the study trails in September and October 2000 is depicted in Chart 4. The pattern of highest single counts across communities generally reflects total traffic patterns. Trail use levels past the single point of the trail counter varied from a high of one person

Chart 4: Highest Single Hour Count For Study Cities in September/October 2000

74

554

109

635

94

162

114

377

162 192148 108

0

200

400

600

800


September October

Summary Report

8


Chart 5: Weekday Traffic by Hour of Day, September 2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Monon FtWayne Goshen Greenfield Muncie Portage

every 6 seconds at the Monon Trail in October, to a low of one person every 49 seconds at the Pennsy Rail Trail in October.

These numbers are significant in that at peak use levels the trails can be considered congested and overcrowded by patrons in a manner that is similar to traffic congestion during rush hours on major streets and highways. Charts 5-8 display a related analysis of trail “rush” hours as they display hourly rate counts from each of the trails over a 24-hour day. Charts 5 and 6 display hourly rate counts for the 6 trails on weekdays and weekends in September 2000. It is notable that the hourly use pattern for each of the trails follows approximately the same pattern of use with some variations in the intensity of use by location. Generally Chart 5, weekday hourly counts, shows that trail use starts at 6

a.m. and rises gradually to approximately 10 a.m. where it decreases slightly and remains consistent until 4 p.m., where it begins to rise

and peaks during the evening at 6 p.m. This pattern is consistent for almost all trails, and is almost the same when compared to October hourly rate counts for the same 6 trails. The major difference between September and October hourly use is that peak hourly use starts to climb at 3 p.m. in October, and peaks an hour earlier at 5 p.m. in October as depicted in Chart 7. Chart 6 displays weekend hourly use for September 2000. A consistent pattern of higher trail use in the mid-morning, a drop off during the midday hours, followed by an increase to another peak trail use levels between 2 and 5 p.m. can be observed for all trails in September 2000 as depicted on Chart 6. October weekend hourly use as shown in Chart 8 shows a less consistent

Summary Report

9


Chart 6: Weekend Traffic by Hour of the Day, September 2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Monon Ft Wayne Goshen Greenfield Muncie Portage

Chart 7: Weekday Traffic by Hour of Day, October 2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


Summary Report

10


pattern in this regard, but generally supports the same September weekend trail use pattern of increased trail use in mid-morning, dropping off in mid-day and increasing to peak use levels between 2 and 4 p.m.; an hour earlier than in September. Notably, all 4 charts show little, if no trail counter recording of “events” (i.e. trail users) on the trails between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following morning.

Trail Count Findings The use of infrared trail counters proved to be successful in the Indiana Trails Study. The counters provided valuable information on trail use patterns; including hourly, daily,

and monthly use patterns by trail, as well as total trail use counts. It is again emphasized that the trail counters recorded only “events”, much the same as traffic counters used by civil and traffic engineers to measure traffic “counts” on a specific stretch of highway. The infrared counters measured only the number of these “events” or trail counts that passed by a specific point along each trail. Analysis of trail counter data found:

• Users were counted every day in the sampling period on every trail. Monthly traffic ranged from 5,200 - 55,000 events at a single counter point (estimated 2,600 – 27,500 user visits)

• Average daily traffic ranged from 96 - 2545 events (by day of week)

Chart 8: Weekend Traffic by Hour of Day, October 2000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


Summary Report

11


• Highest hourly traffic ranged from 74 - 635 events (1every 49 seconds to 1 every 6 seconds)

• Average weekend daily use exceeds average weekday use (by 37% in September)

• Peak daily use for weekdays was at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. in September and earlier in October

• Peak daily use for weekends varied more but peaked in the mid-afternoon to early evening in September; earlier in October

• Peak hourly use is 11%-14% of average daily use

Trail Users Information about the use patterns, attitudes, and opinions of trail users was gathered in the Indiana Trails Study by “intercepting” users at various times, days and locations on each of the 6 trails studied. Paid staff and/or trained volunteers were stationed at pre-determined locations (generally trail access points) and given specific directions on how to intercept trail users and administer a short

15-item survey. After this approximate 4 minute intercept survey was concluded, survey staff and/or volunteers asked the trail

user if they would complete a much longer (15 page) survey at a more convenient time and return it to the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands using business reply mail. Approximately 65% of all intercept users agreed to complete the more in-depth trail user mail back survey. Data received from the trail user intercept and trail user mail back surveys was analyzed separately and reported separately as reported in the Trail Data Summary Tables found in Appendix A. Trail Access Trail access information obtained from trail users centered on factors related to trail entry and exit, distance, and time traveled to and from the trail. Responses from trail users show the average trail user of the 6 trails studied comes from within approximately 5 minutes, and 2 miles of the trail. Chart 9 displays the percentage of trail users who entered and exited the trail at the same location for each of the 6 trails studied. With a range of between 98% and 81% of all trail users entering and exiting at the same location (average of 90%), it is clear that a

Figure 3: Infrared Trail Counter Receiver Unit

Chart 9: Trail Users Entering and Exiting at Same Location

.98.93.91.89.81.88

Fort W

ayne

Goshe

n

Greenfi

eld

Indian

apoli

s

Muncie

Portag

e

0%

30%

60%

90%

Summary Report

12


very significant majority of trail users live close to the trail and/or utilize the same parking area for entry/exit if they drive. Chart 10 is a representation of trail user indications of access method to and from the trail. While a large percentage of trail users reported that they arrived at the trail by walking or biking, the majority of trail users (54% mean among the 6 trails) reported they drove to the trail before beginning use of the trail. The secondary means of access to the trail was walking which would appear to be reflective of the short distances and time required to access the trail.

User Profile Trail users were surveyed on various preferences and demographic factors in order to better understand who was using the 6 trails, and their user preferences. These

questions included standard demographic information as well as inquiries about their primary purpose and use of the trails. Trail user ethnicity, as determined by mail back survey, was predominantly Caucasian throughout all 6 trails. The percentage of Caucasian users reported on the trails ranged from a low of 94.3% in Fort Wayne to a high of 100% in Greenfield. In addition to ethnicity, the trail user mail back survey gathered information on education and income. In these inquiries, the survey found a wider variance of education levels ranging from 31.8% to 78.6% of all trail users having graduated from college. The average

percentage of college graduate trail users for all 6 trails was 52.1%. A final demographic result of the trail user survey was income level of trail users. In this case, the survey found notable consistency between the trails in the different cities. Broken down into the categories of income under $40,000, income between $40,000 and $80,000, and income

Chart 10: Trail User Method of Travel To/From The Trail

6152

71

1519

6 93 1 5 1 5

56 66

40

2924 1930 2714

2717

30

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

enta

ge

Drive Walk Bike Other

Summary Report

13


over $80,000, the survey results varied only slightly between users in the various trail cities. The average income for all 6 trails, along with specific income totals for each trail is found in the following table. Figure 4: Percentage Income Distribution

of Trail Users Trail City Under

$40,000 $40,000-$80,000

Over $80,000

Fort Wayne 35 48 17Goshen 39 45 16Greenfield 33 46 22Indianapolis 22 45 33Muncie 33 51 16Portage 33 48 18Average 32.5 47.2 20.3 The final demographic information obtained from trail users was age. Chart 11 provides a glimpse of trail user ages based on the mail back survey. Most trail users are in the two age categories between 26 and 65. The survey probably under represents trail users who are younger than 18 as survey intercept staff were instructed to only survey trail users over the age of 18.

Trail users utilize many different methods of travel along these multi-purpose trails including walking, jogging, running, bicycling, skating and others. Chart 12 displays the primary modes of travel for the 6 subject trails. It is clearly observable that walking is the preferred trail activity, with the notable exception of Muncie’s Cardinal Greenway trail. Without exception however, walking and biking are the predominant types of trail use along the 6 trails, representing approximately 75% of all trail user activities. Chart 13 represents trail user responses to a survey question inquiring about the trail users’ primary purpose for visiting the trail. Without exception, a large majority of trail users in each city indicated they were using the trail primarily for health and fitness (an average of 68%), with the second most frequent purpose being recreation. Roughly 95% or more of all responses fell into these two categories. It is notable that the percentage of trail users utilizing the trail for commuting was largest (5%) in the most

Chart 11: Age Distribution Percentages of Trail Users

11 16 12 18

49 50 36

32 37 36 3235 36

8 9 6 10

19 18

363439

1110

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Under 26 years 26-45 years 46-65 years over 65 years

Summary Report

14


Chart 12: Distribution of Trail User Activities

43 4459 51

12

35 21 38

1610

9 11

42

77

4421

7

18

910116 2 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Walk Bicycle Run/Jog Skate/Other

Chart 13: Trail User Primary Reason For Visiting Trail

6679 71

56

32 23 262 4 1 5 3 0

64 74

3932

19

0 1 0110

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Health/Exercise Recreation Commute Other

Summary Report

15


urban community, Indianapolis. Although a small percentage of the whole, the number of trail users potentially using the Monon trail for commuting during this study period is estimated at somewhere between 1,140 and 1,378 monthly, as based on traffic counts for September and October 2000. Related to use of the trail for commuting is the possible link to other purposes to trail use as a means of cutting down on short trips, and possible motor vehicle traffic. Chart 14 exhibits the results of this survey item based on user responses. Although ranging greatly, approximately 25% of all trail users in the 6 cities surveyed indicated that they combined their use of the trail with other activities or places. The highest reported combination of trail use with access to other activities or places was in Indianapolis along the Monon Trail. It should be noted that the trail cities with the next two (2) highest user reported combination of trail use with other activities or places, also have trails constructed in more densely developed, urbanized locations. Survey intercepts in the

remaining 3 cities occurred along trails that were developed in more park-like locations. User Opinion and Activities Trail users were surveyed on a wide variety of opinions regarding their experiences and attitudes toward the trail, trail management and associated issues. In addition, information on trail activity, length of time and distance traveled were obtained in the intercepts. As displayed in Appendix A, the Trail Data Summary Tables show all responses from trail users on the survey questions. Results from the trail user surveys that are highlighted include:

• Trail activity factors • Level of satisfaction with the trail • Attitudes toward trail safety • Opinion of the city based on trail

development • Perceived benefits of trail

development • Importance of trail to daily life

Chart 14: Percentage of Trail Users Combining Trail Use With Other Activities/Places

24

38

52

36

76

72

62

48

64

7426

28

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fort Wayne

Goshen

Greenfield

Indianapolis

Muncie

Portage

Trail Use Combined With Other Purpose Solely Used Trail

Summary Report

16


Chart 15 provides a summary of the percentage of trail users who indicated they participate more in their selected activity (i.e. walking, bicycling, running, skating, etc.) due to the trail. In all cities, over 70% of trail users reported they participated more as a result of the trail, although no data were collected to ascertain how much the users participated. Instead trail users were asked to indicate how many minutes they spent on the trail per week. Chart 16 summarizes these responses, which range from a median of 100 minutes (Goshen) to 200 minutes (Muncie) per week. Trail users were further asked to estimate the distance they traveled on the trail. This distance ranged widely between 3 and 15 miles. The wide variance is more than likely due to the difference in distances that can be covered using the primarily reported activities by trail users (biking vs. walking). The distances that can be covered using these two modes of travel vary considerably and

would tend to support a wide variation in any user reported distance traveled along the 6 trails. No valid or reliable estimate of trail user distance traveled can be obtained from the data. Trail user perceptions of trail safety and favorableness of the city were sought as part of the follow-up survey. The results of these survey items are displayed together in Chart 17. Clearly, trail users of all 6 trails feel strongly that the trails are safe with between 79% and 95% of all trail users indicating they feel the trail is safe. In addition, the vast majority of trail users reported a more favorable view of the city due to the trail, with between 76% and 100% of trail users reporting this position. This average of 92% of all trail users viewing the city where the trail is located more favorably is important.

Chart 15: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating More Participation Due To Trail

79 74 81 87

21 26 19 13 18

7082

30

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Participate More Because of Trail Trail Had No Effect

Summary Report

17


Chart 16: Amount of Time Users Spent Weekly on Trail

120 120

180200

180

100

0

40

80

120

160

200


Min

utes

Median Time Spend On Trail Weekly

Chart 17: Percentage of Trail Users Viewing Trail As Safe and City As More Favorable Due to Trail

79 8495 9398 97 100

76

10089 89

80

0

20

40

60

80

100


View Trail As Safe View City More Favorably

Summary Report

18


Additional factors related to trail user opinion include level of satisfaction with the trail; perceived public benefits of trail development; and importance of trail to daily life of the user. In responses to these survey items, trail users consistently indicated, across all trail sites, that they were very satisfied with the trail and the trail was very important to them. The trail users also indicated that the most important public benefits of trails were health/fitness and public recreation. Other important benefits of trails rated highly by the trail users included preserving open space, aesthetic beauty, and community pride. However, these public benefits were not as consistently or highly ranked as health/fitness and pubic recreation. Economic Factors for Trail Users Trail users were asked a number of questions related to economic factors

including willingness to pay fees, visitor expenditures related to trail activities and other monetary issues. Since few of the intercepted trail users were visitors and were in fact, largely proximate neighbors, those trail users responding to questions relating to visitor expenditures for trail activities were an exceedingly small population. The corresponding data analysis of this visitor and expenditure data was determined to be questionable due to the small sample size and will not be reported. Survey data from all trail users relating to fees was collected and analyzed. Chart 18 presents the results of a question related to trail user willingness to pay fees. On average 41.5% of trail users were willing to pay fees. When asked how much they would pay for an annual trail use pass, the respondents who indicated they would pay a fee further indicated they would pay a fee of between $5-20 annually. Those

Chart 18: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating Willingness To Pay User Fee

4527

4961

5573

5139

72

3928

61

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Would Not Pay User FeeWould Pay User Fee

Summary Report

19


respondents who indicated they would not pay a trail use fee further indicated they felt taxes should pay for trail maintenance and operations. It should be noted that those trail users returning the follow-up survey indicated they had not paid any fees, including parking fees, for trail use on the day they were intercepted. Trail User Findings The data collected in the Indiana Trails Study user intercept and follow-up surveys provided a valuable and detailed description of trail user demographics, preferences and use patterns. Analysis of the trail user survey data found:

• Trail users generally live close by, usually within 2 miles of, the trail and enter and exit the trail at the same location

• Trail users include all ethnic, age, education levels and income levels

• Walking and bicycling are the predominant methods of travel along the trails

• Users primarily utilize the trails for health/fitness (65%), and recreation (28 %)

• A small percentage of users commuted along the trails in urban locations (4%)

• On average, trail users are on the trail for between 100 and 200 minutes total over 3 to 4 days during a week

• Trail users feel strongly that their trail is safe

• Trail users report a more favorable view of the city due to trail development

• Trail users are very satisfied with the trail and report that it is very important to them

• The payment of trail use fees was not totally rejected by trail users with 41% of users across all 6 trail sites reporting they would pay an annual use fee of between $5-20

• On average, 79% of all trail users indicated they participated in their preferred activity more because of the trail.

Figure 5: Indiana’s Historic Trails: The

Country Road

Trail Neighbors The Indiana Trails Study was designed to obtain attitudes and opinions from those property owners who lived adjacent to the trail, known as trail neighbors. It was determined early that the best method to survey the trail neighbors was a sample of all adjacent property owners as provided by the trail agency. Each agency was asked to provide a listing of trail neighbors from their city records so that all neighbors, as defined by the local trail agency, would receive the mail survey. Response rates from the trail cities ranged from 38% to 51% after follow-up mailings; with an average response rate

Summary Report

20


of 43.7% for all trail cities. The data received from the Trail Neighbor Survey is summarized in the Trail Data Summary Tables found in Appendix A, and highlighted in the following charts and descriptions. Property Description Trail neighbor property varied from city to city and with the exception of one city, was generally principle residential property with the back of the house facing the trail. It is important to note that trail neighbors responding to the survey along the Pennsy Rail Trail in Greenfield all held tracts of commercial property that was purchased before the trail was developed. All properties in the trail neighbor survey were close or adjacent to the trail and varied in size. It is interesting to observe which side of the house faces the trail because most trails are developed along abandoned rail lines, alleys, canals and/or other abandoned areas placing trail users in the back (usually the most private area) of a residential unit. This was

largely found to be true in the case of trails in Goshen, Indianapolis, Muncie and Portage. Trail Effect on Property Trail neighbors reported a number of effects on their property based on the survey questions presented to them. A primary interest for most trail neighbors and agencies developing trails is the effect of trail development on property value and quality of life for the neighbors. Chart 19 exhibits trail neighbor perception of the effects of trail development on their property. The chart clearly shows that a very large percentage of trail neighbors viewed trail development as having either no effect or a positive effect on their property’s value and on the salability of their property. Specifically 86% to 95% of trail neighbors indicated they felt the trail had either no effect or a positive effect on their property value. Coupled with trail neighbor responses of between 81% and 93% indicating the trail had no negative effect or made it easier to sell their property, it is clear

Chart 19: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Viewing Trail As Having No or A Positive Effect on Adjacent Property

93 90 90 81 88869092 9592 8988

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

enta

ge

Trail Increased or No Effect on Property ValueTrail Has No Effect or Makes It Easier To Sell Property

Summary Report

21


the majority of trail neighbors do not anticipate negative effects on the value and ease of selling their property. Living Near The Trail Chart 20 provides a glimpse of trail neighbor opinion about the trail as an improvement to the neighborhood. This survey item was asked of trail neighbors who had purchased

their property before the trail was developed and allowed researchers to gauge changes to the quality of life for those residents living adjacent to the trail. As shown in Chart 20, responding trail neighbors indicated that on an average 61% of trail neighbors in all 6 cities felt the trail was a better neighbor than expected. Trail neighbors reporting this perception ranged from 53% to 63%. Trail neighbors also indicated their belief that the trail improved the quality of the neighborhood as shown in Chart 20. The percentage of neighbors who felt the trail improved the neighborhood ranged from

60% to 88% with an average of 69% of all trail neighbors across all 6-trail sites. Trail neighbors also indicated they were satisfied with the trail as a neighbor. These two opinions of trail neighbors, who owned their property before the trail was developed, indicates that living near a trail would have a positive or neutral impact on quality of life in the neighborhood. Living near or adjacent to a trail can make it

easy to use the trail. Trail neighbors were asked to document the amount of use and time of year during which they or members of their household may have used the trail. Charts 21 and 22 provide a description of trail neighbor use patterns by season, and frequency per week. Overall, trail neighbor use ranged from a low of 1.43 to a high of 3.1 days per week. Seasonal trail use reflects the highest activity level in summer, lowest trail use in the winter, and moderately high use levels in spring and fall.

Chart 20: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Viewing Trail As Improving Neighborhood or As Better Neighbor

58 63 67 626888

7362 6053

6867

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

enta

ge

Trail Better Neighbor Than ExpectedTrail Improved Neighborhood Quality

Summary Report

22


Chart 21: Average Trail Neighbor Use of Trail By Season

1.92 2.08

1.67 1.

96

1.43

2.67 2.82

2.633.

01

2.95

2.57 2.69 2.

9

1.962.

332.84

2.14

3.08

2.662.82

1.86

2.73 2.81

2.39

0

2

4

6


Day

s/W

eek

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Chart 22: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Using Trail in Past 12 Months

76 70

9574

24 30

526 18

75 82

25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

enta

ge

Did Not Use Trail in Past 12 MonthsUsed Trail In Past 12 Months

Summary Report

23


Chart 22 provides detail on the percentage of trail neighbors who reported they used the trail in the past 12 months. Between 70 and 95% of trail neighbors reported they used the trail. This information reinforces the emphasis that trail neighbors find trails to be relatively good neighbors and very convenient for members of their households. Trail Neighbor Issues, Dissatisfaction and Opinions The controversy that sometimes occurs when trails are proposed is often the direct result of trail neighbor fears and anticipated dissatisfaction with the trail. The Indiana Trails Study solicited trail neighbor attitudes and opinions with dissatisfaction factors and other issues related to living adjacent to one of the 6 trails studied. An analysis of factors leading to dissatisfaction by trail neighbors is

displayed in Chart 23. The highest dissatisfaction factor reported by trail neighbors in terms of percentage of responses (20% to 29% of responding neighbors) and frequency across all 6-trail cities is lack of safety patrols on the trails. The second most frequently reported dissatisfaction issue reported by trail neighbors was parking problems. This dissatisfaction was reported in 4 of the 6 trail cities (Goshen, Indianapolis, Muncie and Portage) in percentages ranging from 15% to 25% of trail neighbors. Additional dissatisfaction factors were reported that included a lack of maintenance on the trail, and agency responsiveness to problems. Chart 24 displays trail neighbor response to a survey question asking them to rate the public benefits of trails. With the exception of trail neighbors adjacent to the Pennsy Rail

C hart 23: Facto rs Lead ing T o D issats ifaction o f T ra il N eighbors

29% 28%20% 19%

26%20%13%

22% 26%27%

15%20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fort W ayne G oshen G reenfield Indianapolis M uncie P ortage

Lack of Safety Patrols Lack of M aintenanceAgency Responsiveness Parking Problem s

Summary Report

24


C hart 24 : T ra il N e ig hb o r R a ting s F o r E x trem ely Im p o rtant P ub lic B enefits o f T ra il

50%

47%

42%

34%39

% 47%

20%

45%

35%

26% 33

%

50% 58

%

19%

51%

46%

39%

48%54

%

20%

40%

38%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

F ort W ay n e G o shen G reen fie ld In d ian ap o lis M u ncie Po rtag e

Ae sth e tic B e a u ty C o m m u nity P rid e D isa b le d Ac c e ssHea lth /F itness P u b lic R e c re a tio n O pe n S p a c e

C h a rt 2 5 : M o s t F re q u e n t P ro b le m s R e p o rte d B y T ra il N e ig h b o rs

29%

44%

17%

36%

28%

27%

40%

38%

20%

20%

33%

18%

43%

20%

20%

22%

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

F o rt W a y n e G o s h e n G re e n fie ld In d ia n a p o lis M u n c ie P o rta g e

Ille g a l V e h ic le U s e L itte r ing U nle a s he d P e tsB urg la ry N o is e F ro m T ra il

Summary Report

25


Trail in Greenfield (all commercial property uses), trail neighbors consistently ranked the public benefits of providing open space, providing public recreation, health and fitness opportunity, community pride, aesthetic beauty, and disabled access as extremely important in percentage responses ranging from 33% to 58%. The ratings are not consistent among public benefits, rank order or percentage of neighbors rating the benefit as extremely important, but are notable for the large percentage of trail neighbors having extremely supportive views on the general public benefits of trails. Of course, trail neighbors do experience incidents or activities that lead to negative perceptions. These problems are thought to occur frequently on adjacent properties, creating issues of concern for trail neighbors. While it is generally known that trail neighbors feel a relative lack of privacy, specific problems are often not quantified. Indiana Trails Study trail neighbors were asked to indicate the most common problems they experienced. Chart 25 provides a snapshot of the most common problems and the percentage of trail neighbors who reported this as a frequent problem. The most commonly reported problem, illegal vehicle use, relates to use of motorized vehicles on trail right of way and is most frequent in 5 of the 6 trail sites surveyed. The next most commonly reported problem, unleashed pets roaming along trails, was also common to 5 of the 6 trail sites surveyed. Other frequently reported problems included litter from trail users, and excessive noise, which were reported in 2 of the 6 trail cities. Only Greenfield’s Pennsy Rail Trail neighbors (commercial property) reported burglary as a frequent problem.

Trail Neighbor Findings The survey of trail neighbors in the Indiana Trails Study provides valuable and important data regarding trail neighbor opinion, attitude and issues for future trail development and management. The survey indicates that:

• A majority of trail neighbors reported either no effect or a positive effect on property value and ease of selling property located adjacent to the trail

• The trail was felt to be a better neighbor than expected and to improve the quality of the neighborhood by a large majority of trail neighbors

• Trail neighbors are heavy users of the trail itself, reporting, on average, 2-3 days of trail use per week

• Over 70%, and as much as 95% of all trail neighbors reported using the trail during the prior 12 months

Figure 6: Trail in Southern Indiana

Summary Report

26


• Trail neighbors are most dissatisfied with a lack of safety patrols and parking problems in the vicinity of their property

• Those trail neighbors responding to the survey indicated illegal vehicle use and unleashed pets roaming along the trail are the most common problems

Realtor Conversations The Indiana Trails Study originally designed a focus group research protocol with local realtors in each city as a means of measuring trail impacts on real estate. After poor attendance at focus groups, and to reduce time and data collection costs, a change was made in research methodology to conduct individual telephone interviews of realtors in each city. The individual telephone interviews were conducted between November and December 2000 with at least 10 realtors in each community. The results of this qualitative research were recorded for analysis of emerging trends.

Consistent findings of emerging trends from all 6-trail cities included:

• The biggest advantages to trail development adjacent to personal property was easy, close to home access to recreational facilities for families with children

• Realtors did not see any major increases in property value, or ease in property sale as a result of trail development

• The biggest disadvantages to trail development adjacent to personal property were a decrease in privacy and an increase in foot traffic near the homeowner yards

Figure 7: Trail Crossing at Clear Creek, Bloomington, IN

Summary Report

27


Conclusions & Recommendations The Indiana Trails Study was conducted between June and November 2000 with the purpose of identifying information and trends on trail use, trail management and trail impacts. The Study was conducted in 6 Indiana cities on trail segments that were at least 2 years old and represented various populations and trail types. In conducting the Indiana Trails Study, trail users and trail neighbors were surveyed, trail use levels were monitored and local realtors were contacted regarding trails in the community. The research process involved significant cooperation from various state agencies including INDOT and IDNR, as well as the support and assistance of the National Park Service and the local agencies managing the 6 trails in the Study. A review of the Trail Summary Data Tables in Appendix A reveals there is a significant amount of similarity between the users and neighbors of all the trails studied in this project. In fact, it is difficult to find differences in use patterns, trail user demographics and attitudes and trail neighbor opinions and interests between the various trails. This consistency between trail use, trail users and trail neighbors in cities throughout different geographic regions of the State is remarkable. Further conclusions from the Indiana Trails Study are divided into two general areas; those dealing with trail users and those dealing with trail neighbors as follows: Trail Users were found to use the trail mostly after work and during the weekend. They primarily use the trail for fitness and exercise for a 1/2-hour or more. Trail users were found to mostly use the trail for walking and biking, although smaller percentages of users did use the trail to run and skate. The Study found that most trail users were from

upper-middle class income households, college educated and between 26 and 55 years old. The Study found that most trail users lived within 2 miles of the trail, mostly drive to the trail and were highly satisfied with the trail. Trail Neighbors were found to be regular trail users. The trail neighbors also indicated they were largely satisfied with the subject trail as a neighbor, and that the trail had no effect or a positive impact on their property values. The Study found that trail neighbors are more concerned with problems relating to illegal vehicle use, parking and noise (privacy issue), than litter or maintenance problems.

Recommendations The Indiana Trails Study was remarkable in the amount of information it obtained. The breadth of questions in the Study sacrificed the gathering of details, instead opting to create preliminary or reconnaissance level information regarding trail preferences and operational issues from trail users and neighbors. This information should be advanced with further research focusing on trail planning and management preferences, privacy, accessibility, crossing preferences and relations to amenities and open space. While further development of trail planning, neighbor privacy, user accessibility, open space and amenity preferences, and other design and management factors should be conducted with sponsoring agency support, it is clear that some preliminary recommendations regarding these issues can be made. Recommendation 1: Trail planning and development agencies should include all trail neighbors and users in planning and recommendation meetings. It is further recommended, that summaries of this trail

Summary Report

28


report be used early in any trail planning process to inform and educate trail neighbors, trail users and agency personnel as to the potential issues and facts about trail use. In many ways, the Indiana Trails Study confirmed what is already understood about trail development, and has been found in other trail developments across the country. First, it is obvious that the key constituencies in trail development will be trail users and neighbors. The carefully planned involvement of trail neighbors and users in public trail planning and development decisions seems like a logical and appropriate choice. Yet, some agencies have been observed not including these key constituents in planning. Recommendation 2: Planning for trail development should be expanded beyond physical improvements and financing to consider a) the creation of trail neighbor privacy enhancements such as landscaping, b) operational improvements including safety patrols, c) volunteer litter pickup groups, d) addition of signage and monitoring requiring pets to be leashed, e) peak hour demand design in trail width and parking area size, f) funding linkages of trail operation and construction costs to health and wellness organizations such as local hospitals, and g) implementation of annual use fees to fund safety patrols, and other trail operation or maintenance costs. Recommendation 3: Trail managers should strongly consider developing staffing and safety patrol scheduling schemes, or arrange for volunteer EMT or paramedic patrols that reflect peak trail use patterns, allowing for high visibility and assistance during these times.

Trail use patterns in the Indiana Trails Study show definite peak demand times for trail use. These peak demands are fairly predictable based on work and leisure schedules of the general populace and can be anticipated fairly easily by trail managers Recommendation 4: Trail planners should more aggressively support commuter use of trails by requiring requests for trail development funding to include an analysis and survey of potential commuting users, and any work-home nexus identified in the trail area. Clearly, the Indiana Trails Study found that trail users relied heavily on driving and entry/exit to the trail at the same access point along the trail. With commuters representing a small number of trail users in the Indiana Trails Study, the potential is considered high for the development of enhancements and enticements to trail area employers to increase commuter effectiveness for trails in more densely developed areas. Recommendation 5: Trail planners should more aggressively support visitor and tourist use of trails, and cooperate in planning for visitor access to the trails through inclusion of visitor serving attractions in route planning and trail development. The unrealized potential of trails was identified in the Indiana Trails Study, as visitor user patterns were minimal. In comparison, other trails and trails studies have reported a high amount of visitor use of multi-purpose trails, and the ensuing economic impact of visitor expenditures in food/beverage, lodging and ancillary sectors of the local economy. This unrealized potential is considered significant as trails begin to connect between cities.

Summary Report

29


Recommendation 6: Trail developers and managers should pursue collaborative strategic partnerships with health and wellness service providers based on the Indiana Trails Study that users primarily use the trail for health and fitness. Another example of unrealized potential from the Indiana Trails Study is found in the significant amount of trail users who reported that health/fitness purposes were their primary purpose for using the trail. With Indiana’s ranking by the Center for Disease Control as one of the most obese states in the nation, and the potential societal cost benefits to Indiana of emphasizing cardiac and overall health, the benefits of local trail agency partnerships for trail planning, construction, enhancements and programs with health and wellness organizations are noteworthy. The potential positive impacts of this type of collaborative partnership are estimated to be exceptional. Recommendation 7: Local trail management agencies and organizations should regularly conduct trail use research and conduct surveys to better understand trail use patterns, user concerns, and trails neighbor issues. A key benefit of the Indiana Trails Study was the collection and documentation of Indiana trail use patterns, management operational facts, user opinions and neighbor concerns. In retrospect the information obtained represents “base line” research that is an important and effective tool for the pubic agencies managing trails and trail areas. Yet, some agencies do not conduct research in trail use and other factors relating to trail operations and management. An upfront minimum investment of $500- $2,000 (plus agency staff time) for infrared trail counter purchase and conducting mail surveys seems small in light of the positive

information and trend issues this investment can create. It is apparent that collection of data of the type collected in the Indiana Trails Study is essential to documenting use levels and addressing concerns. Recommendation 8: The Indiana Trails Study should be viewed as a reconnaissance level study that creates the opportunity for more detailed, longer-term, (i.e. one-year) study of additional trails. Obviously the Indiana Trails Study found many similar conclusions about the 6 trails in the Study. While there are remarkable and very notable similarities between the trails as found in Appendix A, the Trail Data Summary Tables, it should be noted that each trail area is still unique, and future trails areas will be unique. Trail planning agencies should be careful about assuming that trail user patterns, user opinions and neighbor attitudes will be similar to other trail sites. Use of the conclusions and data found in the Indiana Trails Study should be carefully generalized to reflect the broad findings as applied to these 6 specific sites. Additionally, the Indiana Trails Study was a “snapshot” of users over a limited time period of a few months in the summer and fall. This data is limited in many respects, and while it can be generalized to some extent, it is not as comprehensive or complete as it could be.

Summary Report

31


Appendices

Summary Report

33


Appendix A: Data Summary Tables

�� Indiana Trails Study 2000

Page A

Trail Summary Data Table: Basic Information

Trail Summary Data Table: Traffic Count Information

Traffic Counts Month Fort Wayne Goshen Greenfield Indianapolis Muncie Portage

Sep 26,914 10,530 5,218 55,148 9,275 12,766Total traffic Oct 24,231 9,107 6,108 45,606 9,063 8,430Sep 835 310 166 1618 270 376Average Weekday

Traffic Oct 684 251 175 1,133 252 243Sep 1,025 447 192 2,352 408 541Average Weekend

Traffic Oct 1,017 430 252 2,181 372 398Sep 6-7:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m. 6-7:00 p.m. 6-7:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m. 6-7:00 p.m.Weekday Average

Peak Hour Oct 5-6:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m. 4-5:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m.Sep 13.2 % 11.6 % 15 % 17.9 % 10.7 % 12.5 %Weekday Average

Peak as Percentage of Average day

Oct 14.2 % 14.9 % 12.5 % 19.4 % 11 % 14 %

Sep 4-5:00 p.m. 4-5:00 p.m. 6-7:00 p.m. 4-5:00 p.m. 3-4:00 p.m. 5-6:00 p.m.Weekend Average Peak Hour Oct 2-3:00 p.m. 2-3:00 p.m. 4-5:00 p.m. 4-5:00 p.m. 3-4:00 p.m. 11-12:00 p.m.

Sep 9.9 % 11.2 % 11.5 % 10 % 12 % 9.4 %Weekend Average Peak as Percentage of Average day

Oct 11.5 % 14.2 % 13.9 % 12.6 % 15.3 % 11.3 %

Sep 377 162 74 554 114 109Highest Single Hour Oct 247 148 108 635 192 94

Trail Information Fort Wayne Goshen Greenfield Indianapolis Muncie Portage Trail Name River Greenway

Trail Maple City Greenway

Pennsy Rail-trail Monon Rail-Trail Cardinal Greenway Trail

Prairie Duneland Trail

Length, miles 15 10 3.1 7.6 10 6.0 Surface 8-12’ hard surface 10’ -varies -

crushed limestone 12’ asphalt 10-12’ asphalt 12’ asphalt 12’ asphalt

Year established 1980’s 1996 & 2000 1998 1995 1998 1996 Operating Agency Fort Wayne Parks

& Recreation Dept. Goshen Parks & Recreation Dept.

Greenfield Parks & Recreation

Indy Greenways Cardinal Greenway

Portage Parks & Recreation Dept


Page B

Trail Summary Data Table: Trail User Intercept Information

Trail User Intercept Surveys


Demographic Data # Trail users intercepted 585 334 175 357 108 375 Male/Female (%) 57/43 57/43 50/50 46/54 68/32 51/49 Trail entrance point = Trail exit point (%)

88 81 89 91 93 98

Age Distribution (%) <25/26-45/46-65/>66

11/49/32/8 19/34/37/10 16/39/36/9 12/50/32/6 18/36/35/11 18/36/36/10

Race (%) Caucasian (86) Black (10) Hispanic (4)

Caucasian (92) Hispanic (7) Black (1)

Caucasian (98) Black (1) Hispanic (1)

Caucasian (92) Black (6) Hispanic (2)

Caucasian (95) Black (5)

Caucasian (92) Hispanic (5) Black (3)

Trail Access Data Mode of travel to trail (%)

Drive (56) Walk (24) Bike (17) Other (3)

Drive (40) Bike (30) Walk (27) Other (3)





Median time to trail(minutes) 17 5 5 5 7 5 Miles from home (Median/Mode) 1.9/1 1/.5 1.5/1 1/1 2/2 2/2 Trail Use Data Trail activities (%)

Walk (49) Bicycle (30) Run (15) Skate (6)

Bike (40) Walk (39) Run (20) Other (1)

Walk (54) Bike (25) Run (14) Skate (7)

Walk (51) Bike (23) Run (13) Skate (13)

Bike (77) Walk (11) Run (5) Skate (7)

Bike (40) Walk (39) Run (11) Skate (10)

Miles covered on trail (mean) 6 miles 3 miles 4 miles 8 miles 15 miles 7 miles Time spent on trail (median) 35 minutes 35 minutes 40 minutes 60 minutes 90 minutes 60 minutes Combined Visit with other places (%)

24 28 38 52 36 26

First time user (%) 9 7 11 4 9 6 Reason for visit (%) Health/Exercise (66)

Recreation (32) Commute (2)

Health/Exercise (64) Recreation (32) Commute (4)

Health/Exercise (79) Recreation (19) Commute (1) Other (1)



Health/Exercise (74) Recreation (26)

Run/Walk/Cycle/Skate more because of trail (%)

79 70 74 81 87 82

Median time spent because trail exists (weekly)

120 minutes 100 minutes 120 minutes 180 minutes 200 minutes 180 minutes

Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate because of trail (%)

19% 14% 14% 16% 19% 17%


Page C

Trail Summary Data Table: Trail User Survey Information Trail User Mail Back Survey


Demographic Data Survey response (%) 39 70.5 70.6 84.6 97.2 50 Usable surveys 200 127 72 165 105 133 Income (%) <$40k/$40k-$80k/>$80k

35/48/17 39/45/16 33/46/21 22/45/33 33/51/16 33/48/18

College Grad (%) 60 57 33.2 78.6 52 31.8 Race Caucasian (%) 94.3 98 100.0 96.8 95.9 96 Trail Use Data No trail available (%)

11.9 – Done something different






Major uses (%)

Walk (43) Bike (35) Run/Jog (16) Other (6)

Walk (44) Bicycle (44) Run/Jog (10) Skate (2)

Walking (59) Bicycle (21) Run/Jog (9) Skate (9) Other (2)

Walk (51) Bike (21) Run/Jog (18) Skate (10)

Bike (77) Walk (12) Run/Jog (7) Skate (4)

Walking (42) Bike (38) Run (11) Skate (9)

Trail satisfaction User opinion of satisfaction (Median score on 7 point scale)

6 – Very satisfied 6 – Very satisfied 6 – Very satisfied 6 – Very satisfied 6 – Very satisfied 6 – Very satisfied

Trail Issues Most important issues perceived by users (based on ranking of mean scores)

Personal safety Vandalism Maintenance Safe Intersections

Natural Surroundings Personal Safety Safe Intersections Trail Maintenance

Personal safety Vandalism Drinking water/toilets Safe Intersections

Personal Safety Safe Intersections Natural Surroundings Maintenance

Personal Safety Safe Intersections Vandalism Maintenance

Adequate Access Vandalism Personal Safety Natural Surroundings

Area least satisfied with trail management (based on ranking of mean scores)

Drinking water/toilets Vandalism Adequate patrols Maps/signage

Drinking water/toilets Adequate patrols Historic points Maps/signage

Drinking water/toilets Adequate patrols Personal Safety Vandalism

Drinking water/toilets Reckless behavior Adequate patrols Crowded conditions

Drinking water/toilets Adequate patrols

Drinking water/toilets Adequate patrols Vandalism

Problems associated with other people on the trail (%)

27.4- yes 17.1 – yes 5.7 – yes 56.8 – yes 35.6 – yes 24.6 – yes

User causing most problems (%-age of users reporting problems)

Dog walkers (16) Bikers (13)

Dog Walkers (6) Bikers (6)

Bikers (32) Skaters (23)

Bikers (21) Walkers (11)

Bikers (11) Dog Walkers (10)

Most common problem indicated (%-age of users reporting problems)

Not courteous (15) Blocking trail (13)


Not courteous (6) Not courteous (28) Blocking trail (26)

Blocking trail (23) Not courteous (14)


Stop use because of problems? (% indicating “No”)

65 - No 86 – No 75 – No 76 – No 87- No 88 – No


Page D

Trail User Mail Back Survey


User Opinion

Congestion Not congested at all Not congested at all Not congested at all Congested Congested Not congested at all Enough restrooms (% indicating “No”)

60 – No 43 - No 91 – No 72 – No 27 – No 58 – No

Trail users viewing trail as safe or very safe (%)

79 89 84 95 93 89

City viewed as more favorable (%)

98 80 97 100 76 100

Trail Preferences If could, would spend more time on trail (%)

59 47 47 65 41 58

Trail reason for living in city Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Very attached to the trail Agree Somewhat Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Life is organized around trail Neutral Neutral Disagree Somewhat Agree Neutral Disagree Benefits of trail Most important public benefits of trails (ranked by mean)

Health/ Fitness Public Recreation Aesthetic Beauty Community Pride

Health/Fitness Preserve Open Space Public Recreation Aesthetic Beauty

Health/Fitness Public Recreation Aesthetic beauty

Health/Fitness Public Recreation Community Pride Aesthetic Beauty

Health/Fitness Public Recreation Community Pride Disabled Access

Health/Fitness Public Recreation Community Pride Aesthetic Beauty

Economic Factors

Pay to park Nobody paid to park Nobody paid to park Nobody paid to park Nobody paid to park Nobody paid to park Nobody paid to park Willing to pay user fee (%) 55 – No

45 –Yes 61 – No 39 – Yes

73- No 27 – Yes

51 – No 49 – Yes

39 – No 61 - Yes

72 – No 28 – Yes

If yes, how much annually (mean range)

$5-10 $11-20 $5-10 $11-20 $11-20 $5-10

If no, main reason not willing to pay user fee

Taxes should pay Taxes should pay Taxes should pay Taxes should pay Taxes should pay Taxes should pay

Trail Activity Average reported days on trail 98 78 80 109 56 89 Activity viewed as extremely and more important (%)

75% 69% 64% 81% 68% 75%

Trail viewed as extremely and more important (%)

69% 60% 49% 63% 63% 62%


Page E

Trail Summary Data Table: Trail Neighbor Survey Information

Trail Neighbor Survey Fort Wayne Goshen Greenfield Indianapolis Muncie Portage Demographic Data Response rate (%) 39 50.8 50 37.8 38.9 45 Usable surveys 122 66 18 217 137 82 Male/Female (%) 53/47 52/48 90/10 50/50 55/45 51/49 Mean age of respondent (years)

50 55 50 46 55 52

Mean year property purchased 1983 Not applicable 1961 1988 1979 1984 Property Information Trail relation to property (%) Near,not touching (76) Near,not touching (56)

Along the edge (41) Along the edge (80) Along the edge (75) Near,not touching (47)

Along the edge (47) Along the edge (80)

Property size (mean acres)

1.13 8.1 3.4 .75 21.6 4.8

Property used as residence (%)

82 77 0 87 86 85

% of single family homes on property

82 82 0 87 86 89

Most common use of residence

Principle residence Principle residence - Principle residence Principle residence Principle residence

Distance of property to trail (mean)

54 ft 100 ft - 88 ft 75 ft 264

Most common part of house facing trail

Front Back - Back Back Back

Trail Benefits Neighbor perceptions of extremely important public benefits (% indicating 7 on 7 point scale)

Aesthetic Beauty (50) Open Space (50) Health/Fitness (40) Community Pride (39)

Open Space (58) Aesthetic Beauty (47) Health/Fitness (38) Public Recreation (35)

Public Recreation (26) Health/Fitness (20) Disabled Access (20)

Health/Fitness (54) Aesthetic Beauty (42) Open Space (39) Public Recreation (33)

Health/Fitness (50) Disabled Access (45) Community Pride (39) Aesthetic Beauty (34)

Open Space (51) Health/Fitness (48) Community Pride (47) Aesthetic Beauty (46)

Tail Satisfaction Factors leading to greatest level of dissatisfaction with trail (% )

Safety patrols (29) Maintenance (13)

Safety patrols (28) Parking problems (15)

Agency response (22) Safety patrols (20)

Parking problems (27) Safety patrols (19)

Safety patrols (26) Parking problems (20)

Parking problems (26) Safety patrols (20)

Trail Effect on Property Perceived trail increased or has no effect on property value (%)

92 92 90 95 86 89

Perceived trail has no effect or makes it easier to sell property (%)

93 88 90 90 81 88


Page F

Trail effect on purchase of property

Trail had no affect or added to appeal to buy property (%)

94 93 No purchase after trail opened

92 81 91

Supportiveness of trail (Median response on 7 point scale)

6 -Very Supportive 7-Extreme Support - 6- Very Supportive 6 -Very supportive 6 -Very Supportive

User Opinion about living near trail

Neighbor feelings about trail near property (Median response on 7 point scale)

5 - Satisfied 5 - Satisfied 4 -Neutral 5 – Satisfied 5 – Satisfied 5 - Satisfied

Trail better as a neighbor than originally expected (%)

58 53 63 67 62 68

Trail added to, and improved the quality of the neighborhood (%)

68 67 88 73 62 60

Opinions of trail problems Problems reported as less of a problem after trail construction (%)

Users asking to use bathroom/phone (59) Fruits/Veg picked or damaged (52) Noise from users (49)

Users asking to use bathroom/phone (53) Maintenance (43) Burglary (42)

Maintenance (53) Trespassing (50) Animal harassed (50)

Lack of Privacy (36) Trespassing (34) Noise from trail (34)

Users asking to use bathroom/phone (61) Maintenance (61) Crops damaged (59)

Users asking to use bathroom/phone (68) Burglary (65) Cars parking (65)

Most frequent problems reported by neighbors (no. of neighbors reporting problem)

Illegal vehicle use (35) Littering (33) Unleashed pets (25)

Illegal vehicles (29) Littering (13) Unleashed pets (13)

Burglary (4) Illegal vehicle use (3)

Littering (87) Illegal vehicle use (79) Noise from trail (72)

Illegal vehicle use (38) Littering (28) Noise from trail (25)

Illegal vehicle use (35) Littering (31)

Neighbor Trail Use Patterns

Used in past 12 months (%) 76 – Yes 75 – Yes 70 – Yes 95 - Yes 74 – Yes 82- Yes Seasonal Use by days/week (mean)

Winter – 1.92 Spring – 2.67 Summer – 3.01 Fall – 2.73

Winter – 2.08 Spring – 2.84 Summer -2.95 Fall – 2.81


Winter –1.96 Spring –2.82 Summer –3.08 Fall –2.82

Winter –1.43 Spring – 2.33 Summer – 2.69 Fall – 2.39


Annual estimated use by household

134 days annually 139 days annually 118 days annually 139 days annually 117 days annually 132 days annually

Summary Report

41


Appendix B: Methodology

Summary Report

43


Research Protocol

Trail Use Counts Trail counts will be conducted using infrared trail counters placed at various locations on each trail throughout the months of July, August and September. Trail counter distribution is defined as below:

Pensey

Trail Prairie

Duneland Trail

Cardinal Trail

Monon Trail Maple City Trail

Fort Wayne River Trail

Trail length in miles

3.1 6 10 7.6 10 15

Counter locations

1 2 3 3 3 3

Rotate counter to

new location

n/a 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days

Intercept survey

locations

4 4 4 4 4 4

Locations: Trail counter locations will be determined in consultation with the local agency

responsible for the trail. To compensate for trail users not crossing trail counter locations, a series of passes with bicycle riders and access point observers will be used to create a 100% trail count during these weeks. This process will compensate for the varying use levels on different sections of the trails.

Counters: One (1) type of infrared reflective counter will be used in the study with

downloadable data capacity to count 8,000 events. Staff and volunteers will need to download data from the counters to download units throughout the study months. Counters will be validated by observation to determine any error rate in the infrared technology.

Use Levels: Longer trails will be instrumented completely in October by installing more than

one trail counter along the length of the trail for one week.

Summary Report

44


Survey Intercepts/Stops An assumption that varying use levels are based on location is made for each trail. As such, the survey of users through intercepts/stops will be completed during one week each in July and August, in four locations (L1-L4) on each trail over 3 time frames in a day. The intercept survey will be a two-stage survey where every nth adult user will be asked if they would participate in a short interview followed up by a more extensive mail survey. Stop rotations on each trail will be scheduled as below.

Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 7-11 a.m. L1 L4 L3 L2 L1 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4

11 a.m. – 3 p.m.

L2 L1 L4 L3 L2 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4

3-7 p.m. L3 L2 L1 L4 L3 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4 Stop Protocol: Stop every nth adult and ask subject to participate in short 3-minute survey

with follow-up mail survey. Decline Bias: If nth adult by observation station declines to participate, survey staff will

ask the next adult to participate and begin counting for the nth adult passing by after acceptance by a trail user.

Mail Survey: Mailed out at end of August using Dillman Technique of reminder card, new

survey and reminder card at 2-week intervals. (8-week process) Survey Number: A target of 250 trail user survey responses has been established. A

random sampling of trail users who indicated they would participate in the mail survey will be needed if the number of mail survey participants exceeds 500.

Trail Neighbor Survey Trail neighbors will be mailed a survey asking them to reflect on management issues and their experiences with the trails in their area. The definition of a trail neighbor will follow a 3-stage protocol for each geographic area as follows:

• Stage 1: Use an agency’s pre-existing neighbor list updated as necessary; or • Stage 2: Use a manual collection of trail neighbors within 150’ and visually abutted to the

trail as gathered from the assessors parcel list; or • Stage 3: Use GIS to develop a trail neighbors user list based on line of site and 150’.

Note that all apartment buildings containing trail neighbors will be enumerated by review of names/addresses on mailboxes. Mailing lists will be developed in June for July mailing and follow up using the Dillman technique.

Summary Report

45


Impacts to Property Value Impacts Property value impacts will be determined using focus groups composed of realtors to discuss trail pros and cons and estimated impacts to the land value of neighboring properties. Letters to area realtors in each trail vicinity will be mailed requesting their participation in a 1-hour focus group meeting to discuss trail issues. Realtors will self-select themselves based on preliminary questions regarding arranging for sale or purchase of property near a trail in the past 12 months. A recorder and facilitator will lead discussion on various issues and attempt to gain consensus on the impact of the trail on neighboring property values. This research will be conducted in fall 2000. Summary Calendar June July August September Obtain counters and orient to their use

Place counters and rotate along trails

Continue trail counter rotation

Continue trail counter rotation

Meet with agencies, orient them on mailings, use of volunteers, survey protocol, and study details

Conduct one week of counts using volunteers and/or paid staff

Conduct one week of counts using volunteers and/or paid staff

Mail out trail user surveys and complete Dillman follow-up process.

Finalize trail intercepts protocol and instruments

Implement trail intercepts and surveys

Continue trail intercepts and surveys

Mail out focus group letters to area realtors

Begin compiling trail neighbor mailing list

Mail trail neighbor survey using Dillman technique

Follow up trail neighbor survey

Finish inputting trail neighbor survey and analyze data

Field check counters and locations for each trail

Input preliminary trail intercepts data

Input preliminary trail intercepts data

Input trail user survey responses in data bank

Train volunteers and p/t staff at each agency on trail stops

Perform 100% user count on each trail and validate counters

Continue 100% user count on each trail as needed

Start to summarize trail count data


RIVERGREENWAY TRAIL FT. WAYNE, IN

December, 2001

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands School of Health, Physical Education & Recreation

HPER 133, Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405


Rivergreenway Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Rivergreenway Trail in Ft. Wayne, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Ft. Wayne Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trail Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study:

Dianne Hoover Director Department of Parks and Recreation Katherine Pargmann Marketing Manager Department of Parks and Recreation Jeff Baxter Manager, Project

Administration Rivergreenway Consortium

Gary E. Wasson President Park Board Charles W. McNagny Vice President Park Board Gilbert L. Holmes Commissioner Park Board Kathryn D. Callen Commissioner Park Board Graham Richard Mayor City of Ft. Wayne






Rivergreenway Trail, Fort Wayne, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 Characteristics of Fort Wayne Area .......................................... 3 History of Rivergreenway Trail .................................................. 3 Map of Rivergreenway Trail System ......................................... 5 Methodology.............................................................................. 6 Trail Counts............................................................................... 8 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 8 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 10 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 11 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 12 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 13 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 14 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 23 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 24 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 24 Summary and Implications................................... 30 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 31 Summary and Implications................................... 35 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 36 Summary and Implications................................... 40 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 41 Summary and Implications................................... 46 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 47 Summary and Implications................................... 50 Trail User Demographics................................................ 51 Summary and Implications................................... 53 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 54 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 54 Summary and Implications................................... 57 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 58 Summary and Implications................................... 61 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 62 Summary and Implications................................... 64 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 65 Summary and Implications................................... 67 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 68 Summary and Implications................................... 71 Conclusions ............................................................................. 72


Rivergreenway Trail Page 1 Fort Wayne, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Rivergreenway trail in Ft. Wayne.


Page 2 Rivergreenway Trail Fort Wayne, IN

Purpose of the Study The Indiana Trails Study included analyses of trail use, effects of trails on neighboring property, and economic impacts to determine negative and positive factors arising from trail development and trail conversion in Indiana. The six trails eventually selected for the Indiana Trails Study included trails in urban, suburban and rural places:

• Monon Trail, Indianapolis, representing urban trail development

• Prairie Duneland Trail, Portage, representing suburban trail development

• Cardinal Greenway Trail, Muncie, representing rural trail development

• Penssy Rail Trail, Greenfield, representing rural trail development

• Maple City Greenway Trail, Goshen, representing suburban trail development

• Rivergreenway Trails, Fort Wayne representing urban trail development

The objectives of this project were to determine: 1) recreational trail use; 2) who is using the trails, how the trails are used, how the trails are accessed and most frequently used; 3) opinions regarding management--such issues as safety, security, maintenance, signage, responsiveness to complaints/questions, and problems; 4) the effects of a trail on neighboring property including property value, damage, vandalism, and the salability of the property; and 5) the underlying attitudes toward trail development.



Characteristics of Fort Wayne Area Fort Wayne is the second largest metropolitan area in Indiana with a population of 205,727. The city currently encompasses 77.60 square miles and has an unemployment rate of 2.8%. The city government consists of an elected mayor, clerk, and nine council members. The city has 87 parks and playgrounds covering over 2300 acres including: pavilions, tennis courts, golf courses, sports fields of every type, pools, a children’s zoo, botanical conservatory, a community center, two youth centers, a nature preserve, a campground and an ice arena, among other amenities. History of Rivergreenway Trail In the 1970’s a diverse group of citizens from both the public and private sectors in Fort Wayne and Allen Co. met to form the Rivergreenway Consortium. The goal was to plan and develop a linear park, along the banks of the rivers that would extend from county line to county line. Through their efforts, nearly fifteen miles of city owned and forty miles of county owned paths, overlooks, boardwalks, pedestrian underpasses and landscaping projects have been created. The Rivergreenway Consortium is still active and generally meets the 2nd Thursday of every month at the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department. The Consortium acts in an advisory capacity to the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department and lends support to the establishment of future sections of the trail. The Rivergreenway Trail is a 15-mile long linear park in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Trail is along the banks of the St. Mary’s, St. Joseph and the Maumee Rivers. Much of the Rivergreenway has been funded by the State of Indiana and the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Rivergreenway trail provides opportunities for recreation, fitness and conservation, while providing a sense of getting away from it all but still linked close to everything. The Rivergreenway Trail is owned and maintained by the Fort Wayne Parks and Recreation Department except for the 4-mile section of trail east of Pemberton Drive to the Boat Landing adjacent to North River Road. This section of trail is owned and maintained by Allen County.



The Rivergreenway offers natural vistas and scenic overlooks within an urban environment. It creates a synergism between country and city settings that affords users the opportunity to enjoy the best of both. Additionally it creates a natural overflow against the invasion of high water, which helps mitigate the ravages of flooding.

For more information about the Rivergreenway, log onto: www.fortwayneparks.org



Map of Rivergreenway Trail System



Methodology A number of research methodologies were used to complete the research for the Indiana Trails Study. The methods included:

• Counts of trail users • Survey of trail users through intercepts at trail heads • Survey of adjacent property owners, trail neighbors as they

are called, through mail survey Trail counts were conducted using infrared trail counters placed at various locations on each trail throughout the months of September, and October. The infrared trail counters were installed on utility poles or trees in an alignment that allowed trail users of all types (walker, bicyclists, joggers, runners, in-line skaters, etc.) to “break” the infrared light beam projected from a transmission unit to a receiving unit. Every time a user crossed in front of the transmission unit, the infrared light beam was broken, thus causing the receiving unit to record the date and time of the “event”. One (1) infrared reflective counter was used in Ft. Wayne with downloadable data capacity of 8,000 events recorded by date and time. Staff downloaded data from the counter throughout the study months. Since the infrared trail counter technology was relatively new, the number of events recorded by the counters was validated in a study conducted by Dr. Greg Lindsey, Research Director for the Indiana Trails Study, on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis. By observing trail users at the trail counter location, recording date, time and number of trail users, Dr. Lindsey and his students were able to compare the actual number of trail users with those recorded by the infrared counter unit. This related study found that the infrared trail counter undercounted trail users by approximately 15%. Survey of trail users was completed through intercepts/stops of trail users during one week each in July and August; in four locations (L1-L4 in the following table) on each trail over 3 periods in a day (only three locations were used in Ft. Wayne). The intercept survey was designed as a two-stage survey where every nth adult user was asked if they would participate in a short interview followed up by a more extensive mail survey. Stop rotations on each trail were scheduled as below.



Time Mon. Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun.

7-11 a.m. L1 L4 L3 L2 L1 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4

11 a.m. – 3 p.m. L2 L1 L4 L3 L2 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4

3-7 p.m. L3 L2 L1 L4 L3 L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4

The intercept protocol used in this method was to stop every nth adult and ask subject to participate in short 3-minute survey with follow-up mail survey. The follow-up survey was a 16-page booklet with a self addressed-business reply-mailing panel on the back panel that allowed participating trail users to return the survey to the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands by U.S. mail. Reminder cards and a second mailing of the survey to non-respondents were undertaken to increase response rate to the follow-up survey. Trail neighbors were mailed a survey asking them to reflect on management issues and their experiences with the trails in their area. Trail neighbors were identified using an agency’s pre-existing neighbor list updated as necessary. Reminder cards and a second mailing of the survey to non-respondents were undertaken to increase response rate to the trail neighbor survey.



W1. Daily Trail Traffic (Ft Wayne Trail, September 2000)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Trail Counts Estimates of total traffic on the Rivergreenway Trail in Fort Wayne in September and October 2000 are 26,914 and 24,231 respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. The October estimate is an extrapolation based on approximately 24 days of data and there is a lack of count data from September 9 to September 11. Estimates of the number of users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of different user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other counters passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Daily Trail Traffic

W2. Daily Trail Traffic (Ft Wayne Trail, October 2000)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Counters recorded trail use on 54 days in September and October (Figures W1 and W2). Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about eight in September and four in October. Among days for which full counts are available, daily traffic in September ranged from a low of 212 on Friday, September 1 to a high of 1716 on Tuesday, September 5.

Day of Month

Day of Month



Although analyses of the causes of variability are beyond the scope of this study. The variability in daily traffic generally can be accounted for by user preferences, weather, and other factors.

W3. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Ft Wayne Trail, September 2000)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

W4. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Ft Wayne Trail, October 2000)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Figures W3 and W4 present average daily traffic for the River Greenway Trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of approximately 2.0, ranging from a low of 549 on Fridays to a high on Tuesdays of 1071. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 1.8, ranging from a low of 611 on Thursdays to a high on Sundays of 1070. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Sundays in October but not in September. In September, trail traffic was highest on Tuesdays, second highest on Sundays while in October, the second highest traffic occurred on Saturdays. Average weekday traffic was higher in the beginning of the week on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays than on Thursdays and Fridays in September. A similar pattern was not found in October: traffic on Fridays was higher than the average of all weekday traffic.

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Hourly Trail Traffic Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures W5-W10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekend days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the work-week are examined.

W5. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (Ft WayneTrail, September 2000)

020406080

100120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

W6. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (Ft WayneTrail, October 2000)

0255075

100125

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

These patterns reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work. Weekday hourly use peaks in later afternoon/early evening following the workday.

In general, average hourly trail traffic followed different patterns on weekends and weekdays (Figures W5-W6). On weekends in September, average hourly trail traffic increased steadily from about 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., dropped after 11:00 a.m., steadily increased and peaked in late afternoons, between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and then declined in early evenings. Weekend average hourly traffic in October started at about the same time of traffic in September in early mornings but leveled off from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., peaked between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., then began decreasing slowly. On weekdays, average hourly trail traffic leveled off earlier, by about 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., remained relatively constant until late afternoons, peaked in early evenings, and then dropped off rapidly. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 9.9 percent and 11.5 percent, respectively, of average weekend daily use. Peak average hourly use on weekdays occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in both September and October. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 13.2 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively of average weekday use.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic Weekend patterns of average hourly use differed on Saturdays and Sundays (W7 and W8). Overall use was higher on Sundays in both September and October. However, hourly traffic on Sunday mornings was lower than hourly traffic on Saturdays; and conversely, afternoon traffic was much higher on Sundays than Saturdays in both September and October. These differences likely reflect people’s adjustment of use around church and other activities.

W7. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Ft Wayne Trail, September 2000)

020406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaysSaturdays

W8. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Ft Wayne Trail, October 2000)

020406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekday Hourly Traffic

W9. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Ft Wayne Trail, September 2000)

0

50

100

150

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFriday

W10. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Ft Wayne Trail, October 2000)

020406080

100120140

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hours (W9 and W10). In general, hourly traffic was relatively constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings. In September, the peak average hourly traffic occurred between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on Mondays. In October, peak average hourly traffic occurred between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on Thursdays, and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Fridays. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 206 in September and 237 in October, or approximately 3 to 4 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 377 in September and 247 in October, or approximately 4 to 6 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts In sum, counts show consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Sunday afternoon use exceeds Saturday afternoon use. Additional analyses of the effects of weather on patterns of use would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Survey Questions

The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Rivergreenway Trail. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 373 trail users were intercepted on the Rivergreenway Trail and agreed to be surveyed.

Survey Question: What did you do on the trail today?

Table 1: Trail Activity

Activity Percentage

Walk 49.2%

Bicycle 29.9%

Run/Jog 14.8%

Skate 5.7%

Fish/Other 0.3%

Survey Question: How did you get to the trail today?

Table 2: Travel to Trail

Travel Method

Percentage

Drive 56.1

Walk 24.2

Bicycle 17.0

Run 2.0

Skate 0.5

Bus 0.2

Over 56% of people intercepted drove to the trail. 17% of the users sampled rode their bicycle to the trail, and almost 25% of the trail users walked to the trail.

Almost 50% of people intercepted on the Rivergreenway Trail were walkers.



Survey Question: How long did it take you to get to the trail?

Table 3: Time to Trail

Time to Trail (minutes) Percentage

0-10 75.3

11-20 16.6

21-40 5.1

41-60 2.3

61-90 0.1

Over 90 0.6

Survey Question: How many miles do you estimate it is from your home to where you entered the trail today?

Table 4: Distance from Home to Trail

Distance to trail (miles) Percentage

0-1 33.1

2-4 30.9

5-8 18.6

9-12 9.3

13-15 2.3

16-20 2.4

21-30 1.2

31-50 1.1

51-80 0.4

Over 80 0.7

The majority (75.3%) of trail users were within 10 minutes travel time to the trail. The mean time for travel was 11.05 minutes with the maximum time being 225 minutes and the minimum less than 1 minute, which indicates the resident was a trail neighbor.

More than 60% of trail users are traveling less than 4 miles to get to the trail. The median distance traveled was __ The mean score for users was 8.73 miles, which reflects miles traveled by several long distance travelers.



Survey Question: How much time did/will you spend on the trail today?

Table 5: Time spent on Trail

Time on Trail (minutes) Percentage

0-30 27.3

31-60 44.3

61-90 9.8

91-120 13.8

121-150 1.3

151-180 1.6

Over 180 1.9

Survey Question: Approximately how many miles will/did you cover on the trail today?

Table 6: Miles Covered on the Trail

Miles Covered Percentage0-2 32.1

3-5 37.7

6-8 10.9

9-12 8.6

13-15 4.0

16-20 4.7

20-25 0.8

26-30 1.0

Over 30 0.2

Over 54% spent between 30 and 90 minutes on the trail. The mean time on the trail was about 65 minutes. The minimum time on the trail was 1 minute, and the maximum time was 360 minutes.

Almost 70% of the users covered five miles or less on the trail. The mean distance was 5.35 miles. The minimum distance was less than a mile and the maximum was 33 miles, which is a little more than twice the length of the trail.



Statistical Question: Did the respondent enter and exit the trail at the same location?

Table 7: Were the entrance and exit at the same location

Entrance = Exit Percentage

Yes 88.3

No 11.7

Survey Question: Did or will you combine you visit to the trail with trips to other places?

Table 8: Combined Visit With Other Places

Combined Visits

Percentage

No 76.1

Yes 23.9

Dining 8.9

Shopping 5.8

Business 2.7

Personal 7.0

Other 0.5

Over 88% of the users entered and exited the trail at the same location.

Users of the trail typically don’t combine the use of the trail with other places as indicated by the 76.1% of no responses. Those who do combine their visit with other places are most likely to combine use of the trail with dining.



Survey Question: How many people in your group on the trail today are from each of the following age categories?

Table 9: Group Age Categories

Age # of People Reported

Less than 15 51

16 to 25 66

26 to 35 132

36 to 45 161

46 to 55 135

56 to 65 58

Greater than 66 50

Survey Question: Is today the first time you used the trail?

Table 10: First Time Use

First Time Percentage

No 90.9

Yes 9.1

Users of the trail are grouped heavily in the 26-55 year old range.

Over 90 % of users have used the trail before the day of the intercepts.



Survey Question: What was the main purpose of your visit to the trail?

Table 11: Main Purpose of Visit

Visit Purpose Percentage

Health/Exercise 65.6

Recreation 32.0

Commute 2.2

Other 0.2

Survey Question: What was the other purpose of your visit to the trail?

Table 12: Other Purpose of Visit

Visit Other Purpose Percentage

Recreation 49.0


Commute 0.0

Other 0.0

Survey Question: Do you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because this trail exists?

Table 13: Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate More

Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate More Percentage

Yes 78.8

No 21.2

Most users indicated that health/exercise was the main purpose for visiting the trail.

An equal percentage of users, who indicated multiple reasons for visiting the trail, cited health/exercise and recreation as the other reason for visiting the trail.

People walk/run/cycle/ skate more because the trail exists.



Survey Question: If yes, about how many minutes per week do you (walk/run/cycle/skate) because this trail exists.

Table 14: Minutes Spent (walk/run/cycle/skate) Each Week Because of Trail

Minutes Spent Percentage

10-60 21.9

61-120 21.9

121-180 13.0

181-240 12.5

241-300 11.7

300-360 4.8

361-420 4.3

421-480 2.5

481-540 3.0

541-600 3.1

601-700 9.0

701-1000 2.8

>1000 3.0

The median number of minutes spent walking/running/cycling/ skating on the trail was between 120 and 180.



Survey Question: If yes, did you (walk/run/cycle/skate) at all before the trail was created?

Table 15: Active Before Trail Creation

Active Before Trail Percentage

Yes 70.7

No 29.3

Survey Question: What is your age?

Table 16: Grouped age of Intercept Respondents

Grouped Age Percentage

Less than 15 2.0

16-25 10.3

26-35 22.5

36-45 26.6

46-55 22.5

56-65 10.2

Over 66 7.7

Survey Question: Gender of Respondent?

Table 17: Respondent Gender

Gender Percentage

Male 56.6

Female 43.1

The average age for users on the trail is 42 years, with a fairly equal distribution of users between the ages of 26-55.

Males accounted for more than half of the respondents to the survey.

Most users who were surveyed (70.7%) were active in walk/run/cycle/skate before the trail was created. However, a good number of people have become more active since the trail was created.



Survey Question: Race/Ethnicity?

Table 18: Respondent Race/Ethnicity

Ethnicity Percentage

Caucasian 85.6

Black 9.5

Hispanic 3.9

Asian 0.2

Not Sure 0.7

Other 0.2

Survey Question: What type of use did the surveyor observe from the user?

Table 19: Observed User Activity

Observed Activity Percentage

Walk 51.3

Bicycle 30.6

Run/Jog 12.9

Skate 5.0

Fish 0.2

The majority of users are Caucasian.

A majority (50%) of users are walkers; there were no users who indicated that they used the trail for horseback riding.



Survey Question: Time of Day survey administered?

Table 20: Time of Day Survey Administered

Time of Day Surveyed Percentage

6-9 AM 15.2

9-12AM 24.8

12-3PM 25.2

3-6PM 27.4

6-9PM 7.4

Intercept surveys were fairly equally distributed between the times of 9 AM and 6 PM.

Summary and Implications – Intercept Surveys

The trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical in Percentage.

A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Rivergreenway Trail, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trail’s creation (over 29.3%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (23.9%) such as exercise and other personal uses, or recreation and dining.

Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 75% of Rivergreenway trail users being within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail. More than 88% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location.

A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (65.6%) and recreation (30%) purposes. Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (29.3%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (78.8%), added approximately 3 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow-Up Surveys

Trail User Characteristics

The following tables indicate the responses from those trail users who were intercepted and indicated they would complete a more detailed survey. If a trail user responded favorably to the request to complete additional survey questions during their intercept interview, they were provided with a longer, more detailed survey and asked to return it to the Eppley Institute via business reply mail.

Survey Question: What were you doing on the trail the day you were interviewed?

Table 21: Activity On Day of Interview

Activity Percentage

Walking 43.1

Bicycle 35.0

Run/Jog 16.2

Skating 5.6

Again, trail users who responded indicated their activity preferences were walking or bicycling on the day of the interview. The percentage of activities participated in closely approximates the percentages of all trail users who were intercepted.



Survey Question: How did you find out about this trail?

Table 22: How did you find out about this trail?

How Found Percentage

Friends 19.7

Happened on it 19.2

Word of Mouth 15.5

Neighbor 11.9

Don’t Remember 11.4

Newspaper 10.9

Brochures 4.1

Relatives 3.6

Group 1.0

Internet 1.0

Radio 0.5

Magazine 0.5

TV 0.5

Over 50% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.

Press coverage from radio, TV and the newspaper accounted for 12.4% of the responses to this survey question.



Survey Question: If the trail had not been available the day you were interviewed, what would you have done?

Table 23: Activity Participated in if No Trail Available

No Trail Available Percentage

Participated in same activity 88.1

Done something different 11.9

Survey Question: Participated in the same activity somewhere else, If so where?

Table 24: Participated in the Same Activity Elsewhere

Survey Question: Was your visit to this trail part of an overnight trip?

Table 25: Stayed Overnight

Stayed Overnight Percentage

No 98.0

Yes 2.0

Other Location Percentage

Streets/Sidewalks 76.6

Another Trail 13.8

Park 6.0

Mall 2.4

Campus 1.2

The majority of users would have continued participating in an activity on streets and sidewalks if the trail had not been available.

Responses to this question overwhelming indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Rivergreenway Trail.

The majority of users surveyed (98%) did not use the trail as part of an overnight visit.



Survey Question: Was visiting this trail one of the reasons for visiting this city?

Table 26: Trail Reason For Visiting City

Trail Reason Percentage

No 100

Survey Question: On about how many different days did you visit this trail during the past 12 months?

Table 27: Trail Visitor Days

Visitor Days Percentage

0-10 21.2

11-20 7.4

21-30 10.0

31-40 2.7

41-50 7.8

51-60 3.8

61-70 2.1

71-100 9.5

101-120 3.2

121-150 6.8

151-200 14.3

201-300 9.5

>300 3.7

None of the users who stayed overnight indicated that the trail was the reason for the visit. There were only 4 respondents who indicated that their visit was part of an overnight trip. Two people were visiting with family and one individual was in town for a conference, the remaining visitor did not indicate purpose

The largest percentage of responding trail users (21.2%) visited the trail less than 10 times in the past 12 months. However, half the users reported 50-60 user visits or more.



Survey Question: Rate your skill level as a participant in the trail activity that you prefer?

Table 28: Skill Level of Primary Activity

Skill Level Percentage

Novice 5.1

Intermediate 54.4

Expert 40.5

Survey Question: How important is this activity to you?

Table 29: Importance of Activity

Importance Percentage

Not at all important 2.0

Less important 0.5

Somewhat important 1.5

Neither less or more important 5.1

Somewhat more important 15.8

More important 28.1

Extremely important 46.9

A majority of users (90.8%) consider the activity for which they use the trail important to them, almost 50% of which considered their activity extremely important.

A majority (54.4%) of trail users consider their activity skill level to be intermediate, while 40.5% considered their skill level to be expert.



Survey Question: How important is this trail to your participation in this activity?

Table 30: Importance of Trail to Activity

Importance of Trail Percentage


Less important 1.0




More important 28.2


More than 85% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with 40.5% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys

Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Fort Wayne Rivergreenway Trail closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys, including activity preferences. Notably, more than 76% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity.

Trail users in Fort Wayne indicated a fairly advanced skill level with 93% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 60 days annually on average, for respondents. Over 28% of users reporting they used the trail in excess of at least 120 days in the past year.

Generally speaking, no trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Fort Wayne. Only four of the trail users indicated they stayed overnight, but none of them were visiting Fort Wayne primarily to use the trail. This is reflective of the fact that 51.7% of the respondents learned of the trail through some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors. Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Over 85% of all respondents indicated the activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation. In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Rivergreenway trail, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. The vast majority of trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.



Trail Users Attitudes and Lifestyles

Survey Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with this trail?

Table 31: Satisfaction With Trail

Level of Satisfaction Percentage

Very Satisfied 0.5

Somewhat Unsatisfied 1.6

Neither Less or More Satisfied 16.0

Somewhat Satisfied 31.6

Very Satisfied 39.0

It’s Perfect 11.2

Survey Question: Has using this trail affected your view of the area or city?

Table 32: View of City Affected By Trail

View Percentage

Yes 73.0

No 27.0

Much less favorable 0.7

Less favorable 1.4

More favorable 52.4

Much more favorable 45.5

It would appear that most users are satisfied with the trail

73% of trail users indicated the trail affected their view of the area/city. More than 97% of these respondents found the trail to positively affect their view of the area/city.



Survey Question: I would prefer to spend more time here if I could.

Table 33: Desire To Spend More Time

More Time Percentage

Strongly disagree 1.0

Disagree less 0.5

Somewhat disagree 3.1

Neither disagree or agree 9.7

Somewhat agree 27.2

Agree more 35.9

Strongly agree 22.6

Survey Question: The time I spend here could just as easily be spent somewhere else.

Table 34: Respondent Opinion Toward Utilizing Time Spent on Trail Elsewhere

Time Spent Elsewhere

Percentage


Disagree less 17.8



Somewhat agree 13.7

Agree more 10.2

Strongly agree 4.6

More than 85% of trail users indicated they would spend more time on the trail if possible.

53.8%of respondents agreed their time could not just as easily be spent somewhere else.



Survey Question: A major reason I now live where I do is that this trail is nearby

Table 35: Trail User Opinion On The Trail As A Major Reason For Location of Domicile

Live Here for Trail Percentage


Disagree less 9.7



Somewhat agree 8.7

Agree more 13.8

Strongly agree 13.3

Survey Question: I am very attached to this trail.

Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Attachment to The Rivergreenway Trail

Attached to Trail Percentage


Disagree less 4.6



Somewhat agree 17.3

Agree more 27.6

Strongly agree 20.4

35.8% of trail users indicated that the trail was a factor in choosing their current residence, while the trail was not a factor for 52.6%. The remaining 11.7% of the respondents did not agree or disagree that the trail was a factor in determining their place of residence.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Rivergreenway trail with over 65% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.



Survey Question: I find that a lot of my life is organized around this trail

Table 37: Trail Users Indicating That Their Life is Organized Around the Trail

Organized Around Trail Percentage


Disagree less 11.2



Somewhat agree 16.3

Agree more 10.2

Strongly agree 7.1

Survey Question: No other trail can compare with this one.

Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward Fort Wayne Rivergreenway Trail Comparison to Other Trails

Trail Compares Percentage


Disagree less 11.3



Somewhat agree 11.3

Agree more 11.3

Strongly agree 9.8

32.4 % responded that no trail can compare to the Rivergreenway Trail.

One-third of trail users indicated that their lives were organized around the trail, with about 23% of respondents indicating a neutral response. A significant number of trail users responding (41.8%) disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail.



Summary and Implications --- Follow Up Surveys

Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Rivergreenway trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and that their view of Fort Wayne, as a city or community, was positively affected by the trail. Almost 98% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. Nearly 85% of responding trail users indicating some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with over 53.8% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail was important. Reflecting this enthusiasm, over 65% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicated they are attached, to some degree, to the Rivergreenway trail. The Rivergreenway trail was a factor in organizing about 23% of trail users’ lives, although the majority of trail users responding either disagreed with this concept or were neutral. In addition, over 52.6% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Rivergreenway trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively affects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.



Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions

Survey Question: Indicate how important the following issues are to you with a 1 being not at all important and 7 being extremely important.

Not At All Important Extremely Important

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 39: Trail User Rating of Issues By Importance

Issue

Personal safety 1 Not At All

6.84 7 Extremely

Trail vandalism 1 Not At All

6.09 7 Extremely

Trail Maintenance 1 Not At All

6.06 7 Extremely

Natural surroundings 1 Not At All

5.97 7 Extremely

Safe road/stream intersections 1 Not At All

5.87 7 Extremely

Reckless behavior of trail users 1 Not At All

5.77 7 Extremely

Adequate access points 1 Not At All

5.58 7 Extremely

Quiet settings 1 Not At All

5.49 7 Extremely

Drinking water and toilet facilities 1 Not At All

5.29 7 Extremely

Proximity to home/office 1 Not At All

5.23 7 Extremely

Rough trail surface 1 Not At All

5.06 7 Extremely

Adequate ranger/safety patrols 1 Not At All

5.02 7 Extremely

Maps, signs, and trail information 1 Not At All

4.80 7 Extremely

Narrow trail width 1 Not At All

4.79 7 Extremely

Crowded conditions, congestion 1 Not At All

4.64 7 Extremely

Parking facilities 1 Not At All

3.98 7 Extremely

Historic points of interest 1 Not At All

3.85 7 Extremely

Mean Importance Rating

By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that most of the factors at the left were important. They consider historic points of interest and adequate parking facilities to be less important. (A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.)



Survey Question: Indicate how satisfied you are with the trail and its management. Indicate how satisfied you are with the following issues with a 1 being not at all satisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied.

Not At All Satisfied Extremely Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 40: Trail User Ratings of Issues By Satisfaction

Issue

Natural surroundings 1 Not At All 5.82 7

Extremely

Quiet settings 1 Not At All 5.74 7

Extremely

Adequate access points 1 Not At All 5.66 7

Extremely


5.64 7 Extremely

Parking facilities 1 Not At All 5.58 7

Extremely

Proximity to home/office 1 Not At All 5.57 7

Extremely

Reckless behavior of trail users 1 Not At All 5.32 7

Extremely

Personal safety 1 Not At All 5.31 7

Extremely

Safe road/stream intersections 1 Not At All 5.16 7

Extremely

Historic points of interest 1 Not At All 5.09 7

Extremely

Narrow trail width 1 Not At All 4.96 7

Extremely

Trail Maintenance 1 Not At All 4.83 7

Extremely

Rough trail surface 1 Not At All 4.75 7

Extremely

Trail vandalism 1 Not At All 4.74 7

Extremely

Maps, signs, and trail information 1 Not At All 4.69 7

Extremely

Adequate ranger/safety patrols 1 Not At All 4.55 7

Extremely

Drinking water and toilet facilities 1 Not At All 3.92 7

Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating

By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the right were satisfactory on the Fort Wayne trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, and adequacy of ranger/safety patrols. (A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.)



Importance-Satisfaction Comparison for Rivergreenway Trail

Natural Surroundings

Quiet

MaintenanceSafe Intersections

Personal Safety

Reckless

Vandalism

Adequate AccessProximity

HistoricParking

Water

MapsSafety Surface

Width Crowded

1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7

SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

E

Concentrate Here

Low Priority

Keep up the Good Work

Possible Overkill

Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Rivergreenway Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail. The issue of most concern appears to be the availability of drinking water and toilet facilities.

The chart at the left displays the combined mean scores for trail importance and satisfaction factors on a 2-axis grid.

Chart 1: A Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Factors on the Rivergreenway Trail



Survey Question: Please rank the importance of the following great public benefits with 1 being not important and 7 being extremely important.

Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Maple City Greenway Trail

Public Benefits Rating

Preserving Open Space

Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Aesthetic Beauty


Community Pride


Tourism & Business Development


Alternative Transportation


Health and Fitness


Access for Disabled Persons


Public Recreation


Nature Education

Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.20

6.08

5.32

4.39

5.82

5.82

5.49

4.02

6.49



Summary and Implications ---- Follow Up Surveys


Respondents to the Rivergreenway Trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. The availability of drinking water and toilet facilities was the only issue rated highly on the importance scale, while being rated relatively low on the satisfaction scale. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Rivergreenway Trail included its natural surroundings, quiet setting, proximity to home or office, adequate access points, perceived personal safety, safe road and stream intersections, lack of crowded conditions and reckless behavior by other trail users. The most important factors for the Rivergreenway Trail and its management included the perceived personal safety of trail users, the prevention of trail vandalism, trail maintenance, natural surroundings, and safe road and stream intersections. Parking facilities and historic points of interest were the least important factors to trail users falling below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in the former factor, parking facilities, may be reflective of Fort Wayne’s size and the ease with which the community may be navigated using the Rivergreenway trail. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, preservation of open space, public recreation and community pride. In conclusion, Rivergreenway trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.



Trail User Problems/Safety Concerns

Survey Question: Which one item listed above do you feel is the most important problem on the trail?

Table 42: Percentage of Users Indicating the Most Important Problem on the Rivergreenway Trail

Problem Percentage

Maintenance 30.4

Water Fountains/Toilets 21.7

Safety 12.4

Vandalism 7.5

Ranger Patrols 5.6

Reckless Behavior 5.0

Access/Proximity 4.3

Width 4.3

Road Safety 2.5

Quiet Setting 2.5

Congestion 1.9

Signage 1.9

Shelter for Weather 0.6

It would appear that most people feel that maintenance is the most frequent problem cited. More than 60% of trail users are satisfied with trail maintenance



Survey Question: Have you ever experienced any problems with other people on the trail?

Table 43: Percentage of Trail Users Experiencing Problems with Other People on the Trail

Experienced Problems Percentage

No 72.6

Yes 27.4

Survey Question: What other types of users have caused problems?

Table 44: Percentage of User Types Causing Problems

Problem Activity Percentage

Other: Golfers, Kids, People 15.0

Bikers 12.5

Dog Walkers 11.0

Walkers 7.5

Skaters 2.0

Runners 1.5

Users generally are not experiencing problems with other users on the trail.

12.5 % of the respondents indicated that they had observed trail users who were on bikes causing problems for other users.



Survey Question: Type of problems caused by trail user?

Table 45: Percentage of Trail Users Observing Specific Types of Problems

Problem Type Percentage

Not Courteous 14.5

Blocking the Trail 12.5

Too Fast 7.5

Interfering 4.5

Too Slow 0.5

Survey Question: Were there other types of problems with trail users?

Table 46: Other Problems

Other Problem Occurring Percentage of Total

Yes, Other Problems Exist 16 (3.5%)

Other Problems Include:

Dogs 2.0

Gay Men 1.5

More than 30% of users felt like the problems they experienced involved trail users who were blocking not courteous, or moving too fast.

Sixteen users indicated that they were having other problems as indicated to the left. These sixteen users represent 3.5% of the trail user respondents compared to 96.5% who indicated they were not having other problems or didn’t respond.



Survey Question: How serious is the problem?

Table 47: Seriousness of Problems

Seriousness Percentage

Serious 32.7

Not too Serious 25.5

Very Serious 20.0

Not Sure 1.8

Minor/Not Serious 1.8

Survey Question: Have you considered not using the trail anymore because of these problems?

Table 48: Percentage of Trail Users Who Considered Stopping Use Because of Problems?

Stop Use Percentage

No 64.8

Yes 25.9

Not Sure 9.3

Survey Question: What is your opinion on trail congestion and crowding?

Table 49: Trail User Opinion on Trail Congestion and Crowding

Opinion Percentage

Not Sure 5.2

Not congested at all 83.5

Congested 9.8

Very Congested 1.5

Survey Question: Are there enough restrooms on the trail?

While more than 50% of the respondents consider problems on the trail to be serious, the majority of users have not considered the problems on the trail serious enough to discontinue trail use.

52.7% of those respondents reporting a problem indicated the problems were serious or very serious.

83.5% of trail users indicated the trail is not congested at all.



Table 50: Trail User Opinion on The Number of Restrooms on Trail

Adequate Restrooms Percentage

No 59.6

Yes 40.4

Survey Question: How safe do you feel while on the trail?

Table 51: Trail User Opinion On Safety Of Trail

Safe Percentage

Not sure 9.1

Very unsafe 1.0

Unsafe 10.6

Safe 63.1

Very Safe 16.2

Survey Question: Do you have any suggestions on what could be done to make you feel safer?

Table 52: Suggestions To Improve Trail Safety

Safety Suggestions Percentage

Bike patrols 60.0

Clean paths 13.3

Other 13.3

Call boxes/lighting 10.0

Width 3.3

Almost 60% of trail users feel the number of restrooms along the trail is inadequate.

Nearly 80% of trail users indicate a feeling of safety, to some degree, while on the trail. Only about 11% of trail users expressed an opinion that the trail was unsafe or very unsafe.

Although trail users (80%) indicated they feel safe on the Rivergreenway trail, a significant percentage of users indicated that bike patrols, call boxes, and clean paths would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.




Trail User Problems/Safety Opinions

Generally speaking, trail users found very few problems with the Rivergreenway trail. Only 27.4% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A fairly high percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that lack of trail maintenance and insufficient water and toilet facilities were the most important problems on the trail. Further, 3.5% of the trail users responding indicated additional problems, and felt the problems to be serious. However, while these problems were reported, nearly 65% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Rivergreenway Trail as a result of these problems.

Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, and not congested. The most populartrail safety improvement suggested was the addition of bike patrols to the Rivergreenway Trail. Nearly 60% of trail users, consistent with problems identified on the trail, felt there were not enough restrooms along the trail.



Trail User Economic Factors

Survey Question: If you drove to the trail, did you pay for parking?

Table 53: Percentage of Trail Users Who Did Not Have To Pay to Park

Pay for Parking Percentage

No 100

Survey Question: Would you be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass for next year?

Table 54: Percentage of Trail Users Who are Willing to Pay User Fee

Pay User Fee Percentage

No 54.8

Yes 45.2

Survey Question: If yes, how much would you be willing to pay?

Table 55: Annual Fee Supported by Trail Users Indicating Their Willingness to Pay For Trail Use

Amount Percentage

$5-$10 55.7

$11-$20 23.9

$21-$30 12.5

$50 8.0

100% of the respondents who answered this question indicated that they did not pay to park.

A majority of the responding trail users indicated they would not be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Rivergreenway Trail.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, a little over half would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually, with almost another one-fourth wiling to pay between $11-20 annually. One-fifth of willing trail users would pay an annual use fee of $21 or more.



Survey Question: If no, what is the primary reason you would not pay a user fee?

Table 56: Reasons Why Trail Users Would Not Pay Annual User Fee

Reason Percentage

Taxes should pay 74.8

Will be able to use it anyway 15.9

Am too poor 7.5

Costs too much already 1.9

Survey Question: What type of expenses did you have related to trail use?

Table 57: Trail User Expenses Related to Trail Use and Group Participation, IF Any

Trail Expenses Percentage

I paid all of my own expenses & no one else’s

66.2

I was part of a group that had no expenses

29.1

Someone else paid my expenses 2.7

I was part of a group that shared expenses

2.0

Most trail users (54.8%) would not be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass to use the trail. 74.8% of those trail users indicated they think taxes should cover the cost of using the trail.

More than 65% of trail users paid their own expenses related to trail use but did not pay expenses of other trail users.



Survey Question: Estimated amount of money spent on relation to the trail on the day of surveyed and during the past 12 months.

Table 58: Average Trail User Expenditures For Trail Use On Day of Intercept and For Annual Use

Expenditure Category Average $

Spent on Day of Survey

Average $ Spent on

Annual Trail Use

Lodging, Motel, Camping, Cabins

0.00 400.00

Equipment (bikes, skates, trailers) 0.00 277.12

Accessories 40.00 135.31

Clothing 0.00 125.00

Entertainment & Attractions 28.33 123.33

Supplies (film, groceries, etc.) 20.00 118.08

Food/Beverage in Restaurants 8.00 65.00

Books, guides, maps 14.50 47.75

Transportation Costs 2.00 35.00

Membership, Subscriptions, & Programs 0.00 23.89

Totals 112.83 1350.48

Only about 20 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $1350.48 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Fort Wayne area creating some economic activity in the community.





Economic issues related to the Rivergreenway trail use included trail user willingness to pay for parking and trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Rivergreenway trail users did not pay for parking, and said they were not willing to pay trail use fees. Most of those trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fee were willing to pay between $5 and $20 annually. Approximately 80% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $1300 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Rivergreenway trail because they include items such as lodging. Because of the small number of responses reliable estimates of the value cannot be developed.



Trail User Demographics

Survey Question: Do you have a disability or handicap?

Table 59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating A Disability

Disabled Percentage

No 97.5

Yes 2.5

Survey Question: If yes, what is your disability?

Table 60: Type of Disability Reported By All Trail Users

Disability Percentage

Hearing Impaired 1.5

Mobility Impaired 1.5

Learning Impaired 0.5

Survey Question: To what race or ethnic group do you belong?

Table 61: Trail User Reported Ethnicity


White not Hispanic 94.3

American Indian/Alaska Native 2.1

Black not Hispanic 1.6

Other 1.6

Hispanic 0.5

3.5% of trail users have a disability, the nature of which is learning, mobility or hearing impairment.

A large majority of trail users responding to the follow-up survey were white, non-Hispanic.



Survey Question: What is the highest educational level that you have attained?

Table 62: Completed Education Level As Reported By Trail Users

Education PercentageGrade/Elementary 0.5

Some High School 1.0

High School 10.8

Some tech School 4.6

Some College 23.1

College Graduate 41.5

Masters 13.8

Doctoral 4.6

Survey Question: What is your present or most recent occupation?

Table 63: Trail User Reported Occupation

Occupation PercentageIndustry/Technology/Trades 25.0

Business/Clerical/Management 23.8

Health/Human Services/Clergy 15.5

Education 12.5

Homemaker/Retired 10.1

Sales 5.4

Food Service 3.6

Science 1.8

Student 1.2

Attorney 0.6

Music 0.6

The majority of trail users (59.9%) have obtained a college degree or an advanced college degree.

Individuals in the fields of Business/Clerical/ Management, and Industry/Technology/ Trades accounted for the two largest percentages of trail users.



Survey Question: Which of the following best describes your total household income in 1999?

Table 64: Trail User Annual Income Level By Percentage

Annual Income Percentage

<20.000 7.8

20-39,000 26.8

40-59,000 29.6

60-79,000 18.4

<80,000 17.3

The income of trail users ranges predominantly between $20,000-$59,000


Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Fort Wayne were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of Fort Wayne’s economy. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, college educated users earning between $20,000 and $59,000 annually. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with hearing impairment and mobility impairment being the most common disabilities.



Trail Neighbor Survey Results

The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Fort Wayne Park and Recreation Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along the Rivergreenway Trail (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Allen County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Rivergreenway Trail.

All trail neighbors were mailed a survey, with a cover letter, requesting their participation. The survey was designed so that the back cover contained a business reply-mailing panel and neighbors could place an enclosed sticker on the survey and drop it in any U.S. Postal Service mailbox after completion. Follow-up reminder postcards were sent to all trail users approximately 2 ½ weeks after the original mailing. A reminder mailing of another survey and cover letter was sent to those trail neighbors who did not respond to the original mailing and reminder post card. Of 478 trail neighbors, 82 eventually returned the survey resulting in a response rate of 17%.

The Trail Neighbor Survey was divided up into various topical sections. In the first section, trail neighbors were asked about their property and its relationship to the trail.

Survey Question: Where is the trail in relation to your property?

Table 65: Trail Relationship to Property

Location Percentage

The trail is near but not touching my property

76.3

The trail runs along the edge of my property

23.7

The trail runs through my property 0.0

Don’t Know 0.0

76.3% of adjacent property is near but not touching the trail.



Survey Question: About how large is your property?

Table 66: Percentage of Neighboring Property Size In Acres

Acres Percentage

.01-.25 48.9

.26-.50 19.2

.51-.75 4.2

.76-1.0 16.0

1.01-2.0 3.2

2.01-4.0 6.4

>4.0 2.1

Survey Question: How is your property used?

Table 67: Neighboring Property Uses

Use Percentage

Residential 89.1

Commercial 10.1

Other (Church)

0.8

Cropland 0.0

Pasture 0.0

Undeveloped 0.0

The majority of property adjacent to the Rivergreenway Trail is under 1 acre in size. The average size of neighboring property is 15,257 square feet for smaller properties under 1 acre, and 9.09 acres for properties over 1 acre in size.

Neighboring property is used primarily for residential purposes, reflecting the location of the Rivergreenway trail through residential areas of Fort Wayne.



Survey Question: Is there a single family home on your property?

Table 68: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Property For Single Family Home

Single Family Percentage

Yes 82.2

No 17.8

Survey Question: Which of the following most accurately describes how you use this house?

Table 69: Percent of Trail Neighbors using Dwelling Unit as Principle Residence

How Used PercentagePrinciple Residence 96.9

Rental 2.1

Second Home 1.0

Unoccupied 0.0

Survey Question: How far is the residence from the nearest part of the trail?

Table 70: Distance from Trail In Feet

Distance From Trail Percentage

0-100 87.5

100-200 12.5

200-300 0.0

A majority of the adjacent property is residential. There is a single family dwelling on 82.2% of trail neighbors’ property, almost 97% of which are occupied as a principle residence, and are located within 200 feet of the trail.



Survey Question: Which part of the house faces the trail?

Table 71: Direction Dwelling Unit Faces In Relation to Trail

Facing Percentage

Front 63.9

Side 18.6

Back 17.5

The majority of neighboring properties have the trail in the front of the house.

Summary and Implication – Trail Neighbor Survey

Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Rivergreenway Trail neighboring properties were largely residential lots, less than one acre in size, and used primarily for single family residential uses. Over ½ the properties were within 200 feet of the trail and faced into the trail right of way.



In Section 2 of the trail neighbor survey, trail neighbors were asked how they felt about the potential public benefits of the trail. The question asked the respondents to rate their opinion of the benefits based upon a seven-point scale with 1 being “not at all important” to 7 being “extremely important.”

Survey Question: How important are these public benefits?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 72: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Rivergreenway Trail

Issue

Aesthetic Beauty 1 Not At All 6.16

7 Extremely

Preserving Open space 1 Not At All 5.80 7

Extremely

Health & Fitness

1 Not At All 5.77 7

Extremely

Community Pride 1 Not At All 5.76 7

Extremely

Access For Disabled Persons 1 Not At All 5.64 7

Extremely

Nature Education 1 Not At All 5.62 7

Extremely

Public Recreation

1 Not At All 5.41 7

Extremely

Alternative Transportation 1 Not At All 4.73 7

Extremely


1 Not At All 4.14 7

Extremely


Trail neighbors rated preserving open space, aesthetic beauty, health and fitness, and community pride as the most important public benefits of the Rivergreenway trail.



In Section 3 of the trail neighbor survey, trail neighbors were asked how satisfied they felt about specific trail management issues, on a seven-point scale with 1 being “not at all satisfied” to 7 being “extremely satisfied”.

Survey Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with…

Not At All Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 73: Trail Neighbor Satisfaction With The Trail and Trail Management Issues

Issue

Trail as a Neighbor 1 Not At All 5.56 7

ExtremelyNatural surroundings of the trail

1 Not At All 5.09 7

ExtremelyAgency responsiveness to reported problems

1 Not At All 4.38 7

Extremely

Parking facilities for trail users 1 Not At All 4.29 7

ExtremelyMaintenance of the trail

1 Not At All 4.26 7

Extremely

Ranger/Safety patrols 1 Not At All 4.09 7

Extremely

Survey Question: When you first found out that there was going to be a trail near your property, how did you feel about the idea?

Table 74: Trail Neighbor Initial Attitude Toward Trail

Feeling PercentageVery opposed to 5.6

More opposed to 2.8

Somewhat opposed to 2.8

Neither less or more opposed to 25.0

Somewhat supportive of 22.2

More supportive of 11.1

Very supportive of 30.6

Mean Satisfaction RatingTrail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for having the trail as a neighbor, the natural surroundings of the trail and the agency responsiveness to problems. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Fort Wayne.

The majority (63.9%) of trail neighbors’ initial attitudes toward the trail were supportive. One-fourth of trail neighbors expressed an initially neutral attitude toward the trail



Survey Question: Would you say that living near the trail is better or worse than expected, when compared to your first reaction?

Table 75:Current Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward trail Compared With First Reaction

Neighbor Attitude Percentage

Much worse than expected 5.4

Worse than expected 2.7

Somewhat worse than expected 9.5

Neither more or less than expected 24.3

Somewhat better than expected 23.0

Better than expected 24.3

Much better than expected 10.8

Survey Question: How do you feel the trail has affected the quality of your neighborhood?

Table 76: Trail Neighbor Attitude Of Trail Affect On Neighborhood Quality

Quality Affect Percentage

Reduced quality 5.4

Lowered quality 2.7

Somewhat lowered quality 2.7

Neither reduced or improved quality 20.3

Somewhat improved quality 23.0

Added to quality 24.3

Improved quality 21.6

More than 58% of adjacent property owners indicated living near the trail is better than expected.

Over 68% of respondents indicated the trail resulted in some level of improvement in neighborhood quality.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey

Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Rivergreenway Trail Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Rivergreenway trail with 68% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail improved the quality of their neighborhood. More than 58% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Rivergreenway trail was better than expected. A large proportion of trail neighbors were neutral in their opinion on the trail. These levels of approval are very similar to those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that only 11.2% of them were opposed to the trail to some degree. With only 10.8% of the trail neighbors expressing the attitude that the trail has had a reduced or lowered effect on neighborhood quality of life, it may be surmised that initial reaction to the Rivergreenway trail has remained fairly constant. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits of the Rivergreenway trail were similar to those of trail users. While preservation of open space, aesthetic beauty, and health and fitness were the top rated public benefits to trail neighbors; health and fitness, public recreation, and aesthetic beauty were the top three rated benefits by trail users, with community pride rated fourth among both groups. Trail neighbors generally reported satisfaction with the Rivergreenway trail, and expressed most satisfaction with having the trail as a neighbor and the natural surroundings. Trail neighbors expressed lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of ranger/safety patrols, trail maintenance and parking facilities.



Section 4 of the survey was designed to determine how trail neighbors felt that their property values have been affected by the trail.

Survey Question: How do you think that being near the trail has affected resale value of this property?

Table 77: Neighbor Opinion on The Effect of the Trail On Resale Value of Their Property

Effect Percentage

No effect on resale value 65.5

Increased resale value 26.4

Lowered the resale value 8.2

Survey Question: By what percent do you think being near the trail has raised or lowered the value of this property?

Table 78: Neighbor Opinion of Effect on Resale Value

Percentage Effect Percentage

.1-3% 33.3

3.1-5% 22.2

5.1-8% 8.3

8.1-10% 11.1

10.1-15% 16.7

> 15% 8.3

It appears the trail has very little effect on perceived resale value of adjacent property

The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. Just over one-fourth of respondents indicated they felt the trail had increased the resale value of their property, while only 8.2% felt the trail had lowered their property value.



Survey Question: If you were to try to sell this property, do you think being near the trail will make it harder or easier to sell?

Table 79: Trail Neighbor Opinion On Salability of Property Due To Proximity To Trail

Salability Percentage

Much easier to sell 9.5

More easy to sell 12.9

Somewhat easier to sell 24.1

Neither easier or more difficult to sell 45.7

Somewhat less easy to sell 3.4

Less easy to sell 2.6

Much harder to sell 1.7

In the next section, Section 5, trail neighbors were asked if the trail affected their decision to purchase the property. Respondents were only asked to respond to this question based upon whether or not they had purchased the property after the trail was opened. The date of the trail opening was provided with the survey.

Survey Question: How did the presence of the trail affect your decision to buy property?

Table 80: Effect of Trail on Decision to Purchase

Trail Presence Percentage

Reduced appeal 11.6

Neither more or less appealing 51.2

Somewhat more appealing 16.3

More appealing 14.0

Added to appeal 7.0

The opinion of a majority of adjacent property owners is that the Rivergreenway trail either has no effect or increases salability. A very small percentage of trail neighbors indicated that proximity to the trail would make it more difficult to sell the property.

The majority of trail neighbors (51.2%) who purchased property along the trail after it opened indicated the presence of the trail had no effect on the appeal of the property in their decision to buy. However, a significant percentage (37.3%) indicated the trail increased the appeal of the property in their decision to buy.



Survey Question: Now that you have purchased the property, how supportive are you of the trail?

Table 81: Trail Neighbor Support of Trail After Purchasing Property

Trail Supportiveness Percentage

Very opposed to 7.3






The presence of the trail did not influence the decision of most property purchases, yet 67.3% of current property owners are supportive of the trail.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the Rivergreenway trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. Just over one-fourth of respondents indicated they felt the trail had increased the resale value of their property, while only 8.2% felt the trail had lowered their property value. However, in either case, the effect was largely believed to be less than 10% of the resale value. Trail neighbors also felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would make it easier to sell their property with 46.5% of the neighbors indicating some degree of support for this concept. An equally large grouping of trail neighbors indicated that the trail would not affect salability of the property. Only 7.7% of trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property. For those individuals purchasing property by the Rivergreenway trail after it was constructed, a significant group (37.3%) indicated trail proximity as an appealing factor in their decision to purchase the property. After purchasing the property, over 65% of trail neighbors are supportive, to some degree, of the Rivergreenway Trail.



In Section 6, trail neighbors were asked if their opinions regarding the trail have changed since the trail opened and the public began to use the trail. The trail neighbors rated problems using a 7-point scale with 1 being “less of a problem” and 7 being “more of a problem.”

Survey Question: Indicate your opinion regarding trail changes since it was opened to the public.

Table 82: Opinions of Problems Associated with Trail Users

Problem

Litter 1 Less 4.11 7

More

Lack of maintenance 1 Less 3.76 7

More

Loitering 1 Less 3.73 7

More

Dog Manure 1 Less 3.50 7

More

Lack of Privacy 1 Less 3.50 7

More

Vandalism 1 Less 3.33 7

More

Unleashed/ roaming pets 1 Less 3.33 7

More

Discourteous/ rude users 1 Less 3.30 7

More

Illegal vehicles 1 Less 3.24 7

More

Cars Parking 1 Less 3.22 7

More

Trespassing 1 Less 3.20 7

More

Burglary 1 Less 3.13 7

More

Noise 1 Less 3.09 7

More

Animal Harassment 1 Less 3.07 7

More

Fruits/vegetables picked 1 Less 2.83 7

More

Asking to use Bathroom, phone 1 Less 2.63 7

More

Mean Problem Level RatingTrail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Fort Wayne trail neighbors indicated a reduction in requests to use restrooms/phone, crop damage, animal harassment and noise since the trail was opened to the public.



In Section 7 of the trail neighbor survey, adjacent property owners were asked what problems they may have experienced in the past year.

Survey Question: Indicate if you have experienced the following problems in the last year.

Table 83: Number of Trail Neighbors Reporting Specific Problems Occurred In Past Year

Problem No. Of Neighbors Reporting

Illegal Vehicles 35

Littering 33

Unleashed Pets 25

Trespassing 17

Noise from trail 24

Loitering 23

Vandalism 11

Harass Animals 14

Rude Users 20

Privacy 13

Burglary 14

Illegal Parking 16

Maintenance 17

Dog Manure 26

Request phone 6

Crops damaged 6

Drainage 1

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently occurring problem reported by different trail neighbors was littering. Dog manure, lack of trail maintenance, harassing of animals and unleashed pets were problems that were reported as consistent and frequent problems with the adjacent trail.




Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward Trail, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Rivergreenway trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Fort Wayne indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development including requests to use bathrooms, lack of maintenance to the public property, crop damage, dog manure and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented by other agencies. It should be noted that an increased lack of privacy, increased noise, and increased issues with parking and illegal vehicle users were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. Specific problems reported by trail neighbors focused largely on littering, unleashed pets, lack of trail maintenance and dog manure. These consistently reported problems might help focus City of Ft. Wayne’s response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Rivergreenway Trail.



In Section 8, trail neighbors were asked to provide information about themselves and their households in order to assist in better understanding the issues affecting them.

Survey Question: Did you use the trail at least once during the past 12 months?

Table 84: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used the Rivergreenway Trail in Past 12 Months

Used Trail Percentage

Yes 76.2

Survey Question: If yes, on average how many days/week did you use the trail in winter/spring/summer/fall?

Table 85: Average Number of Days/Week Trail Neighbors Use Trail By Season

Seasons of Year Average No. Days Used

Summer 3.01

Fall 2.73

Spring 2.67

Winter 1.92

A majority of trail neighbors (76.2%) responding to the survey indicated they had used the trail at least once in the past 12 months.

The average number of days that neighbors utilize the trail each week varies slightly between spring and fall, with a drop off in use in the winter months.



Survey Question: How many members of your household from each of the following age categories have used the trail during the last 12 months and what was the purpose of use?

Table 86: Age of Individuals in Household

Age Group Number in

Age Category

Primary Purpose of Use

12 & Under 23 Recreation

13 to 18 11 Recreation



45 to 65 42 Recreation/Health

Over 66 12 Health

Recreation and health were the primary purposes of trail use by trail neighbors. Generally, the younger the member of the household the more likely their primary purpose of the trail will be exclusively for recreation.



Survey Question: What is your gender?

Table 87: Gender

Gender Percentage

Male 52.5

Female 47.5


Table 88: Grouped Age Categories

Grouped Ages

Percentage

25-35 12.4

36-45 22.7

46-55 37.1

56-65 15.0

66-75 8.0

76-85 3.5

Over 85 0.9

Most trail neighbor survey respondents were between 46-55 years of age. The average age of the trail neighbor survey respondent was 50 years.



Summary and Implications --- Trail Neighbor Survey

Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with over 76% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring through fall time period being the highest use level at approximately 3 days of use every week (approximately 115 days of use annually). Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by all age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose for younger participants and health/fitness and recreation being the primary trail use purposes for older trail neighbors. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were equally divided by gender and on average were 50 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Rivergreenway Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the greenway trail system in Ft. Wayne as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Ft. Wayne Rivergreenway Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Rivergreenway Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Rivergreenway approaches 28,000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use on weekdays after 5pm, and varying between 2-6pm on weekends depending upon the month of the year.

2) Trail users are predominantly white, middle-aged, and more

likely to be mail.

3) A large proportion of trail users have become more active because of the creation of the trail. Generally, trail users viewed the trail as an important part of an active lifestyle.

4) Proximity to the trail appears to be an important factor in trail

use with the vast majority of users living within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail.

5) Rivergreenway trail users overall are satisfied with the trail. It

positively affects their view of Ft. Wayne as a community and positively affects their quality of life.

6) Trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the public

benefits provided by the trail, such as preservation of open space, natural surroundings, health and recreation.



7) Trail users, in general, experienced few problems on the trail and felt safe. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of bike patrols, lights and phones.

8) Most trail users are not willing to pay a user fee to use the trail.

A small number of users reported moderate expenditures on equipment, accessories and other goods and services related to trail usage.

9) Rivergreenway trail users represent a wide variety of trades

and occupations. 10) Rivergreenway trail neighbors generally have a positive

attitude toward the trail and feel it has improved the quality of their neighborhood.

11) Trail neighbors were satisfied with the public benefits provided

by the trail. 12) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail and feel it has had

neither a positive nor negative effect on the value and salability of their home.

13) In general, problems experienced by trail neighbors have

decreased since development of the trail for public use. 14) The majority of trail neighbors are also trail users. Trail

neighbors use the trail approximately 3 days per week, especially during spring, summer, and fall.


MAPLE CITY GREENWAY TRAIL GOSHEN, IN

December, 2001




Maple City Greenway Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Maple City Greenway Trail in Goshen, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Goshen Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trail Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study: J. Richard Faye Superintendent

Nov. 1993-Feb. 2001 Department of Parks and Recreation

Cordy Copenhaver Administrative Services Coord. Department of Parks and RecreationShannon Macke Recreation Supervisor Department of Parks and RecreationAndrea Houghton Recreation Coordinator Department of Parks and Recreation Dr. David Koronkiewicz President Park Board Dr. Larry Beachy Vice President Park Board Maynard Hartsough Member Park Board Michael Dragoo Member Park Board Robert Saldivar Member, through Dec. 2000 Park Board Allan Kauffman Mayor City of Goshen






Maple City Greenway Trail, Goshen, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 Characteristics of Goshen Area ................................................ 3 History of Maple City Greenway Trail ........................................ 4 Map of Maple City Greenway Trail System ............................... 5 Methodology.............................................................................. 6 Trail Counts............................................................................... 8 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 8 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 10 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 11 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 12 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 13 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 14 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 23 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 24 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 24 Summary and Implications................................... 30 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 31 Summary and Implications................................... 35 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 36 Summary and Implications................................... 40 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 41 Summary and Implications................................... 46 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 47 Summary and Implications................................... 50 Trail User Demographics................................................ 51 Summary and Implications................................... 53 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 54 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 54 Summary and Implications................................... 57 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 58 Summary and Implications................................... 61 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 62 Summary and Implications................................... 64 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 65 Summary and Implications................................... 67 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 68 Summary and Implications................................... 71 Conclusions ............................................................................. 72


Maple City Greenway Page 1 Goshen, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Maple City Greenway in Goshen.


Page 2 Maple City Greenway Goshen, IN











Characteristics of Goshen Area Goshen stands today in what was once the heart of the Miami Indian Territory. The area was first explored by Sieur de La Salle about 1680, and as a result of his exploration and peaceful negotiations with the Indians, the French followed him into the territory and settled several years later. During the French and Indian War, they were displaced in power by the English. Later, George Rogers Clark conquered the territory in the name of the U.S. Continental Congress, but it was not until about 50 years after Clark's conquest that the site of the city itself was permanently settled.

Early pioneers came from many regions and by many different routes. There were some from New England and the southern states, but by and large the greatest percentage came from Ohio and Pennsylvania. Among the early arrivals (about 1840) were many Amish who brought with them religious beliefs and distinctive, almost unchanging, social and religious customs that are evident even today. Although there is some question, it is generally accepted that the city derived its name from an early settler who had emigrated from Goshen, New York. This name was officially adopted in 1831; at the same time, Goshen was named the seat of Elkhart County.

Business in the early days was largely confined to flour mills, planing mills, woolen mills, general stores, taverns, distilleries and cooperages. The first of these – a water mill - was established in 1832, a year after the first church was built in Goshen. In 1837, two newspapers were founded, each expressing opposing political views.

The first school was not established within the Goshen city limits until 1840. There had been a number of early rural schools in operation near Goshen before this, but within the city itself, classes had been conducted in homes and churches. Goshen is now home to Goshen College and a population of 29,383, with a significant Hispanic population of 19.3%.

The Goshen community is a thriving place with 17 parks, local recreation services, a healthy business economy, including the manufactured home industry, and a high quality of life. In 1995, the U.S. Conference of Mayors named Goshen one of the “Most Livable Cities” in the United States.



History of Maple City Greenway Trail The Goshen trail system (Maple City Greenway) incorporates existing trails, abandoned railroad corridors, existing parks, utility easements and city streets. Opened in 1996, the system links together a majority of Goshen's schools, parks, and natural, historic, and cultural resources; it also ties into other trails being developed within Elkhart County, most notably the Pumpkinvine Trail. When completed, over 15 miles of trail will link all areas of the Goshen community. At the heart of the Greenway is the meandering Elkhart River and the historic Mill Race hydraulic canal, built in the late 1860's to provide energy for local industry. As the trail parallels the canal, it passes through some of the most scenic natural areas and wildlife habitat in Elkhart County, including Shoup-Parsons Woods where Goshen College biologists have catalogued 174 species of birds, the most found in any single Indiana area. The trail passes through the city's historic industrial core and alongside neighborhoods and parks accessed by several bridges that cross the canal. The system also includes a three-mile trail that meanders along Rock Run Creek, crossing the creek on a new footbridge and two rehabilitated railroad bridges, and connects to the Pumpkinvine regional trail. At the present time, three phases of the system have been implemented: the Mill Race Trail (Phase One), the Central City Trail (Phase Two), and the Pumpkinvine Trail (Phase Four). The Waterford Trail (Phase Three) is currently under construction; it will connect the southern part of the City, a rapidly developing residential area, and Goshen College into the system. The trail study focused on trail use along the Mill Race Trail.



Map of Maple City Greenway





are called, through mail survey Trail counts were conducted using infrared trail counters placed at various locations on each trail throughout the months of September, and October. The infrared trail counters were installed on utility poles or trees in an alignment that allowed trail users of all types (walker, bicyclists, joggers, runners, in-line skaters, etc.) to “break” the infrared light beam projected from a transmission unit to a receiving unit. Every time a user crossed in front of the transmission unit, the infrared light beam was broken, thus causing the receiving unit to record the date and time of the “event”. One (1) infrared reflective counter was used in Goshen with downloadable data capacity of 8,000 events recorded by date and time. Staff downloaded data from the counter throughout the study months. Since the infrared trail counter technology was relatively new, the number of events recorded by the counters was validated in a study conducted by Dr. Greg Lindsey, Research Director for the Indiana Trails Study, on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis. By observing trail users at the trail counter location, recording date, time and number of trail users, Dr. Lindsey and his students were able to compare the actual number of trail users with those recorded by the infrared counter unit. This related study found that the infrared trail counter undercounted trail users by approximately 15%. Survey of trail users was completed through intercepts/stops of trail users during one week each in July and August; in four locations (L1-L4 in the following table) on each trail over 3 periods in a day. The intercept survey was designed as a two-stage survey where every nth adult user was asked if they would participate in a short interview followed up by a more extensive mail survey. Stop rotations on each trail were scheduled as below.



Trail Counts Estimates of total traffic on the Mill Race Trail in Goshen in September and October 2000 are 10,530 and 9,107, respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. The October estimate is an extrapolation based on approximately 13 days of data. Estimates of the number of different users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Daily Trail Traffic

G1. Daily Trail Traffic (Goshen Trail, September 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

G2. Daily Trail Traffic (Goshen Trail, October 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Counters recorded trail use on 43 days in September and October (Figures G1 and G2). Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about six. Daily traffic in September ranged from a low of 113 on Friday, September 1 to a high of 804 on Sunday, September 17. The range of daily traffic in October (among days for which full counts are available) was essentially the same, ranging from a low of 137 on Thursday, October 5 to a high of 830 on October 1.

Day of Month

Day of Month



Although analyses of the causes of variability are beyond the scope of this study, the variability in daily traffic generally can be accounted for by user preferences, weather, and other factors.

G3. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Goshen Trail, September 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

G4. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Goshen Trail, October 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Figures G3 and G4 present average daily traffic for the Mill Race Trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of 2.4, ranging from a low of 211 on Fridays to a high on Sundays of 513. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 2.7, ranging from a low of 198 on Thursdays to a high on Sundays of 542. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Sundays in both months.

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Hourly Trail Traffic Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures G5-G10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekday days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the workweek are examined.

G5. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (GoshenTrail, September 2000)

0

20

40

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Weekends

Weekdays

G6. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (GoshenTrail, October 2000)

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Weekends

Weekdays

The patterns shown in Figures G5 and G6 reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work. Weekday hourly use peaks in later afternoon/early evening following the workday.

In general, average hourly trail traffic followed different patterns on weekends and weekdays (Figures G5-G6). On weekends, average hourly trail traffic increased steadily from about 6:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m., leveled off until early afternoons, peaked in mid to late afternoons, and then declined in early evenings. On weekdays, average hourly trail traffic leveled off earlier, by about 8:00 a.m., remained relatively constant until late afternoon, peaked in early evening, and then dropped off rapidly. Peak average hourly use on weekends occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in September and between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. in October. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 11.2 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively, of average weekend daily use. Peak average hourly use on weekdays occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in both September and October. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 11.6 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively of average weekday use.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic Weekend patterns of average hourly use differed on Saturdays and Sundays (G7 and G8). Although overall use was higher on Sundays, hourly traffic on Sunday mornings was lower than hourly traffic on Saturdays. Conversely, afternoon traffic was much higher on Sundays than Saturdays. These differences likely reflect people’s adjustment of use around church and other activities.

G7. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Goshen Trail, September 2000)

01020304050607080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

SundaysSaturdays

G8. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Goshen Trail, October 2000)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day




G9. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Goshen Trail, September 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


G10. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Goshen Trail, October 2000)

0102030405060

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hour (G9 and G10). In general, hourly traffic was relatively constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings. In September, the peak average hourly traffic occurred between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on Mondays, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays, 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, and 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. In October, peak average hourly traffic occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 162 in September and 148 in October, or approximately 2 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 84 in September and 56 in October, or approximately 1 to 2 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Summary and Implications – Trail Use Counts In sum, counts show consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Saturday morning use is higher than Sunday morning use while; conversely, Sunday afternoon use exceeds Saturday afternoon use. Additional analyses of the effects of weather on patterns of use would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Surveys

The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Goshen Maple City Greenway. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 334 trail users intercepted on the Maple City Greenway and agreed to be surveyed.



Activity Percentage

Bicycle 40.2

Walk 39.0

Run/Jog 19.9

Skate 0.3

Fish/Run Dog 0.6



Travel Method

Percentage

Drive 39.6

Bicycle 29.9

Walk 27.4

Run 2.7

Skate 0.3

The vast majority of Goshen trail users intercepted were either bicycling or walking. More than 40% of people intercepted on the trail were bicycling while 39% of the trail users were walking.

Almost 40% of people intercepted drove to the trail. Bicycling and walking were each used by more than 25% of trail users.





Time to Trail (minutes)

Percentage

0-10 79.1

11-20 15.1

21-40 4.6

41-60 0.9

61-90 0.3

Over 90 0.0



Distance to trail (miles)

Percentage

0-1 52.6

2-4 28.3

5-8 13.3

9-12 3.1

13-15 1.2

16-20 0.6

Over 20 0.6

The majority of trail users in Goshen were within 10 minutes of the trail. Almost 80% of intercepted trail users traveled than 10 minutes to the trail.

More than 50% of respondents lived within one mile of the trail. More than 80% of the trail users lived within 4 miles of the Goshen trails.




Table 5: Time Spent On Trail

Time on Trail (minutes)

Percentage

0-30 49.8

31-60 39.9

61-90 7.0

91-120 2.1

121-150 0.0

151-180 0.6

Over 180 0.6



Miles Covered

Percentage

0-2 29.5

3-5 59.9

6-8 6.9

9-12 2.1

Over 12 1.6

Approximately 90% of trail users spend at least 60 minutes on the trail with the average time spent on the trail being 44.9 minutes for all trail users.

Estimates of trail miles differ considerably with travel mode. In this case, almost 90% of all Goshen trail users estimated they traveled up to 5 miles on their visit. The average miles covered by trail users on the Goshen trail was 3.31 miles.




Table 7: Were The Entrance and Exit At The Same location

Entrance/ Exit Same Location

Percentage

Yes 81.3

No 18.8



Combined Visits

Percentage

No 72.3

Yes 27.7

Personal 12.0

Shopping 9.0

Business 4.8

Dining 3.9

Other 0.3

The majority, more than 80%, of all trail users entered and exited the trail at the same access point.

27.7% of trail users combine their visits to the trail with trips to other places. Personal business and shopping are the most frequent stops combined with trail use.






Less than 15 years 52

16 to 25 years 61

26 to 35 years 54

36 to 45 years 69

46 to 55 years 84

56 to 65 years 53

Over 66 years 34




No 92.7

Yes 7.3





Recreation 32.4

Commute 4.2

Lunch 0.3

Trail users are fairly evenly spread between the age categories.

More than 90 % of the respondents used the trail before the day they were intercepted.

It appears health and exercise were the primary purposes for trail use. More than 90% indicated the main purpose was either recreation or exercise.





Visit Other Purpose

Percentage

Health/exercise 55.9

Recreation 36.8

Commute 7.4



Walk, Run, Cycle, or Skate More

Percentage

Yes 70.5

No 29.5

People walk/run/cycle/skate more because of the trail.

More than 55% of trail users, who indicated multiple purposes for visiting the trail, cited Health/Exercise as a secondary purpose visiting the trail.



Survey Question: If you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because the trail exists, about how many minutes per week do you (walk/run/cycle/skate) because this trail exists.



10-60 36.1

60-120 28.8

120-180 14.3

180-240 7.4

240-300 8.9

300-360 2.0

360-420 1.0

420-480 1.0

Over 480 0.5

Survey Question: If you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because the trail exists, did you (walk/run/cycle/skate) at all before the trail was created?


Active Before Trail

Percentage

Yes 78.6

No 21.4

A majority of trail users walk/run/cycle/skate an additional 10-60 minutes each week because the trail exists. The average time spent on the trail per week was 130.9 minutes.

While most of the users who were surveyed were active before the trail was created, more than 21% of trail users initiated their activity after the trail was created.




Table 16: Grouped Age of Intercept Respondents


16-25 18.6

26-35 15.1

36-45 19.5

46-55 22.4

56-65 14.1

Over 66 10.3



Gender Percentage

Male 56.8

Female 43.2

Trail users surveyed represented all age categories fairly evenly with the exception of those users over 66 years old. The average age of the intercepted trail user was 43.5 years.







Caucasian 90.9

Hispanic 5.7

Black 1.3

Asian 0.9

Not sure 1.3



Observed Activity

Percentage

Bicycle 41.1

Walk 39.5

Running 18.5

Fishing 0.6

Skate 0.3

A majority of trail users are Caucasian, while more than 5% of users were of Hispanic descent.

Bicycling and walking were the activities most frequently observed by the surveyor on the day of intercepts.





Time of Day Surveyed

Percentage

6-9 AM 20.1

9-12 AM 23.0

12-3 PM 20.8

3-6 PM 28.8

6-9 PM 7.3

Intercept surveys were fairly equally distributed between 6am and 6pm.

Summary and Implications – Intercept Surveys Trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical percentages. A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Maple City Greenway, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trails creation (over 20%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (over 27%) such as exercise and shopping, or recreation and other personal uses. Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 80% of Maple City Greenway trails being within 10 minutes or 4 miles of the trail. Approximately 80% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location. A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (63%) and recreation (32.4%) purposes, with a notable percentage utilizing the trail for commuting purposes (4.2%). Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (21.4%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (8.4%), added approximately 2 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow-Up Survey



180 intercepted trail users indicated they would complete the “follow-up” survey of which 127 completed and returned the survey. The response rate for this portion of the Goshen survey was 70.6%.



Activity Percentage

Walking 43.7

Bicycle 43.7

Run/Jog 10.3

Skating 2.4







Word of Mouth 19.7

Newspaper 18.0

Neighbor 17.2

Happened On It

12.3

Don't Remember

6.6

Relatives 6.6

Friend/founder 2.5

College 1.6

Group 0.8

Brochures 0.8





Done Something different 5.6

Almost 60% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.

Press coverage from the newspaper accounted for 18% of the responses to this survey question.

Responses to this question overwhelmingly indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Maple City Greenway Trails.






Streets/Sidewalks 72.3

Another Trail 16.0

Stay Home 10.9

Gym/Rec. Center 0.8




No 99.2

Yes 0.8




No 99.2

Yes 0.8

Almost 95% of respondents would have continued participating in their selected or favored activity on streets and sidewalks if the trail had not been available to them.

Only one respondent indicated they were visiting the trail as part of an overnight trip.

The same respondent said the trail was part of the reason for visiting the city.






0-10 24.4

11-20 15.9

21-30 5.9

31-40 3.8

41-50 3.8

51-60 9.3

61-70 4.3

71-100 0.0

101-120 11.8

120-150 2.5

151-200 10.1

201-300 5.0

>300 3.4

The largest percentage of responding trail users (24.4%) visited the trail less than 10 times in the past 12 months. However, half the users reported 41-50 user visits or more.






Novice 2.5

Intermediate 62.8

Expert 34.7





Less Important 0.0

Somewhat Important 2.5

Neither Less or More Important 9.0

Somewhat More Important 20.5

More Important 27.9

Extremely Important 40.2


More than 85% of respondents indicate their activity has some level of importance to them, while 40.2% indicate the activity is extremely important.







Less Important 1.7




More Important 30.6


More than 80% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with over 25% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Characteristics Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Goshen Maple City Greenway trails closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys including activity preferences. Notably, more than 90% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity. Trail users in Goshen indicated a fairly advanced skill level with almost 100% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 78 days annually on average, for respondents. Over 20% of users reporting they used the trail in excess of at least 120 days in the past year. Generally speaking, no trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Goshen. 99% of the trail users indicated they did not stay overnight or visit Goshen primarily to use the trail. This fact is reflective of the fact that 60% of the respondents learned of the trail through some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors. Only 18% of the users indicated they learned of the trail from press coverage of some type. Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Over 80% of all respondents indicated the activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation. In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Maple City Greenway trails, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. 99% of trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.



Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles




Very Unsatisfied 0.0




Very Satisfied 56.2

It’s Perfect 20.7

Survey Question: Has using this trail affected your view of the area or city? How has this trail affected your view?


View 0f City Percentage

Yes 80.0

No 20.0

Much Less Favorable 0.0

Less Favorable 0.0

More Favorable 52.0

Much more Favorable 48.0

The responses to this question indicated considerable satisfaction with the Goshen trail. Almost 77% of the respondents indicated they were very or extremely satisfied with the trail. It is interesting to note that no trail users expressed any level of dissatisfaction with the trail.

Respondents indicated the Maple City Greenway trail has improved their view of the city of Goshen. Of those trail users indicating that their view of the city had changed positively, 100% of these users indicated some degree of favorable attitude change toward the city of Goshen.



Survey Question: I would prefer to spend more time on the trail if I could.



Strongly Disagree 0.0

Disagree Less 0.0

Somewhat Disagree 106

Neither Disagree or Agree 18.3

Somewhat Agree 33.3

Agree More 23.0

Strongly Agree 23.8



Time Could Be Spent Elsewhere

Percentage


Disagree Less 21.0

Somewhat Disagree 21.8


Somewhat Agree 10.5

Agree More 8.1

Strongly Agree 2.4

Most trail users would spend more time on the trail if possible. Specifically, over 69% of all trail users responding to the follow up survey indicated some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with almost one-fourth of respondents strongly agreeing with a desire to spend more time on the trail.

More than 50% of respondents indicated that the time they spent on the trail could not be easily spent somewhere else. This response appears to imply that trail users value the time spent on the trail, and view the use of their time on the trail as a high priority.



Survey Question: A major reason I now live where I do is that this trail is nearby.

Table 35: Trail User Opinion On The Trail As A Major Reason for Location of Domicile



Disagree Less 17.7



Somewhat Agree 7.3

Agree More 6.5

Strongly Agree 10.5

Survey Question: I am very attached to this trail

Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Their Attachment to The Maple City Greenway Trail



Disagree Less 4.7



Somewhat Agree 25.2

Agree More 16.5

Strongly Agree 26.0

A majority of trail users (67.3%) indicated that the trail is not a major reason for their current choice of residential location.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Maple City Greenway trail with over 71% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.



Survey Question: I find that a lot of my life is organized around this trail.




Disagree Less 14.2



Somewhat Agree 12.6

Agree More 6.3

Strongly Agree 6.3


Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward Goshen Maple City Trail Comparison to Other Trails



Disagree Less 15.3



Somewhat Agree 12.1

Agree More 5.6

Strongly Agree 7.3

Approximately 25% of trail users indicated that their lives were organized around the trail, with one-fifth of respondents indicating a neutral response. A significant number of trail users responding (63.5%) disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail.

Trail users seem to indicate that other trails either compare favorably to the Maple City Greenway trails or are neutral in their comparisons.



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Maple City Greenway trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and that their view of Goshen, as a city or community, was positively affected by the trail. 80% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. 69% of responding trail users indicating some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with over 50% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail as important. Reflecting this enthusiasm, 71% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicated they are attached, to some degree, to the Maple City Greenway trail. The Maple City Greenway trail was a factor in organizing about 25% of trail users life, although the majority of trail users responding disagreed with this concept. In addition, over 65% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Maple City Greenway trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively effects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


6.23 7 Extremely


6.11 7 Extremely


6.02 7 Extremely


5.86 7 Extremely


5.85 7 Extremely


5.76 7 Extremely


5.63 7 Extremely


5.39 7 Extremely


5.07 7 Extremely


4.68 7 Extremely


4.68 7 Extremely


4.63 7 Extremely


4.57 7 Extremely


4.33 7 Extremely


4.32 7 Extremely


3.70 7 Extremely


3.63 7 Extremely

Mean Importance Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that most of the factors at the right were important. They considered historic points of interest and adequate parking facilities to be less important. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.





1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


6.33 7 Extremely


6.28 7 Extremely


6.03 7 Extremely


6.00 7 Extremely


5.91 7 Extremely


5.89 7 Extremely


5.81 7 Extremely


5.81 7 Extremely


5.81 7 Extremely


5.78 7 Extremely


5.77 7 Extremely


5.74 7 Extremely


5.67 7 Extremely


5.48 7 Extremely


5.25 7 Extremely


4.92 7 Extremely


4.52 7 Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the left were satisfactory on the Goshen trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, and adequacy of ranger/safety patrols. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.



Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Goshen Maple City Greenway Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail.

Importance-Satisfaction Comparison For Maple City Greenway

Crowde

d

WidthSurf

ace

Safety

Maps

Water

Parking

Histori

c

Proxim

ityAde

quate

Acces

s

Vanda

lism

Reckle

ss

Person

al Safe

ty

Safe In

terse

ction

s

Mainten

ance

QuietNatu

ral Surr

ound

ings

1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7

SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

E

Concentrate Here

Low Priority


Possible Overkill

The chart at the left displays the combined mean scores for trail importance and satisfaction factors on a 2-axis grid.




Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Maple City Greenway Trail

Public Benefits Rating Preserving Open Space Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic Beauty Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Community Pride Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tourism & Business Not ExtremelyDevelopment Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alternative Transportation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Health and Fitness Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Access for Disabled Not ExtremelyPersons Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Recreation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Education Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6.00

6.17

6.00

4.12

4.50

6.48

5.37

6.17

5.66



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions Respondents to the Maple City Greenway trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Maple City Greenway Trail included its natural surroundings, quiet setting, proximity to home or office, lack of reckless behavior by trail users, perceived personal safety, safe road and stream intersections, quality of trail maintenance, and lack of trail vandalism. The most important factors for the Maple City Greenway trail and its management included the natural surroundings, quiet settings, perceived personal safety, safe road and stream intersections, quality of trail maintenance, and lack of trail vandalism. Historic points of interest and parking facilities were the least important factors to trail users falling below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in the latter factor, parking facilities, may be reflective of Goshen’s size and the ease with which the community may be navigated using the Maple City Greenway trail. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, preservation of open space, public recreation and increased aesthetic beauty of the area. In conclusion, Maple City Greenway trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.



Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns


Table 42: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating The Most Important Problem On The Maple City Greenway Trail

Problem Percentage

Maintenance/Dog Feces 25.8

Drinking Fountains/Toilets 20.2

No Problems 9.0

Length 9.0

Safety 7.9

Road Safety 7.9

Access 7.9

Vandalism 4.5

Width 4.5

Safety Patrols 4.5

Reckless Behavior 3.4

Congestion 1.1

Signage 1.1

Responding trail users indicated the most important problems on the trail are a lack of drinking fountains/toilets and lack of maintenance in patrolling for dog feces.




Table 43: Percentage of Trail Users Experiencing Problems with Other People


No 82.9

Yes 17.1

Survey Question: What types of trail users have you observed causing problems?



Dog Walkers 7.1

Bikes 5.5

Walker 5.5

Other: Wild Dogs/Mopeds 3.9

Runners 0.8

Skaters 0.0



Problem Type PercentageNot Courteous 5.5


Too Fast 3.9

Interfering 3.9

Too Slow 0.0

It is apparent that trail users in Goshen are generally not experiencing any problems with other people using the trail.

7 % of the respondents indicated they had observed trail users who were walking dogs causing problems for other users. The percentage of respondents who observed specific types of problems with trail users was also a small number relative to the whole sample. Lack of courtesy, moving too fast, blocking of the trail, and interfering with trail users were all cited as problem behaviors.





Other Problem Occurring No. Of Users

Yes, Other Problems Exist 9 users (7.1%)

Other Problems Include:

Loose Dogs 3 users

Illegal Users 3 users

Noise 2 users

String on Trail 1 user




Not too Serious 38.1

Serious 23.8

Not sure 14.3

Very Serious 14.3

Minor/Not Serious 9.5

Nine users indicated they were having other problems as indicated to the right. These nine users represent 7.1% of the trail user respondents compared to 92.9% who indicated they were not having other problems or didn’t respond.

38% of those respondents reporting a problem indicated the problems were serious or very serious.





Stop Use Percentage

No 85.7

Yes 9.5

Not Sure 4.8



Opinion Percentage

Not Sure .8

Not Congested At All 83.1

Congested 8.9

Very Congested 7.3


Table 50: Trail User Opinion on The Number of Restrooms on Trail


Yes 56.9

No 43.1

Less than 10% of respondents indicated they have considered not using the trail as a result of these problems.

More than 80% of trail users indicated the trail is not congested at all.

A majority of trail users (56.9%) indicated the number of restrooms on the trail is adequate.





Trail Is Safe? Percentage

Not sure 4.0

Very Unsafe 1.6

Unsafe 4.8

Safe 52.8

Very Safe 36.8


Table 52: Suggestions to Improve Trail Safety


Bike patrols, lights, phones 61.5

Unsafe at night when alone 30.8

Keep it Clean 7.7


Although trail users indicated they feel safe on the Maple City Greenway trail (90%), a significant percentage of users indicated that bike patrols, lights and phones would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Problems/Safety Opinions Generally speaking, trail users found very few problems with the Maple City Greenway trail. Only 17% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A small percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that the lack of sanitary maintenance from dog owners, and lack of drinking fountains and/or public restrooms were the most important problems on the trail. Further, only 7% of the trail users responding indicated additional problems, and felt the problems to be serious. However, while these problems were reported, 85% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Maple City Greenway as a result of these problems. Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, and not congested. The most popular trail safety improvement suggested was the addition of lights, phones and a bike patrol to the Maple City Greenway. Trail users were, consistent with problems identified on the trail, evenly split on their opinion regarding whether there were enough restrooms along the trail.





Table 53: Percentage of Trail User Who Did Not Have To Pay to Park

Pay for Parking Percentage

No 100


Table 54: Percent of Trail Users Who Are Willing to Pay User Fee


No 61.3

Yes 38.7



Amount Percentage

$5-10 43.5

$11-$20 43.5

$21-$30 10.9

$50 or more 2.2

100% of the respondents indicated they did not pay to park.

A majority of the responding trail users indicated they would not be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Maple City Greenway Trails.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, almost ½ would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually, with almost another ½ wiling to pay between $11-20 annually. Only 13.1 % of willing trail users would pay an annual use fee of $21 or more.





Reason Percentage


Am too poor 15.9


Costs to much already 0.0


Table 57: Trail User Expenses Related to Trail Use and Group Participation, If Any



47.8

I paid all of my own expenses - no one else's

45.6


3.3

Someone else paid all my expenses

3.3

Of the more than 60% of respondents who indicated they would not be willing to pay a fee to use the trail, a significant percentage (69.8%) felt that taxes should cover the cost of all trail use.

A majority of trail users either paid their own expenses or were part of a group that had no expenses.





Expenditure Category

Average $ Spent

on Day of Survey

Average $ Spent

on Annual

Trail Use

Supplies (film, groceries, etc.)

0.00 $130.78


$0.00 $103.75

Equipment (bikes, skates, trailers)

0.00 $98.55

Food/Beverage in Restaurants

$7.10 $79.92

Accessories 0.00 $74.86

Clothing 0.00 $61.46

Transportation Costs

$9.21 $43.79

Entertainment & Attractions

0.00 $34.00

Books, guides, maps

0.00 $9.67

Totals $16.31 $636.78

Only about 15 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $637 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Goshen area, creating some economic activity in the community.



Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Economic Factors Economic issues related to Maple City Greenway trail use included trail user willingness to pay for parking and trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Maple City Greenway trail users did not pay for parking, and said they were not willing to pay trail use fees. Most of those trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fee were willing to pay between $11 and 20 annually. Approximately 70% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $637 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Maple City Greenway trail because they include items such as lodging. Because of the small number of responses reliable estimates of the value cannot be developed.





Table59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating A Disability

Disabled Percentage

No 96.0

Yes 4.0


Table 60: Type of Disability Reported By All Trail Users



Other 1.0





White, not Hispanic 97.6


Black, not Hispanic 0.8

Hispanic 0.8

Other 0.0

Only 4% of trail users reported having a disability of some type. Of these trail users, mobility impairment was reported most frequently as a disability.

A majority of trail users responding to the follow-up survey were white, not Hispanic.





Education Percentage

Grade/Elementary 0.0

Some High School 3.2

High School 17.7

Some Tech School 3.2

Some College 18.5

College Graduate 30.6

Masters 19.4

Doctoral 7.3



Occupation Percentage

Industry/Technology/Trades 23.9

Education 23.1

Business/Clerical/Mgmt 17.9



Student 4.3

Sales/Food Service 2.6

Science 0.9

Attorney 0.9

A majority of trail users indicated that they had obtained some form of college or advanced college degree.

Trail users reported a wide variety of occupations.




Table 64: Trail User Annual Income Level By Percentage

Annual Income Percentage

<$20,000 12.6

$20-$39,000 26.1

$40-$59,000 29.7

$60-$79,000 15.3

>$80,000 16.2

The income of the trail users was spread out among various levels in a fairly normal distribution. The median income reported by trail users was between $40,000 and $59,000 annually.

Summary and Implications – Follow Up Surveys Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Goshen were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of Goshen’s economy. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, not Hispanic, college educated users earning between $40,000 and $59,000 annually. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with mobility impairment being the leading disability.




The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Goshen Park and Recreation Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along Maple City Greenway (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Elkhart County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Greenway trail system.

All trail neighbors were mailed a survey, with a cover letter, requesting their participation. The survey was designed so that the back cover contained a business reply-mailing panel and neighbors could place the enclosed sticker on the survey and drop it in any U.S. Postal Service mailbox after completion. Follow-up reminder postcards were sent to all trail users approximately 2 ½ weeks after the original mailing. A reminder mailing of another survey and cover letter was sent to those trail neighbors who did not respond to the original mailing and reminder post card. Of 137 trail neighbors, 66 eventually returned the survey resulting in a response rate of 48.2%.




Trail Relationship To Neighboring Property

Percentage


The trail runs along the edge of the property

41.0

The trail is near but not touching the property

55.7

Don’t Know 0.0

96.7% of responding trail neighbors in Goshen reported the trail as near to their property or adjoining their property.




Table 66: Percent of Neighboring Property Size In Acres

Acres Percentage

.10-.25 33.1

.26-.50 33.5

.51-.75 4.3

.76-1.0 4.8

1.1-2.0 2.6

2.1-4.0 5.7

>4.0 16.2



Property Use Percentage

Residential 77.0

Commercial 11.5

Cropland 6.6

Undeveloped 3.3

Pasture 1.6

The majority of property adjacent to the Maple City Greenway is under ½ acre in size. The average size of neighboring property is 14,699 square feet for smaller properties under 1 acre, and 19.28 acres for properties over 1 acre in size.

Neighboring property is used primarily for residential purposes, reflecting the location of the Greenway trail through residential areas of Goshen.





Single Family

Percentage

Yes 82.0

No 18.0


Table 69: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Dwelling Unit as Principle Residence

How Used Percentage

Principle residence 96.0

Rental 4.0



Distance From Trail Percentage

0-100 56.3

100-200 16.6

200-300 4.2

300-600 8.3

>600 14.6

A large percentage of neighboring properties were single-family homes used as a principle residence within 100 feet of the Maple City Greenway trails.




Table 71: Direction Dwelling Unit Faces in Relation to Trail

Facing Percentages

Back 58.0

Front 24.0

Side 14.0

None 4.0

The majority of neighboring properties have the trail in the back of the house. The percentage of homes that face the front of the trail are indicative of Goshen’s use of 8th Street as a trail in the Greenway.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Maple City Greenway neighboring properties were largely residential lots, about one-third of an acre in size, and used primarily for single family residential uses. Over ½ the properties were within 100 feet of the trail and backed into the trail right of way. A number of adjacent properties reported facing the trail, which is reflective of the use of 8th Street sidewalk area as part of the Goshen trail system.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 72: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Maple City Greenway Trail

Issue

Preserving Open space 1 Not At All 5.67

7 Extremely


7 Extremely

Health & Fitness

1 Not At All 5.41

7 Extremely

Public Recreation

1 Not At All 5.23

7 Extremely

Access For Disabled Persons 1 Not At All 5.19

7 Extremely

Nature Education 1 Not At All 5.08

7 Extremely

Community Pride 1 Not At All 4.98

7 Extremely

Alternative Transportation 1 Not At All 4.34

7 Extremely

Tourism & Business Development 1 Not At All 3.27

7 Extremely


Trail neighbors rated preserving open space, aesthetic beauty, and health and fitness as the most important public benefits of the Goshen trails.







Issue

Natural surroundings of the trail

1 Not At All 5.35 7

Extremely Maintenance of the trail

1 Not At All 5.25 7

Extremely

Trail as an Neighbor 1 Not At All 5.20 7

Extremely Parking facilities for trail users

1 Not At All 5.12 7

Extremely Agency responsiveness to reported problems

1 Not At All 5.0 7

Extremely


Extremely



Feeling Percentages

Very opposed to 22.7

More opposed to 0.0






Mean Satisfaction RatingTrail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for the natural surroundings of the trail, maintenance of the trail and overall with the trail as a neighbor. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Goshen.

Trail neighbors’ initial attitudes toward the trail were either supportive (43%) or opposed (34%) to the trail. A small group of trail neighbors expressed an initially neutral attitude toward the trail.




Table 75: Current Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail Compared With First Reaction










Table 76: Trail Neighbor Attitude Of Trail Effect on Neighborhood Quality


Reduced quality 6.5

Lowered quality 6.5


Neither 15.2





More than 65% of respondents indicated the trail resulted in some level of improvement in neighborhood quality.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Maple City Greenway Trails Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Maple City Greenway trail with over 67% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail improved the quality of their neighborhood. 50% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Goshen trails were better than expected. A large proportion of trail neighbors were neutral in their opinion on the trail. These levels of approval are different than those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that over one-third (34%) of them were opposed to the trail to some degree. With only 17% of the trail neighbors expressing the attitude that the trail has had a reduced or lowered effect on neighborhood quality of life, it may be surmised that initial reaction to the Maple City Greenway trail has softened. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits to the Maple City Greenway trail mirrored those of trail users with preservation of open space, aesthetic beauty, and health and fitness being the top rated public benefits. Trail neighbors found these benefits to be slightly less important to the public than trail users. Trail neighbors generally reported satisfaction with the Maple City Greenway trail and expressed most satisfaction with the natural surroundings and having the trail as a neighbor being the highest rated satisfaction factors. Trail neighbors expressed lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of ranger/safety patrols.






Effect Percentage



Lowered resale value 15.3


Table 78: Neighbor Opinion Of Effect on Resale Value

Percentage Effect

Percentage

.1-.3% 23.3

3.1-5% 23.3

5.1-8% 13.3

8.1-10% 16.7

10.1-15% 6.7

Greater than 15% 16.7

A majority of respondents indicated they felt the trail had no effect on resale value of their property. However, over one-fourth of the trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has increased the resale value of their property.

The majority of adjacent property owners (76.6%) indicated that the Maple City Greenway trail had less than a 10% effect on resale value.




Table 79: Trail Neighbor Opinion On Salability of Property Due To Proximity To Trail



Easier to sell 19.3


Neither easier or harder to sell 36.8




In the next section, Section 5, trail neighbors were asked if the trail affected their decision to purchase the property. Respondents were only asked to respond to this question based upon whether or not they had purchased the property after the trail was opened. The date of the trail opening was provide with the survey.


Table 80: Affect of Trail on Decision To Purchase


Reduced appeal 3.7

Somewhat less appealing 3.7

Neither more or less 29.6


More appealing 18.5

Added to appeal 29.6

The opinion of a majority of adjacent property owners is that proximity of property to the trail either has no effect or increases salability. A very small percentage of trail neighbors indicated that proximity to the trail would make it more difficult to sell the property.

The majority of trail neighbors (62.5%) who purchased property along the trail after it opened indicated the presence of the trail increased the appeal of the property in their decision to buy.





Trail Support Percentage

Very opposed to 6.5

More opposed to 3.2


Neither less or more opposed

9.7




More than 70% of adjacent property owners, who purchased their property after the trail opened, support the trail. Only 12.5% of all trail neighbors purchasing property after the trail opened are opposed to the trail in varying degrees.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions Trail neighbors indicate they believe the Maple City Greenway trail has either no effect, or an increase on the resale value of their property. Less than 10% of the trail neighbors responding indicated they felt the trail would negatively affect the resale value of their property. The effect was largely believed to be less than 10% of the resale value. Trail neighbors also felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would make it easier to sell their property with over 51% of the neighbors indicating some degree of support for this concept. A second large grouping of trail neighbors (36.8%) indicated that the trail would not affect salability of the property. Only 12% of trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property. For those individuals purchasing property by the Maple City Greenway trail after it was constructed, a large majority (62.5%) indicated trail proximity as an appealing factor in their decision to purchase the property. After purchasing the property, 70% of trail neighbors are supportive, to some degree, of the Maple City Greenway trails.






Problem


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Noise 1 Less 3.27 7

More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Asking to use Bathroom, phone

1 Less 2.38 7

More

Trail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Goshen trail neighbors indicated a reduction in lack of maintenance, burglary, requests to use restrooms/phone, crop damage, and unleashed pets since the trail was opened to the public.

Mean Problem Level Rating







Illegal Vehicles 29

Littering 13

Unleashed Pets 13

Trespassing 12

Noise from trail 11

Loitering 9

Vandalism 8

Harass Animals 7

Rude Users 7

Privacy 7

Burglary 6

Illegal Parking 5

Maintenance 5

Dog Manure 4

Request phone 3

Crops damaged 2

Drainage 1

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently reported problem by different trail neighbors involved illegal vehicle (quad runners, mopeds, etc.) using the trail. Unleashed pets, littering, trespassing, and noise from the trail were problems that were reported as consistent and frequent problems with the adjacent trail.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Maple City Greenway trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Goshen indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development including request to use bathrooms, burglary, lack of maintenance to the public property, crop damage, dog manure and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented in other agencies. It should be noted that an increased lack of privacy, increased noise, and increased issues with parking and illegal vehicle use were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. Specific problems reported by trail neighbors focused largely on illegal vehicle use, unleashed pets, littering, trespassing and noise from the trail. These consistently reported problems might help focus City of Goshen response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Maple City Greeenway.





Table 84: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used The Maple City Greenway Trails in Past 12 Months


Yes 75.4

No 24.6

Survey Question: If yes, on average how many days/week did you use the trail in each season?


Season of Year Average No. Days Used

Summer 2.95

Spring 2.84

Fall 2.81

Winter 2.08

A majority of trail neighbors (75%) responding to the survey indicated they had used the trail at least once in the past 12 months.





Table 86: Trail Use by Age Category and Purpose

Age Group Number In Age

Category




19 to 24 6 Recreation Health



Over 66 10 Recreation Health





Table 87: Gender of Trail Neighbor Survey Respondents

Gender Percentage

Male 52.5

Female 47.5


Table 88: Grouped Age Categories of Trail Neighbor Survey Respondents

Grouped Ages Percentage

25-35 13.3

36-45 13.0

46-55 33.0

56-65 11.6

66-75 13.4

76-85 11.6

Over 85 1.7

Most trail neighbor survey respondents were between 46-55 years of age. The average age of the trail neighbor survey respondent was 54.9 years.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with over 75% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring through fall time period being the highest use level at approximately 3 days of use every week (approximately 115 days of use annually). Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by all age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose for younger participants and health/fitness and recreation being the primary trail use purposes for older trail neighbors. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were equally divided by gender and on average 55 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Maple City Greenway Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Goshen, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the greenway trail system in Goshen as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Goshen Maple City Greenway Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Maple City Greenway Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Maple City Greenway approaches 10,000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use on weekdays after 5pm, and varying between 2-5pm on weekends depending upon the month of the year.


likely to be male. 3) A large proportion of trail users have become more active

because of the creation of the trail. Generally, trail users viewed the trail as an important part of an active lifestyle.



5) Maple City Greenway trail users overall are satisfied with the

trail. It positively affects their view of Goshen as a community and their quality of life.





7) Trail users, in general, experienced few problems on the trail and felt safe. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of lights, phones and bike patrols.

8) Trail users are not willing to pay a user fee to use the trail. A

small number of users reported moderate expenditures on equipment, accessories and other goods and services related to trail usage.

9) Maple City Greenway trail users represent a wide variety of

trades and occupations. 10) Maple City Greenway trail neighbors generally have a positive



by the trail. 12) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail and feel it has had a

positive effect on the value and salability of their home. 13) In general, problems experienced by trail neighbors have


neighbors use the trail approximately 3 days per week, especially during spring, summer, and fall.


PENNSY RAIL TRAIL GREENFIELD, IN

December, 2001




Pennsy Rail Trail Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Pennsy Rail Trail in Greenfield, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Greenfield Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trail Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study:

Clark Ketchum Superintendent Department of Parks and Recreation Bob Bogigian President Park Board Susan Billings Member Park Board Pearlann Haines Member Park Board Dan Riley Member Park Board Rick Roberts Member Park Board Rodney Fleming Mayor City of Greenfield






Pennsy Rail Trail, Greenfield, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 Characteristics of Greenfield Area ............................................ 3 History of Greenfield Pennsy Rail Trail ..................................... 3 Map of Greenfield Pennsy Rail Trail.......................................... 4 Methodology.............................................................................. 5 Trail Counts............................................................................... 7 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 7 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 9 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 10 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 11 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 12 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 13 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 22 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 23 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 23 Summary and Implications................................... 29 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 30 Summary and Implications................................... 34 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 35 Summary and Implications................................... 39 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 40 Summary and Implications................................... 45 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 46 Summary and Implications................................... 49 Trail User Demographics................................................ 50 Summary and Implications................................... 52 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 53 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 53 Summary and Implications................................... 56 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 57 Summary and Implications................................... 60 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 61 Summary and Implications................................... 63 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 64 Summary and Implications................................... 66 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 67 Summary and Implications................................... 70 Conclusions ............................................................................. 71


Pennsy Rail Trail Page 1 Greenfield, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Pennsy Rail Trail in Greenfield.


Page 2 Pennsy Rail Trail Greenfield, IN











Characteristics of Greenfield and the Pennsy Trail Area Greenfield is the seat of government for Hancock County, Indiana. Located geographically in the center of Hancock County, Greenfield is just 15 miles east of Indianapolis and is served by several major highways: I-70, U.S. 40, and State Road 9. Early settlers built along the two creeks that flow south through Center Township, which includes Greenfield. The first businesses were small gristmills for grinding corn and wheat for settlers. The town of Greenfield was founded in 1826 and was the birthplace of the famous writer, James Whitcomb Riley. U.S. 40, the National Road, was built through Hancock County around 1835. It was heavily traveled by wagon trains going west and livestock going to Cincinnati. In 1853, the first steam railroad was completed by the Indiana Central Railroad at the south edge of Greenfield. The railroad became part of the Pennsylvania Railroad System and later the Penn-Central. These tracks were removed in the 1980s and later converted into the Pennsy Trail. The greatest single period of growth began in 1887 when natural gas was discovered in the area. Greenfield was a boomtown for 20 years, with the founding of manufacturing plants and other industries. Today, Greenfield represents the best of both worlds blending its small-town atmosphere with managed growth as part of the greater Indianapolis metropolitan area. The population of Greenfield, 14,600 in the 2000 census, has continued to grow steadily, in part because Hancock County is the sixth fastest growing county in the state of Indiana. History of Greenfield Pennsy Rail Trail The Pennsy Trail, a linear park, is the result of a "Rails to Trails" project that took place in 1998. The Trail is 3 miles long, paved 12’ wide asphalt, with eight access points, and is non-segmented, but does cross over roads. 200 users per week during warm months and 50 users per week in the off-season participate in walking, jogging, biking, rollerblading, and skateboarding on the trail. The Amenities include restrooms, benches at four different locations. Historical markers are located along the trail. It is located 1 block South of US 40. The trail begins at Center Street and travels east to 400 East.



Map of Greenfield Pennsy Rail Trail





are called, through mail survey Trail counts were conducted using infrared trail counters placed at various locations on each trail throughout the months of September, and October. The infrared trail counters were installed on utility poles or trees in an alignment that allowed trail users of all types (walker, bicyclists, joggers, runners, in-line skaters, etc.) to “break” the infrared light beam projected from a transmission unit to a receiving unit. Every time a user crossed in front of the transmission unit, the infrared light beam was broken, thus causing the receiving unit to record the date and time of the “event”. One (1) infrared reflective counter was used in Greenfield with downloadable data capacity of 8,000 events recorded by date and time. Staff downloaded data from the counter throughout the study months. Since the infrared trail counter technology was relatively new, the number of events recorded by the counters was validated in a study conducted by Dr. Greg Lindsey, Research Director for the Indiana Trails Study, on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis. By observing trail users at the trail counter location, recording date, time and number of trail users, Dr. Lindsey and his students were able to compare the actual number of trail users with those recorded by the infrared counter unit. This related study found that the infrared trail counter undercounted trail users by approximately 15%. Survey of trail users was completed through intercepts/stops of trail users during one week each in July and August; in four locations (L1-L4 in the following table) on each trail over 3 periods in a day. The intercept survey was designed as a two-stage survey where every nth adult user was asked if they would participate in a short interview followed up by a more extensive mail survey. Stop rotations on each trail were scheduled as below.



Trail Counts Estimates of total traffic on the Pennsy Rail-trail in Greenfield in September and October 2000 are 5,218 and 6,108 respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. Estimates of the number of different users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week.

Daily Trail Traffic

F1. Daily Trail Traffic (Greenfield Trail, September 2000)

050

100150200250300350400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0

F2. Daily Trail Traffic (Greenfield Trail, October 2000)

050

100150200250300350400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Figures F1 and F2 show trail use on 60 days in September and October. Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about five in September and six in October. Daily traffic in September ranged from a low of only 76 on Monday, September 25 to a high of 340 on Sunday, September 17. The range of daily traffic in October was from a low of 106 on Monday, October 23 to a high of 684 on Saturday, October 7.

Day of Month

Day of Month




F3. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Greenfield Trail, September 2000)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

M onday

Sunday

F4. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Greenfield Trail, October 2000)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

M onday

Sunday

Figures F3 and F4 present average daily traffic for the Pennsy Rail-trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of approximately 1.4, ranging from a low of 152 on Fridays to a high on Sundays of 214. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 1.9, ranging from a low of 154 on Mondays to a high on Saturday of 290. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Sundays in September and on Saturdays in October and the other weekend days had second highest average traffic. Average weekday traffic was higher in the beginning of the week on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays than on Thursdays and Fridays in September. A reverse pattern was found in October with traffic on Thursdays and Friday higher than the beginning of the week.

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Hourly Trail Traffic Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures F5-F10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekend days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the work-week are examined.

F5. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (GreenfieldTrail, September 2000)

05

1015202530

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

F6. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (GreenfieldTrail, October 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

These patterns reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work. Weekday hourly use peaked in later afternoon/early evening following the workday and accounted for 15 percent in September and 12.5 percent in October, respectively of average weekday use.

In general, average hourly trail traffic followed different patterns on weekends and weekdays (Figures F5-F6). On weekends, average hourly trail traffic in September increased steadily from about 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., fluctuated around the first peak and reached the highest in early evenings, between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., then declined rapidly. In October, trail traffic on weekends started one hour later than in September and the average hourly traffic increased up to the peak between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., then declined gradually. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 11.5 percent and 13.9 percent, respectively, of average weekend use. On weekdays, average hourly trail traffic leveled off by about 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in September and October, remained relatively constant until late afternoons, peaked in early evenings between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in September and 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. in October, and then dropped off rapidly.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic

Weekend patterns of average hourly use differed on Saturdays and Sundays (F7 and F8). Overall use was higher on Sundays in September but on Saturdays in October. Hourly traffic on Sunday mornings was lower than hourly traffic on Saturday mornings; and conversely, afternoon traffic was much higher on Sundays than Saturdays in September. In October, hourly traffic on Saturdays remained higher than hourly traffic on Sundays until late afternoons, and after about 6:00 p.m.

F.7 Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Greenfield Trail, September 2000)

05

10152025303540

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaysSaturdays

F.8 Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Greenfield Trail, October 2000)

05

10152025303540

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day




F.9 Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Greenfield, September 2000)

05

10152025303540

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


F.10 Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Greenfield, October 2000)

05

101520253035

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hours (F9 and F10). In general, hourly traffic was relatively constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings. The peak average hourly traffic occurred between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. in September and between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. in October for all weekdays. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 74 in September and 108 in October, or approximately 1 to 2 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 69 in September and 78 in October, or approximately 1 to 2 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



In sum, counts show consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Additional analyses of the effects of weather on patterns on use would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Surveys The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Pennsy Trail. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 170 trail users were intercepted on the Pennsy Trail and agreed to be surveyed.



Activity Percentage

Walk 53.9

Bicycle 24.6

Run/Jog 14.4

Skate 7.2



Travel Method Percentage

Drive 60.5

Walk 19.2

Bicycle 19.2

Run 1.2

More than 50% of people intercepted on the Pennsy Rail Trail were walkers.

More than 60% of people intercepted drove to the trail. A large proportion of people intercepted either walked or bicycled to the trail.






Percentage

0-10 83.7%

11-20 12.7%

21-40 1.8%

41-60 0%

61-90 1.2%

Over 90 0.6%




Percentage

0-1 49.1%

2-4 23.4%

5-8 10.7%

9-12 10.2%

13-15 0%

16-20 1.7%

21-30 1.2%

31-50 0.6%

51-80 0%

Over 80 2.4%

The majority (83.7%) of trail users were within ten minutes of the trail. The mean time for travel was 10.58 minutes with the maximum time being 500 minutes and the minimum time being less than 1 minute, which indicates the respondent was a trail neighbor.

More than 72% of trail users are within 5 miles of the trail. The mean mileage for users was 15.07 miles. The maximum number of miles was 722, and the minimum was 0.






Percentage

0-30 34.7

31-60 42.3

61-90 8.1

91-120 5.7

121-150 0.0

151-180 0.0

Over 180 1.8



Miles Covered

Percentage

0-2 43.4

3-5 47.5

6-8 9.1

77% spent an hour or less on the trail. The mean time on the trail was about 56.6 minutes. The minimum time on the trail was 2 minutes, and the maximum time was 600 minutes.

A majority of users covered between 0-5 miles on the trail.




Table 7: Were The Entrance and Exit At The Same Location


Yes 89.2

No 10.8


Table 8: Combined Visit with other places

Combined Visits

Percentage

No 62

Yes 38

Personal 14.9

Dining 13.7

Shopping 13.1

Business 7.4

Nearly 90% of the users entered and exited the trail at the same location.

Users of the trail more often do not combine the use of the trail with other places as indicated by the 62% of no responses. Those who do combine their visit with other places are most likely to combine use of the trail with dining, shopping or other personal uses.






Less than 15 22

16 to 25 29

26 to 35 33

36 to 45 41

46 to 55 50

56 to 65 20

Over 66 17




No 85.1

Yes 10.3

Users of the trail are fairly evenly grouped in the 16-55 year old ranges.

85.1% of the users have used the trail before the day of the intercepts.







Recreation 18.6

Commute 1.2

Other 1.2





Recreation 29.6

Dining, shopping, business 3.7



Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate More

Percentage

Yes 74.1

No 25.3

People walk/run/cycle/skate more because the trail exists.

The majority of users (79%) indicated that health/exercise was the main purpose for visiting the trail.

The majority of users (66.7%) who indicated multiple reasons for visiting the trail cited health/exercise as the other reason for visiting the trail.



Survey Question: If you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because the trail exists, about how many minutes per week do you (walk/run/cycle/skate) because this trail exists.


Minutes Spent

Percentage

0-60 23.2

61-120 27.7

121-180 26.8

181-240 8.9

241-300 3.6

301-360 2.7

361-420 5.3

421-480 0.9

481-540 0.0

541-600 0.9

Over 600 0.0

Over 50% of users are typically on the trail between 1 minute and 120 minutes.





Active Before Trail

Percentage

Yes 82.2

No 17.8


Table 16: Grouped Age of Intercept Respondents


Less 15 0.0

16-25 16.1

26-35 16.8

36-45 21.8

46-55 26.7

56-65 9.3

Over 66 8.1



Gender Percentage

Female 50.3

Male 49.7

The majority of users surveyed were active before the trail was created.

Trail use appears to be equally distributed between genders.

The average age for users on the trail is about 43 years with over 65% of the distribution between 26-55 years of age.






Caucasian 98.2

Hispanic 0.6

Black 0.6

Not Sure 0.6

Asian 0.0

Other 0.0



Observed Activity

Percentage

Walk 52.2

Bicycle 25.2

Run/jog 13.8

Fish 6.3

Skate 2.5


The majority of users are walkers.





Grouped Time

Percentage

6-9 AM 22.2

9-12 AM 35.3

12-3 PM 18.6

3-6 PM 18.0

6-9 PM 6.0

The survey was administered to a fairly consistent number of trail users between the hours of 6am and 6pm.


Trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical in Percentage.

A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Pennsy Trail, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trail’s creation (17.8%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (38%) such as exercise and other personal uses, or recreation and dining.

Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 75% of Pennsy Trail users being within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail. Nearly 90% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location.

A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (79%) and recreation (18.6%) purposes. Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (17.8%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (74.1%), added approximately 2.5 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow-Up Survey Trail User Characteristics




Activity Percentage

Walking 58.6

Bicycle 21.4

Skating 8.6

Run/jog 8.6

Horse Riding 1.4

Other 1.4







Newspaper 56.3

Word of Mouth 16.9

Relatives 7.0

Friends 4.2

Don’t Remember 4.2

Happened On It 4.2

College 4.2

Neighbor 2.8

The majority of respondents found out about the trail through the newspaper, while 30.9% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.







Done Something Different 12.9




Street/Sidewalks 98.3

Another Trail 1.7

Gym/Rec. Center 0.0

Stay Home 0.0




No 100

Yes 0

Responses to this question overwhelmingly indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Pennsy Trail.

The majority of users would have continued participating in an activity on streets and sidewalks if the trail had not been available

None of the users surveyed used the trail as part of an overnight visit.






No 100




0-10 21.0

11-20 7.5

21-30 4.5

31-40 3

41-50 14.9

51-60 1.5

61-70 3.0

71-100 17.9

101-120 6.0

121-150 11.9

151-200 3.0

201-300 1.5

>300 4.5

None of the users who stayed overnight indicated that the trail was the reason for the visit.

The average number of visitor days per year is 80 days. Half the users reported 41-50 user visits or more.






Intermediate 57.3

Expert 27.9

Novice 14.7





Less important 1.4


Neither Less or more important 7.2


More important 30.4


85.2% of trail users consider their activity skill level to be either intermediate or expert.

A majority of users (86.9%) consider the activity for which they use the trail important to them, 33.3% considered their activity extremely important.







Less important 2.9




More important 24.6


72.4% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with 24.6% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.




Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Greenfield Pennsy Trail closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys, including activity preferences. Notably, 87.1% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity.

Trail users in Greenfield indicated a fairly advanced skill level with 85.2% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 80 days annually on average, for respondents. With 26.9% of users reporting they used the trail in excess of at least 100 days in the past year.

None of the trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Greenfield. This is reflective of the fact that over 85% of the respondents learned of the trail through the newspaper or some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors.

Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Roughly 80% of all respondents indicated their chosen activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation.

In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Pennsy Trail, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. The vast majority of trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.











Very Satisfied 44.3

It’s Perfect 10.0



View of City Percentage

Yes 61.8

No 38.2


Less favorable 1.5

More favorable 58.8


Respondents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the Pennsy Trail with 90% indicating some level of satisfaction. None of the respondents indicated they were unsatisfied.

61.8% of trail users indicated the trail affected their view of the area/city. Practically all of these respondents found the trail to positively affect their view of the area/city.







Disagree less 0.0


Neither agree nor disagree 21.4

Somewhat agree 28.6

Agree more 20.0

Strongly Agree 27.1



Time Spent Elsewhere Percentage


Disagree less 9.7


Neither disagree nor agree 25.0

Somewhat agree 13.9

Agree more 5.6

Strongly Agree 6.9

Over 75% of trail users surveyed indicated they would spend more time on the trail if possible.





Table 35: Trail User Opinion On The Trail As A Major Reason For Location Of Domicile



Disagree less 11.9



Somewhat agree 3.0

Agree more 1.5

Strongly Agree 3.0


Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Their Attachment to The Pennsy Trail



Disagree less 10.1



Somewhat agree 23.2

Agree more 13.0

Strongly Agree 10.1

7.5% of trail users indicated the trail was a factor in choosing their current residence, while the trail was not a factor for 77.5%. The remaining 14.9% of the respondents did not agree or disagree that the trail was a factor in determining their place of residence.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Pennsy Trail with 46.3% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.




Table 37: Trail Users Indicating That Their Life Is Organized Around the Trail



Disagree less 18.8



Somewhat agree 4.3

Agree more 5.8

Strongly Agree 1.4


Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward Pennsy Trail in Comparison to Other Trails



Disagree less 15.6



Somewhat agree 6.3

Agree more 3.1

Strongly Agree 6.3

The majority (60%) of trail users responding disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail. While 11.5% of trail users responding indicated their lives were organized around the trail.

15.7% responded that no trail can compare to the Pennsy Trail.




Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Pennsy Trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and that their view of Greenfield, as a city or community, was positively affected by the trail. Over 60% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. 75% of responding trail users indicating some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with over 48.6% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail was important. This enthusiasm is somewhat reflected with 46.8% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicating they are attached, to some degree, to the Pennsy Trail. The Pennsy Trail was a factor in organizing about 11.5% of trail users’ lives, although the majority of trail users responding either disagreed with this concept or were neutral. In addition, over 75% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Pennsy Trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively affects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 39: Trail User Ratings of Issues By Importance

Issue


6.28 7 Extremely


6.03 7 Extremely


6.00 7 Extremely


5.93 7 Extremely


5.74 7 Extremely


5.53 7 Extremely


5.49 7 Extremely


5.46 7 Extremely


5.42 7 Extremely


5.28 7 Extremely


5.03 7 Extremely


5.00 7 Extremely


4.99 7 Extremely


4.99 7 Extremely


4.65 7 Extremely


4.51 7 Extremely


3.92 7 Extremely

Mean Importance Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that most of the factors at the right were important. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.





1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


5.98 7 Extremely


5.92 7 Extremely


5.92 7 Extremely


5.91 7 Extremely


5.83 7 Extremely


5.75 7 Extremely


5.71 7 Extremely


5.66 7 Extremely


5.59 7 Extremely


5.45 7 Extremely


5.38 7 Extremely


5.31 7 Extremely


5.17 7 Extremely


5.08 7 Extremely


4.79 7 Extremely


4.02 7 Extremely


3.33 7 Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the left were satisfactory on the Pennsy Trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, adequate ranger/safety patrols and perceived personal safety. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.



Chart 1: A Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Factors on the Greenfield Pennsy Rail Trail

Importance-Satisfaction Comparison For Pennsy Trail


QuietMaintenance

Safe IntersectionsPersonal Safety

RecklessVandalism

Adequate Access

Proximity

Historic

Parking

Water

Maps

Patrols

SurfaceWidth

Crowded

1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7

SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

EConcentrate Here

Low Priority


Possible Overkill

The chart at the right displays the combined mean scores for trail importance and satisfaction factors on a 2-axis grid.

Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Cardinal Greenway Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail. The issues of most concern appear to be the availability of drinking water and toilet facilities and safety patrols.



Survey Question: Please rank the importance of the following public benefits with 1 being not important and 7 being extremely important.

Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Pennsy Rail Trail


Preserving Open Space Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic Beauty Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Community Pride Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tourism & Business Not ExtremelyDevelopment Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alternative Transportation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Health and Fitness Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Access for Disabled Not ExtremelyPersons Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Recreation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Education Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.32

5.20

5.51

4.22

3.44

6.51

5.48

5.81

5.29





Respondents to the Pennsy Trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. Two issues of concern were the availability of toilet facilities and drinking water and safety patrols. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Pennsy Trail included trail maintenance, the trail surface and width, its natural surroundings, quiet setting, and lack of congestion on the trail. The most important factors for the Pennsy Trail and its management included the perceived personal safety of trail users, safe road and stream intersections, the prevention of trail vandalism, trail maintenance, and the prevention of reckless behavior by trail users. Historic points of interest and trail information were the least important factors to trail users falling below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in the latter factor, trail information, may be reflective of the Pennsy Trail’s relatively short length. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, preserving open space, public recreation and community pride. In conclusion, Pennsy Trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.





Table 42: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating The Most Important Problem On The Pennsy Rail Trail

Problem Percentage

Water fountains/toilets 36.2

Safety 24.1

Ranger patrols 10.3

Safe road intersection 10.3

Vandalism 5.2

Reckless behavior 3.4

Width 3.4

Maintenance 1.7

No problems 1.7


Congestion 1.7

Signage 0.3

.

It would appear that most people feel that a lack of water and toilets and perceived personal safety are the biggest problems.






No 94.3

Yes 5.7




Bikes 5.6

Dog Walkers 1.4

Walkers 0.0

Runners 0.0

Skaters 0.0


All of the respondents, who indicated they had problems with other people on the trail, indicated they had observed trail users who were on bikes causing problems for other users.






Not Courteous 5.6


Interfering 1.4

Too Fast 0.0

Too Slow 0.0



Other Problem Occurring Percentage

No 100

Yes 0

All of the respondents, who indicated they had problems with other users, felt like the problems they experienced involved trail users who were not being courteous.

No users indicated that they were having other problems.






Not too serious 50.0

Minor/Not serious 25.0

Serious 25.0

No opinion 0.0

Not sure 0.0

Very Serious 0.0


Table 48: Percentage Of Trail Users Who Considered Stopping Use Because of Problems?

Stop Use Percentage

No 75.0

Yes 25.0



Opinion Percentage

Not Sure 4.2

Not Congested At All 95.8

Congested 0.0

Very Congested 0.0

75% of those respondents reporting a problem indicated the problems were serious or not too serious.

While 75% of the respondents experiencing problems consider the problems on the trail to be somewhat serious, the majority of users have not considered the problems on the trail serious enough to discontinue trail use.

95.8% of trail users responding indicated the trail is not congested at all.




Table 50: Trail User Opinion on The Number of Restrooms On Trail


No 92.5

Yes 7.5



Safe Percentage

Safe 64.3

Very safe 20.0

Unsafe 10.0

Not sure 4.3

Very unsafe 1.4




Bike patrols 55.6


Access points 11.1

92.5% of trail users feel there are not enough restrooms along the trail.

Almost 85% of trail users indicate a feeling of safety, to some degree, while on the trail. About 11.4% of trail users expressed an opinion that the trail was unsafe or very unsafe.

Although most responding trail users indicated they feel safe on the Pennsy Trail, a significant percentage of respondents indicated that bike patrols, lights and phones would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.





Generally speaking, trail users found very few problems with the Pennsy Trail. Only 5.7% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A fairly high percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that lack of water and toilets and perceived personal safety were the most important problems on the trail. However, while these problems were reported, 75% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Pennsy Trail as a result of these problems.

Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, and not congested. The most popular trail safety improvement suggested was the addition of bike patrols, lights and phones to the Pennsy Trail.





Table 53: Percentage of Trail Users Who Did Not Have To Pay to Park

Pay Percentage

No 100.0


Table 54: Percentage of Trail Users Who Are Willing to Pay User Fee


No 72.9

Yes 27.1


Table 55: Annual Fee Supported by Trail Users indicating Their Willingness to Pay For Trail Use

Amount Percentage

5-10$ 73.7

11-20$ 10.5

21-30$ 10.5

50 or more 5.3

All of the respondents who answered this question indicated that they did not pay to park.

A majority of the responding trail users indicated they would not be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Pennsy Trail.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, almost three-fourths would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually.




Table 56: Why Trail Users Would Not Pay Annual User Fee

Reason Percentage




Am too poor 4.3




I paid all of my own expenses - no one else's

69.8


25.6


4.7

Someone else paid all of my expenses

0.0

About 70% would not be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass to use the trail. 82.6% of those trail users indicated they think taxes should cover the cost of using the trail.

Almost 70% of responding trail users paid their own expenses related to trail use but did not pay expenses of other trail users.



Survey Question: Estimated amount of money spent in relation to the trail on the day surveyed and during the past 12 months.


Expenditure Category Average $ Spent on

Day of Survey

Average $ Spent on

Annual Trail Use


$0.00 $250.00

Clothing $0.00 $110.83

Food/Beverage in Restaurants $8.50 $63.57

Transportation Costs $2.00 $40.00

Accessories $0.00 $40.00

Membership Subscriptions $0.00 $22.50

Supplies (film, groceries, etc.) $0.00 $20.00


$0.00 $0.00

Entertainment & Attractions $0.00 $0.00

Books, guides, maps $0.00 $0.00

Totals $10.50 $546.90

Only about 10 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $546.90 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Greenfield area, creating some economic activity in the community.





Economic issues related to Pennsy Trail use included trail user willingness to pay for trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Pennsy Trail users did not pay for parking, nor were they willing to pay a trail use fee. Most of those responding trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fees were willing to pay between $5 and $20 annually. Approximately 80% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $546 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Pennsy Rail trail use. Because of the small number of responses, reliable estimates of the value cannot be developed.





Table 59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating A Disability

Disabled Percentage

No 94.2

Yes 5.8


Table 60: Type of Disability Reported by Disabled Trail Users



Other Disability 50.0







Hispanic 0.0

5.8% of responding trail users have a disability, the nature of which is hearing impairment or some other disability.

All trail users responding to the follow-up survey were white, non-Hispanic.







Some high school 4.3

High school 43.5

Some tech school 4.3

Some college 13.0

College graduate 15.9

Master's 10.1

Doctoral 7.2







Health Human 11.5

Education 3.8

Sales 3.8

Science 1.9

Attorney 1.9

Food Service 1.9

Student 1.9

The majority of responding trail users (50.5%) have had some technical school or college education, with 33.2% having a college degree or an advanced college degree.

Individuals in the fields of Industry/Technology/ Trade, Health/Human Services and Homemaker/Retired are the most frequent responding trail users.




Table 64: Trail User Income Level by Percentage

Income Percentage

< 20,000 7.0

20-39,000 26.3

40-59,000 22.8

60-79,000 22.8

> 80,000 21.1

The income of responding trail users is fairly evenly dispersed in the ranges between $20,000-$80,000+.


Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Greenfield were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of Greenfield’s economy. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, college educated users earning between $20,000 and $80,000+ annually. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with hearing impairment and other disabilities being the most common disabilities.



Trail Neighbor Survey Results The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Greenfield Park and Recreation Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along the Pennsy Trail (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Hancock County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Pennsy Trail.

All trail neighbors were mailed a survey, with a cover letter, requesting their participation. The survey was designed so that the back cover contained a business reply-mailing panel and neighbors could place an enclosed sticker on the survey and drop it in any U.S. Postal Service mailbox after completion. Follow-up reminder postcards were sent to all trail users approximately 2 ½ weeks after the original mailing. A reminder mailing of another survey and cover letter was sent to those trail neighbors who did not respond to the original mailing and reminder post card. Of 27 trail neighbors, 10 eventually returned the survey resulting in a response rate of 37%.




Location Percentage

Trail runs along edge of property 80.0

Trail is near but not touching property 20.0


Don’t Know 0.0

20% of adjacent property is near but not touching the trail. The trail runs along the edge of another 80% of adjacent properties.




Table 66: Percent of Neighbor Property Size In Acres

Acres Percentage

.10-.25 0.0

.25-.50 0.0

.50-.75 0.0

.75-1.0 12.5

1.1-2.0 25.0

2.1-4.0 25.0

>4.0 37.5


Table 67: Neighboring Property Use

Property Use Percentage

Commercial 88.9

Cropland 11.1

Residential 0.0

Pasture 0.0

Undeveloped 0.0

The majority of property adjacent to the Pennsy Trail is over 1 acre in size. The average size of neighboring properties is 3 acres.

Neighboring property is used primarily for commercial purposes.






No 100.0

Yes 0.0


Table 69: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Dwelling as Principle Residence

How Used Percentage


Rental 0.0

Second Home 0.0

Unoccupied 0.0


Table 70: Distance from Trail

No Values were indicated for distance from trail.

A majority of the adjacent property is commercial. There is no single family dwelling on any of the responding trail neighbors’ property.




Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Pennsy Trail neighboring properties were largely commercial lots, about 3 acres in size, and used primarily for commercial purposes.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 71: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Pennsy Rail Trail

Issue

Public Recreation

1 Not At All

6.20 7 Extremely

Access For Disabled Persons 1 Not At All

5.80 7 Extremely

Health & Fitness

1 Not At All

5.70 7 Extremely

Aesthetic Beauty 1 Not At All

5.30 7 Extremely

Community Pride 1 Not At All

5.10 7 Extremely

Preserving Open space 1 Not At All

4.50 7 Extremely

Nature Education 1 Not At All

4.50 7 Extremely

Tourism & Business Development 1 Not At All

4.10 7 Extremely

Alternative Transportation 1 Not At All

3.30 7 Extremely


Trail neighbors rated public recreation, access for disabled persons, health and fitness, and aesthetic beauty as the most important public benefits of the Pennsy Trail.







Issue

Maintenance of the trail

1 Not At All

5.20 7 Extremely

Natural surroundings of the trail

1 Not At All

5.00 7 Extremely

Trail as an Neighbor 1 Not At All

4.60 7 Extremely

Agency responsiveness to reported problems

1 Not At All

4.56 7 Extremely

Ranger/Safety patrols 1 Not At All

4.50 7 Extremely

Parking facilities for trail users

1 Not At All

4.00 7 Extremely



Feeling Percentage


More opposed to 25.0




Very opposed to 0.0


Mean Satisfaction Rating Responding trail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for having the trail as a neighbor, agency responsiveness to problems and the maintenance of the trail. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Greenfield.

The majority of responding trail neighbors’ initial attitudes toward the trail were either neutral or opposed to the trail.














Table 75: Trail Neighbor Attitude on Trail Effect On Neighborhood Quality


Reduced quality 0.0

Lowered quality 0.0






More than 62% of responding adjacent property owners indicated being near the trail is better than expected.

87.5% of respondents indicated the trail resulted in some level of improvement in neighborhood quality.




Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Pennsy Trail Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Pennsy Trail with 87.5% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail improved the quality of their neighborhood. More than 62% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Pennsy Trail was better than expected. These levels of approval are nearly opposite to those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that 37.5% of them were opposed to the trail to some degree and the same percentage were neutral in their initial attitude. More than 87% of responding trail neighbors expressed the attitude that the trail has improved neighborhood quality of life, indicating that initial reaction to the Pennsy Trail has been reversed. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits of the Pennsy Trail were similar to those of trail users. Preservation of open space, aesthetic beauty, health and fitness, public recreation and community pride were top rated public benefits to trail neighbors. These same benefits were also the top rated benefits by trail users. Trail neighbors generally reported satisfaction with the Pennsy Trail, and expressed most satisfaction with having the trail as a neighbor and the trail maintenance. Trail neighbors expressed lower levels of satisfaction with parking facilities.





Table 76: Neighbor Opinion on the Effect of the Trail on Resale Value of Their Property

Effect Percentage

Trail has had no effect on resale value 90.0

Trail has lowered the resale value 10.0

Trail has increased resale value 0.0




.1-3% 0.0

3.1-5% 0.0

5.1-8% 0.0

8.1-10% 0.0

10.1-15% 0.0


The majority of trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. None of the respondents indicated they felt the trail had increased the resale value of their property, while 10% felt the trail had lowered their property value.

10% of respondents felt the trail had an effect on their property value. Of those 10%, all of them thought the effect was more than 15%.




Table 78: Trail Neighbor Opinion on Salability of Property Due to Proximity to Trail






Somewhat less easier to sell 0.0

Less easier to sell 0.0




Table 79: Affect of Trail on Decision to Purchase Property


Reduced appeal 0.0



More appealing 0.0

Added to appeal 0.0

The opinion of responding adjacent property owners is that proximity of their property to the trail will make it neither easier nor harder to sell the property.

None of the responding trail neighbors had purchased their property after construction of the Pennsy Trail.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the Pennsy Trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. 10% of respondents felt the trail had lowered their property value, and this 10% felt the effect was greater than 15% of the resale value. Trail neighbors generally felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would have no effect on their ability to sell their property with 90% of the neighbors indicating support for this concept. 10% of responding trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property.






Problem


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Noise 1 Less 3.38 7

More


More


More


More


More

Mean Problem Level Rating Trail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Greenfield trail neighbors indicated a reduction in problems with animal harassment, illegal vehicles and lack of maintenance since the trail was opened to the public.







Illegal Vehicles 3

Littering 0

Unleashed Pets 1

Trespassing 2

Noise from trail 2

Loitering 1

Vandalism 2

Harass Animals 0

Rude Users 1

Privacy 0

Burglary 4

Illegal Parking 1

Maintenance 0

Dog Manure 0

Request phone 1

Crops damaged 0

Drainage 2

Ttotpdi(eUtfpraw

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently occurring problems reported by different trail neighbors were requests to use the phone, vandalism and burglary.




Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward Trail, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Pennsy Trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Greenfield indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development, including animal harassment, illegal vehicles and lack of maintenance to the public property and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented by other agencies. It should be noted that an increase in requests to use the phone, vandalism and burglary were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. These consistently reported problems might help focus City of Greenfield’s response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Pennsy Trail.





Table 82: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used The Pennsy Trail in Past 12 Months


Yes 70.0

No 30.0

Survey Question: If yes, on average how many days/week did you use the trail in winter/Spring/Summer/Fall?



Summer 2.57

Spring 2.14

Fall 1.86

Winter 1.67

A majority of trail neighbors (70%) responding to the survey indicated they had used the trail at least once in the past 12 months.

The average number of days that neighbors utilize the trail each week varies slightly between spring and summer, with a drop off in use in the fall and winter months.






Category


12 & Under 0.0


19 to 24 0.0


45 to 65 0.0

Over 66 1 Recreation

Recreation was primary purpose of trail use by responding trail neighbors.





Gender Percentage

Male 90.0

Female 10.0




25-35 0.0

36-45 44.4

46-55 44.5

56-65 0.0

66-75 11.1

76-85 0.0

Over 85 0.0





Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with 70% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring and summer time period being the highest use level at between 2 and 3 days of use every week (approximately 115 days of use annually). Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by a variety of age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were mostly males and on average were 50 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Pennsy Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Greenfield, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the Pennsy Trail in Greenfield as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Greenfield Pennsy Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Pennsy Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Pennsy trail averages 5000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use in September between 4-6pm, and varying between 1-6pm in October regardless of the day of week.

2) Trail users are predominantly white, middle-aged and divided

almost equally by gender.




5) Pennsy trail users overall are satisfied with the trail. It

positively affects their view of Greenfield as a community and their quality of life.





7) Trail users, in general, experienced few problems on the trail

and felt safe. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of bike patrols, lights and phones.



9) Pennsy trail users represent a wide variety of trades and

occupations.

Because there were only 27 trail neighbors in Greenfield, only 10 of whom responded to the survey, and because all of these trail neighbors represented owners of commercial properties, the conclusions drawn based on the trail neighbor survey have little statistical significance. They are not necessarily representative of the entire sample, and definitely not representative of an entire community. With those facts in mind, it must be noted that, in general, the responses received from the Greenfield trail neighbors were very similar to responses received from trail neighbors from the other five cities in this study, except for the fact that trail neighbors in Greenfield are commercial property owners and the other five cities represented residential property owners. In summary, the following conclusions should not be weighted too heavily, but should be viewed as representing general trends in a select group. 10) Pennsy trail neighbors generally have a positive attitude

toward the trail and feel it has improved the quality of their neighborhood.


by the trail. 12) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail and feel it has had

neither a positive nor negative effect on the value and salability of their property.



neighbors use the trail approximately 2.5 days per week, especially during spring, summer.


MONON TRAIL INDIANAPOLIS, IN

November, 2001




Monon Trail Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Monon Trail in Indianapolis, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Indianapolis Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trails Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study:

Bart Peterson Mayor City of Indianapolis Joseph Wynns Director Department of Parks and Recreation Ray R. Irvin Administrator DPR Greenways Annie Brown Admin. Assistant DPR Greenways Lori Gil Sr. Project Manager DPR Greenways Terri VanZant Sr. Project Manager DPR Greenways SonCheong Kuan Planner DPR Greenways Jonathon Gick Project Coordinator DPR Greenways Aaron Rucker Intern DPR Greenways Donald Colvin Sr. Planner Department of Parks and Recreation Frankie Tibbs GW’s Maint. Manager Department of Public Works






Monon Trail, Indianapolis, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 Characteristics of Indianapolis and the Monon Trail.................. 3 The Monon Rail Trail ................................................................. 3 Map of Monon Trail ................................................................... 4 Methodology.............................................................................. 5 Trail Counts............................................................................... 7 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 7 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 9 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 10 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 11 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 12 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 13 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 22 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 23 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 23 Summary and Implications................................... 29 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 30 Summary and Implications................................... 34 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 35 Summary and Implications................................... 39 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 40 Summary and Implications................................... 45 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 46 Summary and Implications................................... 49 Trail User Demographics................................................ 50 Summary and Implications................................... 52 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 53 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 53 Summary and Implications................................... 56 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 57 Summary and Implications................................... 60 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 61 Summary and Implications................................... 63 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 64 Summary and Implications................................... 66 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 67 Summary and Implications................................... 70 Conclusions ............................................................................. 71


Monon Trail Page 1 Indianapolis, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Monon Trail in Indianapolis.


Page 2 Monon Trail Indianapolis, IN











Characteristics of Indianapolis and the Monon Trail Since its beginning in 1821 Indianapolis has seen great diversity and change. With a population in Indianapolis of over 1.5 million it is the 31st largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the United States, covering 3,088.73 square miles. Indianapolis is often referred to as the “Crossroads of America” because more interstate highways than any other area intersect it. Another interesting aspect is that more than half of the nation’s population lives within a day’s drive. The Monon Rail Trail The Monon Trail is divided into 6 phases. The first phase of the construction began with a 2.96 miles section in 1995 with the construction of the trail between 86th Street and Westfield Boulevard. This section of the trail crosses the White River, the White River overflow and the Central Canal. It includes restored red bridge structures painted in the original Monon red and popular scenic overlooks on the White River Bridge. This section also provides major links including the commercial areas along 86th Street and Broad Ripple, the Indiana School for the Blind, the Indianapolis Art Center, the White River and the Central Canal Trail. Phase two and three began in the Spring of 1997 and encompassed over 3.5 miles of trail up to and including the bridge over Fall Creek Boulevard. Major features of this section include the new bridge over Kessler Avenue, and the renovated bridges over Fairfield Ave. and Fall Creek Boulevard. Phases four and five are to extend from Fall Creek Parkway to 10th

Street, anticipated construction is to begin in late 2001. The last phase of the Monon Trail was constructed in 1997. It includes a one-mile trail section between 86th Street and 96th Street. This section required significant construction including railings, a pedestrian activated traffic signal installed east of the trail, and parking areas at 91st street. The trail will connect to the Carmel Monon Trail at 96th Street.



Map of the Monon Trail





are called, through mail survey Trail counts were conducted using infrared trail counters placed at various locations on each trail throughout the months of September, and October. The infrared trail counters were installed on utility poles or trees in an alignment that allowed trail users of all types (walker, bicyclists, joggers, runners, in-line skaters, etc.) to “break” the infrared light beam projected from a transmission unit to a receiving unit. Every time a user crossed in front of the transmission unit, the infrared light beam was broken, thus causing the receiving unit to record the date and time of the “event”. One (1) infrared reflective counter was used in Indianapolis with downloadable data capacity of 8,000 events recorded by date and time. Staff downloaded data from the counter throughout the study months. Since the infrared trail counter technology was relatively new, the number of events recorded by the counters was validated in a study conducted by Dr. Greg Lindsey, Research Director for the Indiana Trails Study, on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis. By observing trail users at the trail counter location, recording date, time and number of trail users, Dr. Lindsey and his students were able to compare the actual number of trail users with those recorded by the infrared counter unit. This related study found that the infrared trail counter undercounted trail users by approximately 15%. Survey of trail users was completed through intercepts/stops of trail users during one week each in July and August; in four locations (L1-L4 in the following table) on each trail over 3 periods in a day. The intercept survey was designed as a two-stage survey where every nth adult user was asked if they would participate in a short interview followed up by a more extensive mail survey. Stop rotations on each trail were scheduled as below.



M1. Daily Trail Traffic (Monon Trail, September 2000)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Day of Month

M2. Daily Trail Traffic (Monon Trail, October 2000)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Day of Month

Trail Counts

Estimates of total traffic on the Monon Rail-trail in Indianapolis in September and October 2000 are 55,148 and 45,606 respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. The October estimate is an extrapolation based on approximately 16 days of data. Estimates of the number of different users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Daily Trail Traffic

Figures M1 and M2 show trail use on 46 days in September and October. Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about 17 in September and 10.8 in October. Daily traffic in September ranged from a low of only 218 on Monday, September 25 to a high of 3,817 on Sunday, September 17.




M3. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Monon Trail, September 2000)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

M4. Average Daily Trail Traffic (Monon Trail, October 2000)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Figures M3 and M4 present average daily traffic for the Monon Rail-trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of approximately 1.7, ranging from a low of 1,478 on Fridays to a high on Saturdays of 2,545. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 1.9, ranging from a low of 852 on Thursdays to a high on Sundays of 2,340. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Saturdays in September and on Sundays in October and the other weekend days had second highest average traffic. Average weekday traffic was higher in the beginning of the week on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays than on Thursdays and Fridays in September. In October, average weekday traffic was highest on Tuesday, second highest on Monday followed by Friday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Hourly Trail Traffic Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures M5-M10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekend days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the work-week are examined.

M5. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (Monon Trail, September 2000)

0100200300400

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

M6. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (Monon Trail, October 2000)

0

100

200

300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

These patterns reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work. Peak weekday hourly use accounted for 17.9 percent in September and 19.4 percent in October, respectively of average weekday use.

Figures M5-M6 demonstrate different patterns of average hourly trail traffic on weekends and weekdays. As figure M5 shows, average weekend hourly trail traffic in September increased steadily from about 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., then leveled off without much variation until about 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., then declined gradually. In October, average weekend hourly traffic increased from 6:00 a.m. till 12:00 p.m., then dropped and increased again to the peak at about 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. In September and October, peak average hourly use accounted for 10 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively, of average weekend use. On weekdays in September and October average hourly trail traffic leveled off at about 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., remained relatively constant until late afternoons, then started increasing, and peaked in early evenings between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in September and 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in October, and then dropped off rapidly.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic Figures M7 and M8 do not exhibit a consistent overall trend of hourly traffic on Saturdays and Sundays in September and October, 2000. Overall use was higher on Saturdays in September but on Sundays in October. In September, hourly traffic on Sundays remained higher than on Saturday until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., while hourly traffic volume on Sundays started to surpass Saturdays by 11:00 a.m.

M7. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Monon Trail, September 2000)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

M8. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Monon Trail, October 2000)

050

100150200250300350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day




M9. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Monon Trail, September 2000)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


M10. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Monon Trail, October 2000)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hours (M9 and M10). In general, hourly traffic was relatively constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings. The peak average hourly traffic occurred between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays in October and between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays in October, and on all weekdays in September. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 554 in September and 635 in October, or approximately 9 to 10 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 472 in September and 447 in October, or approximately 7 to 8 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



In sum, counts show some consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Saturday morning use is higher than Sunday morning. Additional analyses of the effects of weather on patterns of use would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Surveys The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Monon Trail. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 373 trail users were intercepted on the Monon Trail and agreed to be surveyed. Survey Question: What did you do on the trail today?


Activity %of Responses

Walk 50.3%

Bicycle 23.2%

Run/Jog 13.6%

Skate 12.3%

Other 0.6




Drive 51.5

Walk 28.6

Bicycle 14.2

Work or Live nearby 1.8

Run 0.9

Skate 3.0

Over 50% of people intercepted on the Monon Trail were walkers.

More than 51% of people intercepted drove to the trail. About 14% of the users rode their bicycle to the trail, and almost 30% of the trail users walked to the trail.



Survey Question: How long did it take you to get to the trail? Table 3: Time to Trail


Percentage

0-10 74.5%

11-20 17.5%

21-40 6.6%

41-60 0.6%

61-90 0.3%

over 90 0.3%




Percentage

0-1 49.4%

2-4 24.2%

5-8 13.7%

9-12 5.5%

13-15 2.2%

16-20 2.3%

21-30 2.2%

31-50 0.3%

51-80 0.0%

over 80 0.6%

The majority (74.5%) of trail users were within 10 minutes travel time to the trail. The mean time for travel was 9.67 minutes with the maximum time being 125 minutes and the minimum less than 1 minute, which indicates the respondent was a trail neighbor.

More than 70% of trail users traveled less than 4 miles to get to the trail. The mean travel distance for respondents was 2 miles.






Percentage

0-30 19.3

31-60 44.7

61-90 17.2

91-120 15.1

121-150 1.2

151-180 0.9

over 180 1.5



Miles Covered

Percentage

0-5 52.7

6-10 30.8

11-15 10.8

16-20 3.6

>20 1.8

More than 60 percent of the users spent an hour or less on the trail per visit.

More than 50% of users covered less than 6 miles on the trail.



Survey Question: Did the respondent enter and exit the trail at the same location?

Table 7: Were the entrance and exit at the same location


Yes 91.1

No 8.9



Combined Visits

Percentage

Yes 52.4

No 47.6

Dining 29.3

Shopping 13.0

Personal 11.0

Business 7.7

More than 90% of the users entered and exited the trail at the same location.

The majority of respondents combine the use of the trail with other places as indicated by the 52.4% of yes responses. Those who do combine their visit with other places are most likely to combine use of the trail with dining.






Less 15 40

16 to 25 43

26 to 35 70

36 to 45 78

46 to 55 79

56 to 65 31

over 66 14




No 96.1

Yes 3.6

Users of the trail are grouped heavily in the 26-55 year old range.

96% of the users have used the trail before the day of the intercepts.







Recreation 22.5

Commute 5.4

Vet, dining, business, shopping 1.5





Recreation 31.1

Commute 12.2

Vet, dining, business, shopping 3.3


Table 13: Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate More Walk/Run/Cycle/Skate

More Percentage

Yes 82.1

No 17.6

The majority of users indicated that health/exercise was the main purpose for visiting the trail.


A majority of users, who indicated multiple reasons for visiting the trail, cited health/exercise and recreation as the other reasons for visiting the trail.




Table 14: Minutes spent (walk/run/cycle/skate) Each Week because of Trail

Minutes Spent

Percentage

10-60 18.3

61-120 22.3

121-180 17.6

181-240 12.8

241-300 10

301-360 6.4

361-420 4.8

421-480 2.8

481-540 0.8

541-600 1.2

over 600 2.8

More than half (58.2%) of the actual users are typically on the trail between 10 minutes to 180 minutes.





Active Before Trail

Percentage

Yes 78.6

No 21.4




Less 15 0.0

16-25 11.6

26-35 23.5

36-45 27.0

46-55 24.4

56-65 7.8

over 66 5.1



Gender Percentage

Female 54.2

Male 45.8


The average age for users on the trail was 41 years with a fairly equal distribution of users between the ages of 26-55 years.

Females accounted for more than half of the respondents to the survey






Caucasian 90.5

Black 6.9

Hispanic 1.1

Not Sure 1.1

Asian 0.3




Walk 49.9

Bicycle 23.2

Run/jog 14.4

Skate 12.6


A majority (50%) of users are walkers and cyclists (23.2%).





Grouped Time Percentage

6-9 AM 18.2

9-12 AM 32.3

12-3 PM 36.7

3-6 PM 10.6

6-9 PM 2.3

Intercept surveys were fairly equally distributed between the times of 9 AM and 3 PM.


Trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical in Percentage.

A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Monon Trail, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trail’s creation (21.4%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (52.4%) such as exercise and other personal uses, or recreation and dining.

Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 75% of Monon trail users being within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail. More than 90% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location.

A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (70.7%) and recreation (22.5%) purposes. Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (21.4%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (82.1%), added approximately 3 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow-Up Survey





Activity Percentage

Walking 50.6

Bicycle 20.9

Run/Jog 18.4

Skating 10.1

Again, trail users who responded indicated their activity preferences were walking, running or bicycling on the day of the interview. The percentage of activities participated in closely approximates the percentages of all trail users who were intercepted.





Method Percentage

Don't Remember 28.0

Friends 19.7

Neighbor 15.3

Happened On It 7.6

Magazine 6.4

Saw it built 4.5

Word of Mouth 2.5

Relatives 2.5

Newspaper 1.9

Work 1.9

Radio 1.3

Internet 0.6

Public hearings 0.6

Founder 0.6

Other 0.6

Group 0.0

Brochures 0.0

40% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.

Press coverage from radio, magazines and the newspaper accounted for 19.2% of the responses to this survey question.

A fairly large proportion of respondents couldn’t remember how they had heard about the trail.












Park 9.1

Another Trail 5.8

Canal walk 5.0

Gym, or treadmill 4.1




No 99.4

Yes 0.6


The majority of users surveyed (99%) did not use the trail as part of an overnight visit.

Responses to this question overwhelmingly indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Monon Trail.






No 100

Yes 0.0



Visitor Days

Percentage

0-10 10.3

11-20 8.9

21-30 8.4

31-40 1.2

41-50 7.1

51-60 5.8

61-70 0.6

71-100 17.3

101-120 1.9

120-150 9.7

151-200 14.7

201-300 12.8

>300 1.3

More than half the users reported 71-100 user visits or more.





Table28: Skill Level of Primary Activity


Novice 3.3

Intermediate 89.1

Expert 7.6





Less important 0.6




More important 40.8



A majority of users (94.3%) consider the activity for which they use the trail important to them, and 40% considered their activity extremely important.







Less important 1.9




More important 32.5


Nearly 80% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with 29.9% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.




Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Indianapolis Monon Trail closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys, including activity preferences. Notably, more than 77% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity.

Trail users in Indianapolis indicated a fairly advanced skill level with 96% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 100 days annually on average, for respondents. Over 38% of users reported they used the trail in excess of 120 days in the past year.

Generally speaking, no trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Indianapolis. This is reflective of the fact that 40% of the respondents learned of the trail through some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors.

Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Roughly 80% of all respondents indicated the activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation.

In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Monon trail, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. The vast majority of trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.











Very Satisfied 57.3

It’s Perfect 20.4




Yes 79.6

No 20.4


More favorable 42.6


Less favorable 0.0


80% of trail users indicated the trail affected their view of the area/city. All of these respondents found the trail to positively affect their view of the area/city.







Disagree less 0.0



Somewhat agree 20.1

Agree more 40.2

Strongly Agree 25.0



Time Spent Elsewhere Percentage


Disagree less 23.8



Somewhat agree 15.2

Agree more 9.1

Strongly Agree 3.0

More than 85% of trail users indicated they would spend more time on the trail if possible.





Table 35: Trail User Opinion on The Trail As a Major Reason for Location of Domicile



Disagree less 16.1



Somewhat agree 9.3

Agree more 11.8

Strongly Agree 9.9


Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Their Attachment To the Monon Rail Trail



Disagree less 2.4



Somewhat more 20.1

Agree more 31.1

Strongly Agree 20.7

31% of trail users indicated that the trail was a factor in choosing their current residence, while the trail was not a factor for 50.3%. The remaining 18.6% of the respondents did not agree or disagree that the trail was a factor in determining their place of residence.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Monon trail with over 70% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.







Disagree less 15.9



Somewhat agree 21.3

Agree more 10.4

Strongly Agree 6.1


Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward the Monon Rail Trail Compared to Other Trails

No Trail Compares Percentage


Disagree less 4.9



Somewhat agree 14.2

Agree more 16.7

Strongly Agree 8.0

More than one-third of trail users indicated that their lives were organized around the trail, with about 20% of respondents indicating a neutral response. A large proportion of trail users responding (41.5%) disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail.

38.9 % responded that no trail can compare to the Monon Trail.




Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Monon trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and their view of Indianapolis, as a city or community, was positively affected by the trail. Almost 97% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. Nearly 85% of responding trail users indicating some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with 57.4% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail was important. Reflecting this enthusiasm, over 70% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicated they are attached, to some degree, to the Monon trail. The Monon trail was a factor in organizing about 37% of trail users’ lives, although the majority of trail users responding either disagreed with this concept or were neutral. In addition, over 50% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Monon trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively affects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.



Trail Users Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions Survey Question: Indicate how important the following issues are to you with a 1 being not at all important and 7 being extremely important.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely

Crowded conditions, congestion 1 Not At All 5.38 7

Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that most of the factors at the right were important. However, they considered historic points of interest to be less important. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.



Survey Question: Indicate how satisfied you are with the trail and its management. Indicate how satisfied you are with the following issues with a 1 being no at all satisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the left were satisfactory on the Monon trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, and reckless behavior of trail users. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.



Chart 1: A Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Factors On the Indianapolis Monon Rail Trail

Importance-Satisfaction Comparison For Monon Trail

Crowde

Width SurfacSafety

Maps

Water

Parking

Historic

Proximity Adequate Access

Vandalism

Reckless

Personal SafetySafe Intersections

MaintenanceQuie


1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

EConcentrate Here

Low Priority


Possible Overkill

Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Monon Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail. The issue of most concern appears to be the availability of drinking water and toilet facilities.





Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Monon Trail

Public Benefits RatingPreserving Open Space Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic Beauty Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Community Pride Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tourism & Business Not ExtremelyDevelopment Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alternative Transportation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Health and Fitness Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Access for Disabled Not ExtremelyPersons Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Recreation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Education Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.68

5.86

5.99

4.72

4.53

6.52

5.39

6.15

4.97





Respondents to the Monon trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. The issue of most concern was the lack of availability of drinking water and toilet facilities along the trail. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Monon Trail included its natural surroundings, quiet setting, proximity to home or office, adequate access points, perceived personal safety, trail maintenance, trail surface and maps, signs and other trail information. The most important factors for the Monon trail and its management included the perceived personal safety of trail users, the prevention of trail vandalism and reckless behavior, trail maintenance, natural surroundings, and safe road and stream intersections. Historic points of interest and parking facilities were the least important factors to trail users with historic points of interest falling well below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in parking facilities, may be reflective of the ease with which the community may be navigated using the Monon trail. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, public recreation, aesthetic beauty and community pride. In conclusion, Monon trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.



Trail User Problems/Safety Concerns


Table 42: Percentage of Users Indicating The Most Important Problem On The Monon Rail Trail

Problem Percentage

Drinking fountains/toilets 23.7


Congestion 11.9

Safety 9.6

Road Safety 8.1

Vandalism 6.7

Width 5.9

Maintenance/dog feces 5.2

Access 3.0

Safety patrols 2.2

Signage 2.2

Proximity 1.5

Natural surroundings 0.7

It would appear that most people feel too few drinking fountains and toilets is the most important problem cited.





User Problems Percentage

Yes 56.8

No 43.2

Survey Question: What other types of trail users have you observed causing problems?



Bikes 32.1

Skaters 23.0

Dog Walkers 18.2

Walkers 17.0

Other: People 3.6

Runners 1.8

Mini-bikes 1.2

A large proportion of users are experiencing problems with other users on the trail.

The largest groups of respondents indicated they had observed trail users who were on bikes and skates causing problems for other users.




Table 45: Percentage Of Trail Users Observing Specific Types of Problems


Not Courteous 28.5


Too Fast 25.5

Interfering 7.9

Too Slow 0.6



Other Problem Occurring Percentage

No 100

Yes 0.0

No users indicated they were having other problems.

The responses to this question were fairly evenly distributed between blocking the trail, other users going too fast, or not courteous trail users.






Serious 37.0


Very Serious 16.0


Not sure 1.2



Stop Use Percentage

No 75.6

Yes 22.0

Not sure 2.4


Table 49: Trail User Opinion On Trail Congestion and Crowding

Opinion Percentage

Congested 59.7


Very congested 9.7

Not sure 4.5

53% of those respondents reporting a problem indicated the problems were serious or very serious.


69.4% of trail users indicated the trail is congested or very congested.




Table 50: Trail User Opinion On The Number of Restrooms On Trail


No 72.1

Yes 27.9



Safe Percentage

Safe 65.9

Very safe 28.7

Unsafe 3.7

Very unsafe 1.2

Not sure 0.6




Bike patrols 56.5

Clean paths 21.7

Width 13.0


Other 4.3

Over 70% of trail users feel the number of restrooms along the trail is inadequate.


Although trail users (95%) indicated they feel safe on the Monon trail, a significant percentage of users indicated that bike patrols and clean paths would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.





Generally speaking, a majority of trail users found problems with the Monon trail. 56.8% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A fairly high percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that insufficient water and toilet facilities was the most important problem on the trail. However, it is very notable that while these problems were reported, over 75% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Monon Trail as a result of these problems.

Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, but somewhat congested. The most popular trail safety improvement suggested was the addition of bike patrols to the Monon Trail. Over 70% of trail users, consistent with problems identified on the trail, felt there were not enough restrooms along the trail.





Table 53: Percentage of Trail Users Who Did Not Have To Pay To Park

Pay Percentage

No 100


Table 54: Percent of Trail Users Who Are Willing to Pay User Fee


No 50.9

Yes 49.1



Amount Percentage

5-10$ 44.3

11-20$ 31.6

21-30$ 13.9

31-49$ 3.8

$50 or more 6.3

No respondents who answered this question indicated they paid to park.

A slight majority of the responding trail users indicated they would not be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Monon Trail.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, a little over 44% would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually, with almost another one-third wiling to pay between $11-20 annually. Almost one-fourth of willing trail users would pay an annual use fee of $21 or more.




Table 56: Why Trail User Would Not Pay Annual User Fee

Reason Percentage



Am to poor 8.8





I paid all of my own expenses & no one else's

76.5


18.9


2.3


2.3

Most trail users (50.9%) would not be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass to use the trail. 80.9% of those trail users indicated they think taxes should cover the cost of using the trail.






Expenditure Category

Average $ Spent on Day of

Survey

Average $ Spent on

Annual Trail Use


0.0 200.00

Food/Beverage in Restaurants

8.00 100.00

Clothing 0.0 100.00


Memberships Subscriptions

60.00 99.77

Supplies (film, groceries, etc.)

15.00 93.75


4.00 70.00


Entertainment & Attractions

18.00 50.00


Totals 120.33 888.52

Only about 20 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $888.52 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Indianapolis area, creating some economic activity in the community.





Economic issues related to Monon trail use included trail user willingness to pay for parking and trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Monon trail users did not pay for parking, and said they were not willing to pay trail use fees. Most of those trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fee were willing to pay between $5 and $50 or more annually. Approximately 80% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $880 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Monon trail because they include items such as lodging. Because of the small number of responses, reliable estimates of thevalue cannot be developed.



Survey Question: Do you have a disability or handicap? Table 59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating a Disability


No 98.1

Yes 1.9


Table 60: Type of Disability Reported by All Trail users


Learning Impaired 0.6

Visually Impaired 0.6








Asian/Pacific Islander 0.6

Black/White/Native American 0.6

Hispanic 0.0

1.8% of trail users have a disability, the nature of which is learning, visually or mobility impairment.









High school 6.3


Some college 10.7


Master's 24.5

Doctoral 9.4




Business/Clerical/Management 39.0

Health/Human Services 16.9

Industry/Technology 11.8

Education 10.3


Attorney 4.4

Science 2.9

Food Service 2.2

Student 1.5

Sales 0.7

The majority of trail users (78.6%) have obtained a college degree or an advanced college degree.

Individuals in the fieldsof Business/Clerical/ Management, and Health/Human Services accounted for the largest percentage of trail users.





Income Percentage

< 20,000 6.8

20-39,000 15.6

40-59,000 23.1

60-79,000 21.8

> 80,000 32.7

The income of trail users ranges predominantly between $40,000 and $80,000+


Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Indianapolis were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of the economy of Indianapolis. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, college educated users earning $40,000 or more per year. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with learning impairment, visual impairment, and mobility impairment being commonly reported disabilities.




The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Indy Greenways Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along the Monon Trail (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Marion County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Monon Trail.

All trail neighbors were mailed a survey, with a cover letter, requesting their participation. The survey was designed so that the back cover contained a business reply-mailing panel and neighbors could place an enclosed sticker on the survey and drop it in any U.S. Postal Service mailbox after completion. Follow-up reminder postcards were sent to all trail users approximately 2 ½ weeks after the original mailing. A reminder mailing of another survey and cover letter was sent to those trail neighbors who did not respond to the original mailing and reminder post card. Of 636 trail neighbors, 212 eventually returned the survey resulting in a response rate of 33.3%.




Location Percentage




Don’t know 0.0

The trail runs along the edge of 74.6% of the adjacent properties.




Table 66: Percentage of Neighboring Property Size in Acres

Acres Percentage

.01- .25 6.8

.26- .50 23.1

.51- .75 7.6

.76- 1.0 9.5

1.01- 2.0 4.8

2.01- 4.0 0.5

> 4.0 1.5



Use Percentage

Residential 99.0

Commercial 1.0

The majority of properties adjacent to the Monon Trail are less than 1 acre in size. The average size of neighboring property is 7862 square feet for smaller properties under 1 acre, and 3.5 acres for properties over 1 acre in size.

Neighboring property is used primarily for residential purposes, reflecting the location of the Monon trail through residential areas of Indianapolis.





Single Family

Percentage

Yes 87.2

No 12.8


Table 69: Percent Of Trail Neighbors Using Dwelling Unit as Principle Residence

How Used Percentage


Rental 1.2



Distance Percentage 0-100 98.7

101-200 1.0

201-300 0.5

301-400 0.0

>400 0.0

A majority of the adjacent property is residential. There is a single family dwelling on 87.2% of trail neighbors’ property, more than 98% of which are occupied as a principle residence, and are located within 200 feet of the trail.





Facing Percentage

Back 83.1

Side 8.7

Front 8.1

The majority of neighboring properties have the trail in the back of the house.


Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Monon Trail neighboring properties were largely residential lots, less than one acre in size, and used primarily for single family residential uses. Over 98% of the properties were within 200 feet of the trail and the trail is in the back of more than 80% of the properties.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 72: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Monon Trail

Issue

Health & Fitness

1 Not At All 6.05 7

Extremely

Aesthetic Beauty 1 Not At All 5.81 7

Extremely


Extremely

Preserving Open space 1 Not At All 5.63 7

Extremely

Public Recreation

1 Not At All 5.42 7

Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely

Tourism & Business Development 1 Not At All 3.53 7

Extremely


Trail neighbors rated health and fitness, aesthetic beauty, community pride and preserving open space as the most important public benefits of the Monon trail.







Issue



1 Not At All 5.62 7

Extremely

Natural surroundings of the trail 1 Not At All 5.41 7


1 Not At All 4.66 7

Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Table 74: Trail Neighbor Initial Attitude Toward Trail Feeling Percentage

Very opposed to 5.6

More opposed to 2.8


Neither less or more 25.0

Somewhat supportive 22.2

More supportive of 11.1 Very supportive of 30.6

Mean Satisfaction RatingTrail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for having the trail as a neighbor, the maintenance of the trail and the natural surroundings of the trail. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Indianapolis.

The majority (63.9%) of trail neighbors’ initial attitudes toward the trail were supportive. One-fourth of trail neighbors expressed an initially neutral attitude toward the trail




Table 75: Current Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail Compared with First Reaction

Feeling About Nearness Percentage

Much worse than I expected 8.8

Worse than I expected 4.1

Somewhat worse than I expected 4.8


Somewhat better than I expected 14.3

Better than I expected 26.5

Much better than I expected 25.9


Table 76: Trail Neighbor Attitude Of Trail Affect On Neighborhood Quality


Reduced quality 3.4

Lowered quality 4.7











Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Monon Trail Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Monon trail with 73% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail improved the quality of their neighborhood. More than 66% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Monon trail was better than expected. A large proportion of trail neighbors were neutral in their opinion on the trail. These levels of approval are very similar to those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that only 11.2% of them were opposed to the trail to some degree. With only 12.8% of the trail neighbors expressing the attitude that the trail has had a reduced or lowered effect on neighborhood quality of life, it may be surmised that initial reaction to the Monon trail has remained fairly constant. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits of the Monon trail were similar to those of trail users. While health and fitness, aesthetic beauty, and community pride were the top rated public benefits to trail neighbors; health and fitness, public recreation, and community pride were the top three rated benefits by trail users. Trail neighbors generally reported satisfaction with the Monon trail and expressed most satisfaction with having the trail as a neighbor and maintenance of the trail. Trail neighbors expressed lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of ranger/safety patrols and parking facilities.






Effect Percentage



Lowered the resale value 5.4


Table 78: Neighbor Opinion Of Effect On Resale Vale Value


.1-3% 24.6

3.1-5% 26.2

5.1-8% 12.3

8.1-10% 16.4

10.1-15% 10.7


The majority of trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has increased the resale value of their property. Just over one-fourth of respondents indicated they felt the trail had no effect on the resale value of their property, while only 5.4% felt the trail had lowered their property value.

It appears the trail has a small effect on perceived resale value of adjacent property




Table 79: Trail Neighbor Opinion On Salability of Property Due to Proximity To Trail

Salability PercentageMuch easier to sell 17.4







In the next section, Section 5, trail neighbors were asked if the trail affected their decision to purchase the property. Respondents were only asked to respond to this question based upon whether or not they had purchased the property after the trail was opened. The date of the trail opening was provide with the survey


Table 80: Affect of Trail On Decision To Purchase


Reduced appeal 2.6




More appealing 26.0


The opinion of a majority of adjacent property owners is that the Monon trail either has no effect or increases salability. A very small percentage of trail neighbors indicated that proximity to the trail would make it more difficult to sell the property.

The majority of trail neighbors (65%) who purchased property along the trail after it opened indicated the trail increased the appeal of the property in their decision to buy. However, a significant percentage (27.3%) indicated the presence of the trail had no effect on the appeal of the property in their decision to buy.






Very opposed to 2.9

More opposed to 2.9






A large majority (81%) of current property owners are supportive of the trail.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the Monon trail has increased the resale value of their property. Just over one-fourth of respondents indicated they felt the trail had no effect on the resale value of their property, while only 5.4% felt the trail had lowered their property value. However, in either case, the effect was largely believed to be less than 10% of the resale value. Trail neighbors also felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would make it easier to sell their property with 64.2% of the neighbors indicating some degree of support for this concept. About one-fourth of trail neighbors indicated that the trail would not affect salability of the property. Only 9.8% of trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property. For those individuals purchasing property by the Monon trail after it was constructed, a significant group (65%) indicated trail proximity as an appealing factor in their decision to purchase the property. After purchasing the property, 81% of trail neighbors are supportive, to some degree, of the Monon Trail.





Table 82: Opinions of Problems Associated with Trail Users.

Problem


More


More


More

Noise 1 Less 3.77 7

More


More


More


More


More


More

Illegal vehicles 1 Less

3.26 7 More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Trail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Monon trail neighbors indicated a reduction in maintenance problems, requests to use restrooms/phone, and crop damage, since the trail was opened to the public.

Mean Problem Level Rating



In Section 7 of the trail neighbor survey, adjacent property owners were asked what problems they may have experienced in the past year and the number of times each experience occurred.




Illegal Vehicles 79

Littering 87

Unleashed Pets 64

Trespassing 68

Noise from trail 72

Loitering 60

Vandalism 35

Harass Animals 21

Rude Users 47

Privacy 26

Burglary 23

Illegal Parking 37

Maintenance 24

Dog Manure 59

Request phone 10

Crops damaged 8

Drainage 5

Ttotpdi(eUtfpraw

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently occurring problem reported by trail neighbors was trespassing. Less privacy, noise from the trail and dog manure were problems that were reported as consistent and frequent problems with the adjacent trail.




Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward Trail, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Monon trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Indianapolis indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development including requests to use bathrooms, lack of maintenance to the public property, crop damage, dog manure and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented by other agencies. It should be noted that an increased lack of privacy, increased noise, and increased issues with parking and illegal vehicle users were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. Specific problems reported by trail neighbors focused largely on trespassing, less privacy, lack of trail maintenance and dog manure. These consistently reported problems might help focus Indy Greenways’ response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Monon Trail.





Table 84: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used The Monon Trail in Past 12 Months


Yes 94.7

No 5.3




Summer 3.08

Spring 2.82

Fall 2.82

Winter 1.96

A large majority of trail neighbors (94.7%) responding to the survey indicated they had used the trail at least once in the past 12 months.







Category







Over 66 22 Recreation Health






Gender Percentage

Female 50.2

Male 49.8




25-35 32.8

36-45 21.0

46-55 22.1

56-65 8.2

66-75 9.7

76-85 5.7

Over 85 0.5

Most trail neighbor survey respondents were between 25-35 years of age, with another large group between the ages of 36-55. The average age of the trail neighbor survey respondent was 44 years.




Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with almost 95% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring through fall time period being the highest use level at approximately 3 days of use every week (approximately 115 days of use annually). Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by all age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose for younger participants and health/fitness and recreation being the primary trail use purposes for older trail neighbors. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were equally divided by gender and on average were 44 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Monon Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the Monon trail in Indianapolis as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Indianapolis Monon Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Monon Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Monon trail approaches 48,000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use on weekdays between 4-7pm. On weekends, there is fairly steady use between 7am and 3pm and then a peak in usage from about 3pm to 7pm.

2) Trail users are predominantly white, middle-aged, and equally

divided among gender.




5) Monon trail users overall are satisfied with the trail. It positively

affects their view of Indianapolis as a city and their quality of life.





7) A majority of trail users experienced some kind of problems on the trail. This may be due to the large number of people on the trail. However, 75% said they would not stop using the trail because of these problems.

8) Trail users overwhelmingly felt safe on the trail, but also felt it

was somewhat congested. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of bike patrols, lights and phones.


A small number of users reported expenditures on equipment, accessories and other goods and services related to trail usage.

10) Monon trail users represent a wide variety of trades and

occupations.

11) Monon trail neighbors generally have a positive attitude toward the trail and feel it has improved the quality of their neighborhood.


by the trail. 13) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail and generally feel it

has increased the value and salability of their property. 14) In general, problems experienced by trail neighbors have


neighbors use the trail approximately 3 days per week, especially during spring, summer and fall.


CARDINAL GREENWAY TRAIL MUNCIE, IN

December, 2001




Cardinal Greenway Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Cardinal Greenway Trail in Muncie, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Muncie Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trail Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study:

Diana Roach Director of Administration Cardinal Greenway, Inc. Bruce Moore Director of Operations Cardinal Greenway, Inc. John Parker President Park Board Robert Scaife Member Park Board Dan Reno Member Park Board Lynn Thornburg, Member Park Board Jennifer Abrell Member Park Board Dan Canan Mayor City of Muncie






Cardinal Greenway Trail, Muncie, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 History of the Cardinal Greenway Trail ..................................... 3 Map of Cardinal Greenway Trail................................................ 4 Methodology.............................................................................. 5 Trail Counts............................................................................... 7 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 7 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 9 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 10 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 11 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 12 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 13 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 22 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 23 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 23 Summary and Implications................................... 29 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 30 Summary and Implications................................... 34 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 35 Summary and Implications................................... 39 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 40 Summary and Implications................................... 45 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 46 Summary and Implications................................... 49 Trail User Demographics................................................ 50 Summary and Implications................................... 52 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 53 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 53 Summary and Implications................................... 56 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 57 Summary and Implications................................... 60 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 61 Summary and Implications................................... 63 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 64 Summary and Implications................................... 66 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 67 Summary and Implications................................... 70 Conclusions ............................................................................. 71


Cardinal Greenway Page 1 Muncie, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Cardinal Greenway in Muncie.


Page 2 Cardinal Greenway Muncie, IN











History of Trail Cardinal Greenway takes its name from the traditional definition of a greenway as linear open space, linking parks, nature preserves, and cultural and historical sites with each other and with populated areas for use by non-motorized travelers.

The Cardinal was the name of the last passenger train to regularly use the railroad line from Chicago to Washington D.C. It derived its name from the state bird of all five of the states – Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia – which it passed through on the Chicago to Cincinnati to Washington railroad line.

The Cardinal Greenway trail, the longest rails-to-trails project in Indiana, is located on the former CSX rail corridor in eastern Indiana beginning at the northwest edge of downtown Richmond, Indiana extending through Muncie, Indiana and terminating on Marion, Indiana’s western side. The corridor traverses the five east-central counties of Delaware, Henry, Grant, Randolph and Wayne. The total distance of the project, from Richmond to Marion is 71.34 miles. However, the portion of the corridor owned by Cardinal Greenway is 58.85 miles. A 12.49-mile portion of the CSX corridor from Gaston to Jonesboro, known as “The Gap” was purchased by local adjacent landowners – unknowingly by Cardinal Greenway.

The Cardinal Greenway trail has been designated for non-motorized users only, except for activities associated with its maintenance, management, security and emergency situations. During winter months the trail will also support cross-country skiing. No snowmobiles and/or ATVs are allowed. Persons with temporary and permanent disabilities are able to gain access and use the facilities throughout the entire length of the trail.

The asphalt trail is 12 feet wide in the cities and either 10 or 12 feet wide in the country. The trail is capable of supporting multiple users simultaneously including walkers, joggers, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, in-line skaters, etc. Parking lots at major trailheads provide parking for cars, busses and recreational vehicles and each major trailhead provides restroom facilities, waste receptacles, bike racks and a variety of informational signage.

There is a short equestrian trail south of Medford (east of highway 35 south). There is also ample parking for horse trailers and other vehicles. The trail travels approximately 2 miles alongside the Cardinal Greenway trail and joins the equestrian trail at Prairie Creek reservoir.



Map of Cardinal Greenway Trail

10.3 miles of Cardinal Greenway is completed in Delaware County! Starting at McCulloch Boulevard north of White River past the old CSX Depot near downtown Muncie, through urban and rural areas, ending at the southeast corner of the Prairie Creek Reservoir, at County Road 534 East.



Trail Counts Estimates of total traffic on the Cardinal Greenway Trail in Muncie in September and October 2000 are 9,275 and 9,063 respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. Estimates of the number of different users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Daily Trail Traffic

C1. Daily Trail Traffic (Muncie Trail, September 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

C2. Daily Trail Traffic (Muncie Trail, October 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Figures C1 and C2 show trail use on every day in September and October. Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about 8 in September and 36 in October. Daily traffic in September (among days for which full counts are available) ranged from a low of only 63 on Monday, September 25 to a high of 517 on Sunday, September 30.

Day of Month

Day of Month



Although analyses of the causes of variability are beyond the scope of this study, the variability in daily traffic generally can be accounted for by user preferences, weather, and other factors. Hourly Trail Traffic

Figures C3 and C4 present average daily traffic for the Cardinal Greenway Trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of approximately 1.8, ranging from a low of 229 on Tuesdays to a high on Sundays of 410. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 2.6, ranging from a low of 176 on Wednesdays to a high on Sundays of 460. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Sundays in both months, but it was second highest on Saturdays in September and on Mondays in October. Average daily traffic on Tuesdays and Thursdays in September, and on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in October was lower than average weekday hourly traffic of each month respectively.

C3. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Muncie Trail, September 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

C4. Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Muncie Trail, October 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures C5-C10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekend days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the work-week are examined.

C5. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (MuncieTrail, September 2000)

0102030405060

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

C6. Mean Hourly Trail Flow (MuncieTrail, October 2000)

0102030405060

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

These patterns reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work. Peak weekday hourly use accounted for 10.7 percent in September and 11 percent in October, respectively of average weekday use.

Figures C5-C6 demonstrate different patterns of average hourly trail traffic on weekends and weekdays. Average weekend hourly trail traffic in September and October increased steadily from about 6:00 a.m. until about 4:00 p.m., and then declined. Peak average hourly use accounted for 12 percent in September and 15.3 percent in October of average weekend use. On weekdays, average hourly trail traffic leveled off by about 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., remained relatively constant in September but with more rises and falls in October until late afternoons, then started increasing, and peaked in early evenings between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., and then dropped off rapidly.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic Figures C7 and C8 exhibit hourly traffic on Saturdays and Sundays in September and October 2000. Overall use was higher on Sundays; and hourly traffic on Saturday mornings stayed higher than on Sunday mornings until about 10:00 a.m. In September, hourly traffic on Saturdays remained higher than on Sundays until between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

C7. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Muncie Trail, September 2000)

01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaysSaturdays

C8. Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Muncie Trail, October 2000)

01020304050607080

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day




C9. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Muncie Trail, September 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


C10. Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (Muncie Trail, October 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hours (C9 and C10). In general, hourly traffic was relatively constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings. The peak average hourly traffic occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays in October; between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Wednesdays in September; from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays in September, and on Mondays and Tuesdays in October; from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays in September and on Wednesdays in October. In September, Monday hourly traffic departed from this pattern, peaking at between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 107 in September and 192 in October, or approximately 2 to 3 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 114 in September and 133 in October, or approximately 2 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



In sum, counts show some consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Saturday morning use is higher than Sunday morning. Additional analyses of the effects of weather on patterns of use would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Surveys The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Cardinal Greenway Trail. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 108 trail users were intercepted on the Cardinal Greenway Trail and agreed to be surveyed.



Activity Percentage

Bicycle 77.1

Walk 11.4

Run/Jog 4.8

Skate 5.7

Sightseeing 1.0




Drive 66.3

Bicycle 26.9

Walk 5.8

Neighbor 1.0

Almost 78% of people intercepted on the trail were bicycling.

More than 65% of people intercepted drove to the trail.




Table 3: Time to Trail Time to Trail

(minutes) Percentage

0-10 66.5

11-20 23.8

21-40 8.0

41-60 2.0



Distance to Trail (miles)

Percentage

0-5 66.6

6-10 14.6

11-15 8.7

16-20 3.8

21-40 5.9

118 1.0

The majority (66.5%) of trail users were within ten minutes of the trail. The mean time for travel was 11.28 minutes with the maximum time being 80 minutes and the minimum time being less than 1 minute, which indicates the respondent was a trail neighbor

Over 65% of trail users are within 5 miles of the trail. The mean mileage for users was 7.26 miles.





Time on Trail (minutes) Percentage

0-30 9.8

31-60 27.0

61-90 26.1

91-120 18.3

121-150 11.5

151-180 5.8

over 180 2.9



Miles Covered

Percentage

1-5 14.7

6-10 19.6

11-15 14.8

16-20 38.2

21-25 4.9

26-30 3.0

31-35 3.9

36-40 1.0

More than 50% spent between 30 and 90 minutes on the trail. The mean time on the trail is about 94 minutes. The minimum time on the trail is 1 minute, and the maximum time is 270 minutes.

The vast majority of users are covering between 6-20 miles on the trail.



Survey Question: Did the respondent enter and exit the trail at the same location? Table 7: Were the Entrance and Exit at the Same Location


Yes 93.1

No 6.9



Combined Visits

Percentage

No 64.4

Yes 35.6

Personal 16.7

Dining 9.3

Shopping 5.6

Business 3.7

Other 0.9

More than 90% of the users are entering and exiting the trail at the same location.

Users of the trail more often do not combine the use of the trail with other places as indicated by the 64.4% of no responses. Those who do combine their visit with other places are most likely to combine use of the trail with other personal uses.






Less 15 50

16 to 25 21

26 to 35 17

36 to 45 24

46 to 55 22

56 to 65 16

over 66 9 Survey Question: Is today the first time you used the trail?



No 91.4

Yes 8.6

There is a large proportion of users in the 15 and under age group. Besides them, users of the trail are fairly evenly grouped in the 16-65 year old ranges.

91.4% of the users have used the trail before the day of the intercepts.







Recreation 38.8

Commute 2.9

Other 1.9





Recreation 37.2

Commute 2.3




Percentage

Yes 88.5

No 11.5

The majority of users (56.3%) indicated that health/exercise was the main purpose for visiting the trail.

The majority of users (60.5 %) who indicated multiple reasons for visiting the trail cited health/exercise as the other reason for visiting the trail.






Minutes Spent

Percentage

10-60 15.5

60-120 16.9

120-180 12.7

180-240 7.0

240-300 18.3

300-360 5.6

360-420 1.4

420-480 2.8

480-540 1.4

540-600 4.2

600-700 2.8

700-1000 9.8

over 1000 1.4

More than 45% of users are typically on the trail between 10 minutes to 180 minutes.






Yes 76.1

No 23.9




Less 15 0.0

16-25 18.4

26-35 13.6

36-45 22.3

46-55 21.2

56-65 12.7

over 66 10.8



Gender Percentage

Male 68.0

Female 32.0

.

Most users who were surveyed (76.1%) were active in walk/run/cycle/skate before the trail was created.

The average age for users on the trail is about 44 years with over 54% of the distribution of users between the ages of 26-45.







Caucasian 95.0

Black 4.0

Asian 1.0



Observed Activity

Percentage

Bicycle 76.9

Walk 16.5

Run/jog 3.3

Skate 2.2

Other 1.1


The majority of users are cyclists.





Time of Day Surveyed

Percentage

6-9 AM 3.3

9-12 AM 34.1

12-3 PM 8.8

3-6 PM 38.5

6-9 PM 15.4

The majority of Intercept surveys were conducted between the times of 9-12 AM and 3-6 PM.


The trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical in Percentage.

A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Cardinal Greenway Trail, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trail’s creation (23.9%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (35.6%) such as exercise and other personal uses, or recreation and dining.

Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 65% of Cardinal Greenway trail users being within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail. More than 90% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location.

A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (56.3%) and recreation (38.8%) purposes. Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (23.9%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (88.5%), added approximately 3 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow-UP Survey





Activity Percentage

Bicycle 77.2

Walking 11.9

Run/Jog 6.9

Skating 4.0







Brochures 37.6

Relatives 20.8

Friends 18.8

Happened On It 5.9

Neighbor 5.9

Group 2.0

Magazine 2.0

Word of Mouth 2.0

Other 2.0

Radio 1.0

Newspaper 1.0

Internet 0.0

Don't Remember 0.0

49.5% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.












Another Trail 10.3

Other 2.9




No 97.1

Yes 2.9


2.9% of the users surveyed used the trail during an overnight visit.

Responses to this question overwhelmingly indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Cardinal Greenway Trail.





Trail Reason for Visit Percentage

Yes 66.7

No 33.3




0-10 32.6

11-20 12.2

21-30 8.1

31-40 4.1

41-50 13.2

51-60 4.0

61-70 0.0

71-100 4.0

101-120 3.0

120-150 4.0

151-200 8.1

201-300 4.0

>300 1.0

Two-thirds of the users who stayed overnight indicated that the trail was the reason for the visit.

The average number of visitor days is days/year is 56 days.






Novice 4.0

Intermediate 62.4

Expert 33.7





Less important 1.0




More important 33.7


96.1% of trail users consider their activity skill level to be either intermediate or expert.

A majority of users (91.2%) consider the activity for which they use the trail important to them. 34.7% considered their activity extremely important.







Less important 6.0




More important 27.0


84% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with 36% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.




Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Muncie Cardinal Greenway Trail closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys, including activity preferences. 71% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity.

Trail users in Muncie indicated a fairly advanced skill level with 96.1% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 56 days annually on average, for respondents. With 20% of users reporting they used the trail in excess of 100 days in the past year.

Only a very small number of trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Muncie. This is reflective of the fact that almost 50% of the respondents learned of the trail through some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors.

Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Roughly 85% of all respondents indicated the activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation.

In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Cardinal Greenway Trail, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. The vast majority of trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.











Very Satisfied 60.8

It's Perfect 21.6

Survey Question: Has using this trail affected your view of the area or city? How has this trail affected your view?


View Percentage

No 22.8

Yes 77.2

More favorable 61.5


Less favorable 1.3



77.2% of trail users indicated the trail affected their view of the area/city. Practically all of these respondents found the trail to positively affect their view of the area/city.







Disagree less 1.9



Somewhat agree 34.0

Agree more 40.8

Strongly Agree 0.0



Time Could Be Spent Elsewhere

Percentage


Disagree less 9.7



Somewhat agree 12.6

Agree more 6.8

Strongly Agree 8.7

Almost 75% of trail users surveyed indicated they would spend more time on the trail if possible.





Table 35: Trail User Opinion On the Trail As A Major Reason for Location of Domicile



Disagree less 8.8



Somewhat agree 9.8

Agree more 2.9

Strongly Agree 4.9


Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Their Attachment To the Muncie Cardinal Greenway Trail



Disagree less 2.9



Somewhat agree 23.3

Agree more 24.3

Strongly Agree 28.2

17.6% of trail users indicated that the trail was a factor in choosing their current residence, while the trail was not a factor for 62.7%. The remaining 19.6% of the respondents did not agree or disagree that the trail was a factor in determining their place of residence.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Cardinal Greenway trail with over 75% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.







Disagree less 9.8



Somewhat agree 17.6

Agree more 11.8

Strongly Agree 4.9


Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward Muncie Cardinal Greenway Trail Compared to Other Trails



Disagree less 8.2



Somewhat agree 19.6

Agree more 15.5

Strongly Agree 7.2

Over one-third of trail users responding indicated their lives were organized around the trail, with about 20% of respondents indicating a neutral response. A significant number of trail users responding (43.2%) disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail.

42.3% responded that no trail can compare to the Cardinal Greenway Trail.




Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Cardinal Greenway trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and that their view of Muncie as a community was positively affected by the trail. Over 77% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. Nearly 75% of responding trail users indicated some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with over 52.4% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail was important. Reflecting this enthusiasm, over 75% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicated they are attached, to some degree, to the Cardinal Greenway trail. The Cardinal Greenway trail was a factor in organizing about 34% of trail users’ lives, although the majority of trail users responding either disagreed with this concept or were neutral. In addition, over 60% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Cardinal Greenway trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively affects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.



Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions Survey Question: Indicate how important the following issues are to you with a 1 being not at all important and 7 being extremely important. Not At All Important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue

Personal safety 1 Not At All 6 . 4 0 7

Extremely

Safe road/stream intersections 1 Not At All 6 . 3 4 7

Extremely

Trail vandalism 1 Not At All 6 . 2 4 7

Extremely

Trail Maintenance 1 Not At All 6 . 2 1 7

Extremely

Reckless behavior of trail users 1 Not At All 6 . 0 0 7

Extremely

Rough trail surface 1 Not At All 5 . 9 6 7

Extremely

Natural surroundings 1 Not At All 5 . 9 3 7

Extremely

Drinking water and toilet facilities 1 Not At All 5 . 7 7 7

Extremely

Adequate access points 1 Not At All 5 . 6 7 7

Extremely

Quiet settings 1 Not At All 5 . 5 7 7

Extremely

Narrow trail width 1 Not At All 5 . 3 1 7

Extremely

Crowded conditions, congestion 1 Not At All 5 . 1 3 7

Extremely

Adequate ranger/safety patrols 1 Not At All 5 . 1 2 7

Extremely

Maps, signs, and trail information 1 Not At All 5 . 0 6 7

Extremely

Parking facilities 1 Not At All 4 . 9 2 7

Extremely

Proximity to home/office 1 Not At All 4 . 8 5 7

Extremely

Historic points of interest 1 Not At All 4 . 3 2 7

Extremely

Mean Importance Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that most of the factors at the right were important. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.





1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating

By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the left were satisfactory on the Cardinal Greenway trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, and adequate ranger/safety patrols. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.



Chart 1: A Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Factors on the Muncie Cardinal Greenway Trail

Importance-Satisfaction Comparison For Cardinal Greenway

Natural SurroundingsQuiet

MaintenanceSafe Intersections Personal Safety

RecklessVandalism

Adequate Access

Proximity

Historic

Parking

Water

MapsSafety

Surface

Width Crowded

1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7

SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

EConcentrate Here

Low Priority


Possible Overkill

Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Cardinal Greenway Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail.




Survey Question: Please rank the importance of the following great public benefits with 1 being important and 7 being extremely important.

Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Cardinal Greenway Trail


Preserving Open Space


Aesthetic Beauty


Community Pride




Alternative Transportation


Health and Fitness


Access for Disabled Persons


Public Recreation


Nature Education

Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.57

6.41

5.99

5.23

6.20

5.92

5.89

4.44

6.67





Respondents to the Cardinal Greenway Trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Cardinal Greenway Trail included trail maintenance, the trail surface, its natural surroundings, quiet setting, parking facilities, perceived personal safety and lack of congestion on the trail. The most important factors for the Cardinal Greenway Trail and its management included the perceived personal safety of trail users, safe road and stream intersections, the prevention of trail vandalism, trail maintenance, and the prevention of reckless behavior by trail users. Parking facilities and historic points of interest were the least important factors to trail users falling below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in the former factor, parking facilities, may be reflective of Muncie’s size and the ease with which the community may be navigated using the Cardinal Greenway trail. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, aesthetic beauty, public recreation and community pride. In conclusion, Cardinal Greenway trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.





Table 42: Percentage of Users Indicating the Most Important Problem on the Cardinal Greenway Trail

Problem Percentage

Maintenance/Dog manure 10.6


Road Safety 10.6

Vandalism 9.1

Safety patrols 7.6


Safety 3.0

No problems 3.0

Historic sites/signs 1.5

It would appear that most people feel that dog manure, reckless behavior, and road safety are the biggest problems.





User Problems

Percentage

No 64.4

Yes 35.6




Bikes 21.0

Walkers 11.4

Dog Walkers 8.6

Skaters 6.7

Runners 2.9

Other: Golfers, Kids, People

4.8


21% of the respondents indicated that they had observed trail users who were on bikes causing problems for other users.




Table 45: Types of Problems



Not Courteous 14.3

Too Fast 4.8

Interfering 4.8

Too Slow 1.0



Other Problem Occurring

Percentage

No 100

About 37% of users felt like the problems they experienced involved blocking the trail or users who were not courteous.







Serious 37.8



Very Serious 13.5



Stop Use Percentage

No 86.5 Yes 8.1

Not sure 5.4



Opinion Percentage

Congested 84.8


Very congested 6.7



84.8% of trail users indicated the trail is congested.




Table 50: Trail User Opinion on the Number of Restrooms on Trail

Adequate Restrooms

Percentage

Yes 73.0

No 27.0


Table 51: Trail User Opinion on Safety of Trail

Safe Percentage

Safe 62.9

Very safe 30.5

Not sure 2.9

Unsafe 2.9

Very unsafe 1.0




Bike patrols, lights, phones 72.7

Leashed dogs 9.1

More users 9.1

Intersections and crossings 9.1

73% of trail users feel the number of restrooms along the trail is adequate.

Over 90% of trail users indicate a feeling of safety, to some degree, while on the trail. Only about 4% of trail users expressed an opinion that the trail was unsafe or very unsafe.

Although trail users (90%) indicated they feel safe on the Cardinal Greenway trail, a large percentage of users indicated that bike patrols, lights and phones would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.





Generally speaking, trail users found very few problems with the Cardinal Greenway trail. Only 35.6% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A fairly high percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that lack of trail maintenance, reckless behavior and road safety were the most important problems on the trail. However, it is very notable that while these problems were reported, over 85% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Cardinal Greenway Trail as a result of these problems.

Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, but nearly 85% thought it was congested. The most popular trail safety improvement suggested was the addition of bike patrols, lights and phones to the Cardinal Greenway Trail.




Table 53: Percentage of Trail Users Who Did Not Have to Pay to Park

Pay Percentage

No 99.0


Table 54: Percentage of trail Users Who are Willing to Pay User Fee


Yes 60.6

No 39.4


Table 55: Annual Fee Supported by Trail Users Indicating Their Willingness to Pay for Trail Use

Amount Percentage

5-10$ 46.8

11-20$ 33.9

21-30$ 14.5

50$ 3.2

100$ 1.6

99% of the respondents who answered this question indicated that they did not pay to park.

A majority of the responding trail users indicated they would be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Cardinal Greenway Trail.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, almost half would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually, with another one-third wiling to pay between $11-20 annually. Almost one-fifth of willing trail users would pay an annual use fee of $21 or more.




Table 56: Why User Wouldn’t Pay User Fee

Reason Percentage



Am too poor 13.9



Table 57: Expenses Related to Trail


I paid all of my own expenses & no one else's

71.1


23.3


4.4


1.1

About 40% would not be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass to use the trail. 61.1% of those trail users indicated they think taxes should cover the cost of using the trail.






Expenditure Category Average $

Spent on Day of Survey

Average $ Spent on

Annual Trail Use

Lodging, Motel, Camping, Cabins 0.00 300.00







Membership, Subscriptions, & Programs 0.00 42.67



Totals 37.00 1115.51

Only about 20 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $1115.51 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Muncie area, creating some economic activity in the community.





Economic issues related to Cardinal Greenway trail use included trail user willingness to pay for parking and trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Cardinal Greenway trail users did not pay for parking, but were willing to pay a trail use fee. Those responding trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fee were willing to pay between $5 and $20 annually. Approximately 60% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $1100 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Cardinal Greenway because they include items such as lodging. Because of the small number of responses, reliable estimates of the value cannot be developed.





Table 59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating a Disability

Disabled Percentage

No 96.0

Yes 4.0


Table 60: Type of Disability Reported by All Trail Users




Other 1.0





American Indian/Alaska Native

2.1


4.9% of trail users have a disability, the nature of which is mobility or hearing impairment.




Survey Question: What is the highest educational level that you have attained? Table 62: Completed Education Level as Reported by Trail Users


Grade/Elementary 2.0 Some high school 3.0

High school 15.0


Some college 23.0


Master's 12.0

Doctoral 7.0





Education 20.2


Health/Human Services 15.5


Student 6.0

Food Service 2.4

Sales 1.2

Unemployed 1.2

Music 1.2

The majority of trail users (52%) have obtained a college degree or an advanced college degree.

Individuals in the fields of Industry/Technology/ Trade, Business/Clerical/ Management, and Health/Human Services accounted for the largest percentage of users.





Income Percentage

< 20,000 16.5

20-39,000 16.5

40-59,000 25.9

60-79,000 24.7

> 80,000 16.5

The income of trail users ranges predominantly between $40,000-$79,000


Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Muncie were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of Muncie’s economy. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, college educated users earning between $40,000 and $79,000 annually. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with hearing impairment and mobility impairment being the most common disabilities.




The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Muncie Park and Recreation Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along the Cardinal Greenway Trail (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Delaware County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Cardinal Greenway Trail.


The Trail Neighbor Survey was divided up into various topical sections. In the first section, trail neighbors were asked about their property and its relationship to the trail. Survey Question: Where is the trail in relation to your property?


Location Percentage


Trail is near but not touching property

46.8


Don’t Know 2.4

46.8% of adjacent property is near but not touching the trail. The trail runs along the edge of another 46.8% of adjacent properties.




Table 66: Percent of Neighboring Property Size in Acres

Acres Percentage

.10-.25 10.5

.26-.50 22.2

.51-.75 4.7

.76-1.0 14.0

1.1-2.0 3.6

2.1-10.0 28.1

>10 18.0 Survey Question: How is your property used?


Use Percentage

Residential 85.1

Commercial 6.6

Cropland 5.0

Church 2.5

Undeveloped 0.8

The majority of property adjacent to the Cardinal Greenway Trail is under1 acre in size. The average size of neighboring property is 7812 square feet for smaller properties under 1 acre, and 52.8 acres for properties over 1 acre in size.

Neighboring property is used primarily for residential purposes, reflecting the location of the Cardinal Greenway trail through residential areas of Muncie.



Survey Question: Is there a single family home on your property? Table 68: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Property for

Single Family Home


Yes 85.7

No 14.3 Survey Question: Which of the following most accurately describes how you use this house?

Table 69: Percent of Trail neighbors Using Dwelling Unit as Principle Residence

How Used Percentage

Principle residence 93.5 Rental 3.7

Unoccupied 1.9

Second home 0.9


Table 70: Distance from Trail in Feet

Distance Percentage

1-40 24.8

41-80 8.9

81-120 14.0

121-200 21.3

201-400 19.3

401-600 8.8

601-1000 1.8

>1000 10.8

A majority of the adjacent property is residential. There is a single family dwelling on 85.7% of trail neighbors’ property, 93.5% of which are occupied as a principle residence, and 69% of which are located within 200 feet of the trail.





Facing Percentage

Back 50.5

Front 24.8

Side 19.3

None 5.5



Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Cardinal Greenway Trail neighboring properties were largely residential lots, less than one acre in size, and used primarily for single family residential uses. Over ½ the properties were within 200 feet of the trail and the back of the house faces the trail right of way.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 72: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Cardinal Greenway Trail

Issue

Health & Fitness 1 Not At All 5.99 7

Extremely


Extremely

Aesthetic Beauty 1 Not At All 5.62 7

Extremely


Extremely

Preserving Open space 1 Not At All

5.50 7 Extremely

Public Recreation 1 Not At All 5.42 7

Extremely


Extremely


1 Not At All 4.53 7

Extremely


Extremely


Trail neighbors rated preserving open space, aesthetic beauty, health and fitness, and community pride as the most important public benefits of the Cardinal Greenway trail.



In Section 3 of the trail neighbor survey, trail neighbors were asked how satisfied they felt about specific trail management issues, on a seven-point scale with 1 being “not at all satisfied” to 7 being “extremely satisfied”. Survey Question: Overall, how satisfied are you with…



Issue

Maintenance of the trail

1 Not At All 5.38 7

Extremely


Extremely


ExtremelyAgency responsiveness to reported problems

1 Not At All 4.74 7

Extremely


Extremely


Extremely



Feeling Percentage

Very opposed to 16.7More opposed to 5.2






Mean Satisfaction Rating Trail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for having the trail as a neighbor, the natural surroundings of the trail and the maintenance of the trail. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Muncie.

The majority (56.2%) of rail neighbors’ initial attitudes toward the trail were supportive. About one-seventh of trail neighbors expressed an initially neutral attitude toward the trail




Table 75: Current Trail Neighbor attitudes Toward Trail Compared With First Reaction





Neither more or less than expected

25.3





Table 76: Trail Neighbor Attitude of Trail Affect On Neighborhood Quality


Reduced quality 8.8

Lowered quality 1.1


Neither reduced or improved quality

27.5









Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Cardinal Greenway Trail Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Cardinal Greenway trail with 61% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail the quality of their neighborhood. More than 62% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Cardinal Greenway trail was better than expected. A large proportion of trail neighbors were neutral in their opinion on the trail. These levels of approval are very similar to those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that 30.2% of them were opposed to the trail to some degree. With only 11% of the trail neighbors expressing the attitude that the trail has had a reduced or lowered effect on neighborhood quality of life, it may be surmised that initial reaction to the Cardinal Greenway trail has remained fairly constant. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits of the Cardinal Greenway trail were similar to those of trail users. Preservation of open space, aesthetic beauty, health and fitness, public recreation and community pride were top rated public benefits to trail neighbors. These same benefits were also the top rated benefits by trail users. Trail neighbors generally reported satisfaction with the Cardinal Greenway trail, and expressed most satisfaction with having the trail as a neighbor and the trail maintenance. Trail neighbors expressed lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of ranger/safety patrols, parking facilities and agency responsiveness to problems.






Effect Percentage






Percentage Effect

Percentage

.1-3% 22.6

3.1-5% 32.3

5.1-8% 0.0

8.1-10% 12.9

10.1-15% 16.1


The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. About 12% of respondents indicated they felt the trail had increased the resale value of their property, while almost 14% felt the trail had lowered their property value.

It appears the majority of respondents feel the trail has had very little effect on the perceived resale value of their properties.






Much easier to sell 9.0More easy to sell 8.1








Table 80: Effect of Trail on Decision to Purchase


Reduced appeal 7.1Somewhat less appealing 7.1

Less appealing 3.6



More appealing 7.1


The opinion of a majority of adjacent property owners is that proximity of their property to the trail will make it neither easier nor harder to sell the property. It is the overall opinion of Muncie trail neighbors that the Cardinal Greenway trail either has no effect or increases salability. But, almost one-fifth of trail neighbors indicated that proximity to the trail would make it more difficult to sell the property.

The majority of trail neighbors (57.1%) who purchased property along the trail after it opened indicated the presence of the trail had no effect on the appeal of the property in their decision to buy. However, a significant percentage (24.9%) indicated the trail increased the appeal of the property in their decision to buy.





Trail Supportiveness Percentage

Very opposed to 2.0






The presence of the trail did not influence the decision of most property purchases, yet 70% of current property owners are supportive of the trail.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions The majority of the trail neighbors responding indicated the Cardinal Greenway trail has had no effect on the resale value of their property. 12.1% of respondents indicated they felt the trail had increased the resale value of their property, while 13.8% felt the trail had lowered their property value. However, in either case, the effect was largely believed to be less than 10% of the resale value. Trail neighbors generally felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would have no effect on their ability to sell their property with 49.5% of the neighbors indicating support for this concept. Roughly 30% of trail neighbors indicated that the presence of the trail would make it easier to sell their property, while nearly 20% of trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property. For those individuals purchasing property by the Cardinal Greenway trail after it was constructed, a significant group (24.9%) indicated trail proximity as an appealing factor in their decision to purchase the property. After purchasing the property, 70% of trail neighbors are supportive, to some degree, of the Cardinal Greenway Trail.






Problem


More


More

Noise 1 Less 3.54 7

More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Mean Problem Level Rating Trail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Muncie trail neighbors indicated significant reduction in requests to use restrooms/phone, crop damage, burglary and lack of maintenance since the trail was opened to the public.





Table 83: Number of Trail Neighbors Reporting Specific Problems Occurred In Past Years


Illegal Vehicles 38

Littering 28

Unleashed Pets 19

Trespassing 23

Noise from trail 25

Loitering 23

Vandalism 15

Harass Animals 12

Rude Users 20

Privacy 18

Burglary 15

Illegal Parking 24

Maintenance 12

Dog Manure 14

Request phone 15

Crops damaged 7

Drainage 9

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently occurring problem reported by different trail neighbors was lack of privacy. Trespassing, illegal parking, damaged crops and unleashed pets were problems that were reported as consistent and frequent problems with the adjacent trail.




Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward Trail, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Cardinal Greenway trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Muncie indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development including requests to use bathrooms, lack of maintenance to the public property, crop damage, dog manure and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented by other agencies. It should be noted that an increased lack of privacy, increased noise, and increased issues with parking and illegal vehicle users were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. Specific problems reported by trail neighbors focused largely on lack of privacy, trespassing, illegal parking, damaged crops and unleashed pets. These consistently reported problems might help focus City of Muncie’s response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Cardinal Greenway Trail.



In Section 8, trail neighbors were asked to provide information about themselves and their households in order to assist in better understanding the issues affecting them. Survey Question: Did you use the trail at least once during the past 12 months?

Table 84: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used the Cardinal Greenway Trail in the Past 12 Months


Yes 73.8

No 26.2

Survey Question: If yes, on average how many days/week did you use the trail in winter?


Seasons of Year Average No. Days Used

Summer 2.69

Fall 2.39

Spring 2.33

Winter 1.43






Table 86: Age of Individuals in Household

Age Group

Number in Age

Category







Over 66 16 Health

Recreation and health were the primary purposes of trail use by trail neighbors. Generally, the younger the member of the household the more likely their primary purpose of the trail will be exclusively for recreation. It is also interesting to note that several respondents in nearly every age category reported their purpose of use was to commute.





Gender Percentage

Female 55.4

Male 44.6



Grouped Ages

Percentage

15-25 2.5

26-35 10.0

36-45 13.4

46-55 28.6

56-65 20.2

66-75 12.4

76-85 9.0

Over 85 2.3





Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with over 73% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring through fall time period being the highest use level at between 2 and 3 days of use every week. Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by all age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose for younger participants and health/fitness and recreation being the primary trail use purposes for older trail neighbors. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were more likely to be male and on average were 55 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Cardinal Greenway Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Muncie, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the greenway trail system in Muncie as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Muncie Cardinal Greenway Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Cardinal Greenway Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Cardinal Greenway approaches 10,000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use on weekdays after between 3-6pm, and varying between 1-6pm on weekends depending upon the month of the year.


likely to be male.

3) A large percentage of trail users have become more active because of the creation of the trail. Generally, trail users viewed the trail as an important part of an active lifestyle.



5) Cardinal Greenway trail users overall are satisfied with the trail.

It positively affects their view of Muncie as a community and their quality of life.





7) Trail users, in general, experienced few problems on the trail and felt safe. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of lights, phones and bike patrols.

8) Most responding trail users are willing to pay a user fee to use

the trail. A small number of users reported moderate expenditures on equipment, accessories and other goods and services related to trail usage.

9) Cardinal Greenway trail users represent a wide variety of

trades and occupations. 10) Cardinal Greenway trail neighbors generally have a positive



by the trail. 12) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail, yet feel it has had

neither a positive or negative effect on the value and salability of their home.



neighbors use the trail approximately 2-3 days per week, especially during spring, summer, and fall.


PRAIRIE DUNELAND TRAIL PORTAGE, IN

December, 2001




Prairie Duneland Trail Report Indiana Trails Study

A Study of the Prairie Duneland Trail in Portage, Indiana

Funded by



Completed by

Indiana University



Project Associates


Shayne Galloway

November 30, 2001


City of Portage Parks and Recreation The Indiana Trails Study could not have been accomplished without the support and cooperation of leaders and staff from the local trail organizations that participated in the study. The following individuals served as the primary contacts and provided assistance to the Trail Study Team and played an important role in facilitating the completion of this study:

Carl Fisher Superintendent Department of Parks and Recreation Paul Cherepko President Park Board Dennis Riplin Member Park Board John Harrison Member Park Board Pamela Buhman Member Park Board Glenda Owens Member Park Board Douglas Olson Mayor City of Portage






Prairie Duneland Trail, Portage, IN Indiana Trails Study

i

Table of Contents

Background............................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study....................................................................... 2 Characteristics of Portage Area ................................................ 3 History of the Prairie Duneland Trail ......................................... 3 Map of Prairie Duneland Trail.................................................... 4 Methodology.............................................................................. 5 Trail Counts............................................................................... 7 Daily Trail Traffic............................................................. 7 Hourly Trail Traffic .......................................................... 9 Weekend Traffic ............................................................. 10 Weekday Hourly Traffic .................................................. 11 Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts ............... 12 Intercept Survey Questions ....................................................... 13 Summary and Implications—Intercept Surveys.............. 22 Follow-Up Surveys .................................................................... 23 Trail User Characteristics ............................................... 23 Summary and Implications................................... 29 Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles .................................. 30 Summary and Implications................................... 34 Trail User Satisfaction and Benefit Opinions .................. 35 Summary and Implications................................... 39 Trail User Problem/Safety Concerns .............................. 40 Summary and Implications................................... 45 Trail User Economic Factors .......................................... 46 Summary and Implications................................... 49 Trail User Demographics................................................ 50 Summary and Implications................................... 52 Trail Neighbor Survey Results................................................... 53 Property Characteristics and Relation to Trail ................ 53 Summary and Implications................................... 56 Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Trail ............................. 57 Summary and Implications................................... 60 Property Value and Resale Opinions.............................. 61 Summary and Implications................................... 63 Trail Neighbor Attitudes and Reported Problems ........... 64 Summary and Implications................................... 66 Trail Neighbor Attributes and Demographics.................. 67 Summary and Implications................................... 70 Conclusions ............................................................................. 71


Prairie Duneland Trail Page 1 Portage, IN

Background Trail development has become a strong focus of quality of life proponents in regional and community development. Prompted by the rail trail trend of the 1970’s and rooted in the bedrock planning ideas of Fredrick Law Olmsted, the connection of people to places through linear parks is an important part of urban development, transportation planning, historic preservation, open space preservation, and neighborhood development. The development of multi-purpose pedestrian, biking and multi-modal trails, in connection with development of greenways, has become an increasingly popular alternative for the use of public funds across the country. In many communities, trails serve as a stimulus to recreation, physical activity and alternative transportation, and enhance quality of life. Trail development has been emphasized at the federal and state level as a means of alternative transportation, commercial recreation, tourism and business development, community building and health promotion in local communities. Trends point to the use of trails as a growing and preferred recreation activity, and many successful trail developments can be identified across the country. However, the values of trail proponents sometimes conflict with adjacent landowners’ preferences, or others who oppose trail development. Trail opponents sometimes claim that trails promote criminal activity, devalue neighboring property, and are unneeded in the community. While research conducted in many places in the country, generally, has not confirmed opponents’ charges, some opponents continue to dismiss the results of national studies. Because of concerns expressed by trail critics in Indiana, the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University proposed to conduct a comprehensive survey of trails in six (6) Indiana communities. Funding and support for the research study was received from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the National Park Service (NPS) in late spring 2000 and research was initiated in June 2000. The research was designed to measure various impacts of trails in the six cities, including the Prairie Duneland Trail in Portage.


Page 2 Prairie Duneland Trail Portage, IN











Characteristics of Portage Area Portage is a thriving community with a population of 33,496, according to the 2000 census, which is only 40 years old, located along the southern shore of Lake Michigan in the general area of Gary, Indiana. The area’s unique physical geography is the result of slow moving glaciers and its natural environments are characterized by remnant beaches, marshes, moraines, small ponds and slow moving rivers. Several rare natural communities can be found here as well as numerous rare species, such as the Black Crowned Night Heron and Blanding’s Turtle. Portage is home to a wonderful combination of friendly neighbors, a national park, an international deepwater port, office and industrial parks, and retail and entertainment venues.

Boaters enjoy mooring or launching from the Portage Public Marina or the many private marinas for a day or a week on Lake Michigan. In the winter, skiers take advantage of the extensive cross-country trail network within our city and national parks. Other Portage trails provide bikers, hikers, and skaters with miles of opportunity to get out and enjoy the natural environment. Portage is proud of the high level of educational services delivered to our young people through the Portage Community School District and by regional college campuses at Purdue North-Central and Indiana University Northwest, as well as, Valparaiso University. The recent opening of the Portage Community Hospital, adjacent to the North Porter County Government Complex, has advanced local healthcare. History of the Prairie Duneland Trail Completed in July 1996, the Prairie Duneland Trail is part of the Northwest Indiana Regional Bikeways Plan. In the near future, the trail will be extended in both directions by adjoining communities creating the Lake Michigan Heritage Greenway. This trail forms the backbone of the Northwest Indiana Regional Bikeways Plan and will stretch forty (40) miles from Hammond to Michigan City, Indiana. The total distance of the trail is 5.78 miles, all paved with a twelve-foot wide asphalt surface. The trail is designed for all non-motorized traffic, such as walkers, cyclists, and skaters. It features interpretive and orientation signs, mile markers, picnic facilities, drinking fountains, benches, bike racks and restrooms.



Map of Prairie Duneland trail

Prairie Duneland Trail



Trail Counts Estimates of total traffic on the Prairie Duneland Trail in Portage in September and October 2000 are 12,766 and 8,430 respectively. These estimates are adjusted counts of the total number of users that went past the counter, not estimates of the number of different user-visits or separate trips to the trail. The October estimate is an extrapolation based on approximately 13 days of data. Estimates of the number of different users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Daily Trail Traffic

P.1 Daily Trail Traffic (Portage Trail, September 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

P.2 Daily Trail Traffic (Portage Trail, October 2000)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figures P1 and P2 show trail use on 43 days in September and October. Estimated daily trail traffic varied by a factor of about 5 in September and 8.5 in October. Daily traffic in September ranged from a low of 155 on Wednesday, September 20 to a high of 771 on Sunday, September 17.

The range of daily traffic in October (among days for which full counts are available) was from a low of only 97 on Thursday, October 5 to a high of 826 on Sunday, October 1.

Day of Month

Day of Month



Although analyses of the causes of variability are beyond the scope of this study, the variability in daily traffic can be accounted for by user preferences, weather, and other factors.

P.3 Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Portage Trail, September 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

P.4 Average Daily Trail Traffic: Day of Week (Portage Trail, October 2000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Figures P3 and P4 present average daily traffic for the Prairie Duneland Trail for September and October 2000. In September, average daily traffic varied by a factor of approximately 1.9, ranging from a low of 305 on Fridays to a high on Sundays of 583. Average daily traffic in October varied by a factor of 7, ranging from a low of 96 on Thursdays to a high on Sundays of 487. Average daily trail traffic was highest on Sundays in both months, but it was second highest on Saturdays in September and on Tuesdays in October. Average weekday traffic was higher in the beginning of the week on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays than on Thursdays and Fridays during both months.

Traffic Count

Traffic Count



Hourly Trail Traffic Trail traffic varied consistently by hour of day as well as day of week (Figures P5-P10). This analysis examines first differences in weekend and weekday traffic, with traffic averaged by hour for weekends and weekdays separately. Next, differences among weekend days (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays) and the days of the workweek are examined.

P.5 Mean Hourly Trail Flow (PortageTrail, September 2000)

0102030405060

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

P.6 Mean Hourly Trail Flow (PortageTrail, October 2000)

010

2030

4050

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Weekends

Weekdays

The patterns shown in figures P5 and P6 reflect users’ work schedules: weekend hourly use is more evenly spread throughout the day because fewer users are at work.

Figures P5 and P6 reveal that average weekend hourly trail traffic in September and October increased from about 6:00 a.m. until late afternoons and then declined rapidly. However, there was an irregular rise of weekend hourly traffic in October between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Although the traffic dropped back to normal and increased until about 4:00 p.m., it did not reach the earlier peak. Peak hourly volume was 9.4 percent in September and 11.3 percent in October of average weekend use. On weekdays, average hourly trail traffic leveled off by about 9:00 a.m. in September and by 11:00 a.m. in October, and peaked in early evenings between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and then dropped off rapidly. Peak weekday hourly use accounted for 12.5 percent in September and 14 percent in October, respectively of average weekday use.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Weekend Traffic Next, hourly traffic on Saturdays and Sundays in September and October 2000 are examined (P7 and P8). Overall use was higher on Sundays. Hourly traffic on Saturday mornings stayed higher than on Sunday mornings until about 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in September. Meanwhile, in October, hourly traffic volume on Saturdays was lower than hourly traffic volume on Sundays until between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

P.7 Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Portage Trail, September 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaysSaturdays

P.8 Mean Weekend Hourly Flow (Portage Trail, October 2000)

0

10

20

3040

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SundaySaturday

Hour of Day

Hour of Day




P.9 Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (PortageTrail, September 2000)

010203040506070

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


P.10 Mean Weekday Hourly Flow (PortageTrail, October 2000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


On weekdays, patterns of average hourly use were similar, although there was variation in peak hours (Figures P9 and P10). In general, hourly traffic was constant during the day, peaking in late afternoons or early evenings with two exceptions of Thursdays, and Fridays in October, on which peak average hourly traffic occurred between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. On other weekdays of October, the peak traffic fell between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. In September, peak average hourly traffic occurred between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Mondays; from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays in September and Mondays and Tuesdays in October; from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Thursdays and between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Fridays. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekends was 93 in September and 94 in October, or approximately 2 persons per minute. The highest traffic recorded for a single hour on weekdays was 109 in September and 69 in October, or approximately 1 to 2 persons per minute.

Hour of Day

Hour of Day



Summary and Implications—Trail Use Counts In sum, counts show some consistent patterns of use, with use higher in September than in October and higher on weekends than on weekdays. Peak use on weekends and weekdays occurs at different times: in the mid to late afternoons on weekends and in the late afternoon or early evening on weekdays. Additional analyses would help to explain of the effects of weather on patterns of use and would help to explain variations that have been identified.



Intercept Surveys

The following tables represent responses from those individuals who were “intercepted” on the Prairie Duneland Trail. Subjects were randomly selected at various locations during a 15-hour day, over a 7-day week for 2 weeks in July and August 2000. 373 trail users were intercepted on the Prairie Duneland Trail and agreed to be surveyed. Survey Question: What did you do on the trail today?


Activity Percentage

Bicycle 39.9

Walk 38.6

Run/Jog 11.3

Skate 9.9

Other 0.3 Survey Question: How did you get to the trail today?



Drive 71.3

Bicycle 15.3

Walk 10.1

Run 1.6

Skate 1.6

The vast majority of Portage trail users who were intercepted were either bicycling or walking. Nearly 40% of people intercepted on the trail were bicycling while almost 39% of the trail users were walking.

Over 71% of people intercepted drove to the trail. Just over 15% of the users rode their bicycle to the trail, and 10% of the trail users walked to the trail.






Percentage

0-10 82.1

11-20 13.2

21-40 3.3

41-60 6.4



Distance to Trail (miles)

Percentage

0-5 81.2

6-10 12.4

11-15 3.4

16-20 1.6

21-25 0.6

The majority (82.1%) of trail users were within ten minutes of the trail. The mean time for travel was 8.38 minutes with the maximum time being 75 minutes and the minimum time being less than 1 minute, which indicates the respondent was a trail neighbor.

Over 93 % of trail users are within 10 miles of the trail. The mean mileage for users was 3.88 miles, indicating that the vast majority of users are trail neighbors. The maximum number of miles traveled was 50, and the minimum was less than 1.






Percentage

0-30 6.8

31-60 63.1

61-90 13.4

91-120 12.3

121-150 1.1

151-180 2.5

over 180 0.8 Survey Question: Approximately how many miles will/did you cover on the trail today?


Miles Covered Percentage

1-5 51.9

6-10 28.8

11-15 8.5

16-20 8.9

21-25 1.6

26-30 0.0

31-35 0.3

Over 75% spent between 30 and 90 minutes on the trail. The mean time on the trail is about 69 minutes. The minimum time on the trail was 1 minute, and the maximum time was 480 minutes.

Over 50% of the users covered five miles or less on the trail. The mean distance was 7.05 miles. The minimum distance was 1 mile and the maximum was 32 miles.



Statistical Question: Did the respondent enter and exit the trail at the same location? Table 7: Were the Entrance and Exit at the Same Location

Entrance/ Exit Same Location Percentage

Yes 97.6

NO 2.4

Survey Question: Did or will you combine your visit to the trail with trips to other places?


Combined Visits

Percentage

No 74.4

Yes 25.6

Dining 10.1

Personal 5.3

Shopping 5.1

Other 3.8

Business 1.3

The large majority, over 97%, of all trail users entered and exited the trail at the same access point.

Users of the trail typically don’t combine the use of the trail with other places as indicated by the 74.4% of no responses. Those who do combine their visit with other places are most likely to combine use of the trail with dining.






Less 15 46

16 to 25 65

26 to 35 60

36 to 45 86

46 to 55 83

56 to 65 70

over 66 39




No 94.5

Yes 5.5

There was a fairly even distribution of trail users reported between the ages of 16 and 65. With relatively higher numbers occurring in the 36-55 year old age groups.

Over 94% of the users had used the trail before the day of the intercepts.







Recreation 25.8

Commute 0.5

Other 0.1





Recreation 43.9

Commute 0.0




Percentage

Yes 82.3

No 17.7

Most users (73.6%) indicated that health/exercise was the main purpose for visiting the trail.

The majority of users (56.1 %) who indicated multiple reasons for visiting the trail cited health/exercise as the other reason for visiting the trail.




Survey Question: If you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because the trail exists, about how many minutes per week do you (walk/run/cycle/skate) because this trail exists?

Table 14: Additional Minutes Spent (walk/run/cycle/skate) Each Week Because of Trail


10-60 20.7

60-120 14.6

120-180 19.9

180-240 10.0

240-300 19.1

300-360 3.8

360-420 5.0

420-480 1.2

480-540 0.8

540-600 2.3

600-700 0.8

700-1000 1.6

over 1000 0.8

More than half (55.2 %) the actual users are typically on the trail between 10 minutes to 180 minutes.



Survey Question: If you (walk/run/cycle/skate) more now because the trail exists, did you (walk/run/cycle/skate) at all before the trail was created?



Yes 64.6

No 35.4




Less 15 0.0

16-25 17.7

26-35 14.9

36-45 21.5

46-55 20.3

56-65 15.4

over 66 10.2



Gender Percentage

Male 51.2

Female 48.8


The average age for users on the trail is about 44 years with a fairly equal distribution of users between 16-65 years of age.







Caucasian 91.7

Hispanic 4.6

Black 2.2

Asian 0.8

Not Sure 0.8

Other 0.0




Bicycle 39.9

Walk 39.4

Running 11.8

Skate 8.8


A majority of users are walkers (39.4 %); there were no users who indicated that they used the trail for horseback riding.





Grouped Time

Percentage

6-9 AM 25.4

9-12 AM 35.1

12-3 PM 27.3

3-6 PM 9.7

6-9 PM 2.4

The survey was administered to a fairly consistent number of trail users between the hours of 6am and 3pm.

Summary and Implications – Intercept Surveys The trail user activities observed and indicated as type of activity engaged in by respondents are almost identical in Percentage. A significant finding in the trail intercept survey for the Prairie Duneland Trail, is the large percentages of trail users who are active now because of the trail’s creation (over 35%), and who utilize the trail for combined purposes (over 25%) such as exercise and other personal uses, or recreation and dining. Based on intercept responses, proximity to the trail was a decisive factor in trail use with roughly 80% of Prairie Duneland trail users being within 10 minutes or 5 miles of the trail. More than 97% of trail users surveyed entered and exited the trail at the same location. A large number of trail users who were surveyed utilized the trail for health/exercise (73.6%) and recreation (25.8%) purposes. Those trail users who did start to participate in their chosen activity because of trail construction (35.4%) and are more active in their chosen activity after trail construction (82.3%), added approximately 3 hours more activity time to their schedule per week.



Follow Up Survey





Activity Percentage

Walking 42.3

Bicycle 37.7

Run/Jog 10.8

Skating 9.2







Radio 23.4

Magazine 20.3

Friends 19.5

Relatives 12.5

Word of Mouth 10.9

Don't Remember 3.9

Brochures 3.1

Happened On It 2.3

Group 1.6

Internet 0.8

Newspaper 0.8

Neighbor 0.8

43.7% of respondents learned of the trail through friends, family, neighbors, or some other non-specific word of mouth source.

Radio and Magazine coverage also accounted for 43.7% of the responses to this survey question.






Participated in Same Activity 76.9

Done Something Different 22.3





Another Trail 14.9

Other 7.9




No 100

Yes 0.0


None of the users surveyed used the trail aspart of an overnight visit.

Responses to this question overwhelmingly indicate that trail users were committed to some level of activity with or without the Prairie Duneland Trail.






No 100




0-10 18.2

11-20 8.3

21-30 13.3

31-40 9.2

41-50 6.7

51-60 3.3

61-70 1.6

71-100 8.2

101-120 1.7

120-150 7.5

151-200 8.2

201-300 11.6

>300 1.6


The largest percentage of responding trail users (18.2%) visited the trail less than 10 times in the past 12 months. The average number of times the trail was used was reported as 88 times per person in the past year.






Novice 7.0

Intermediate 60.2

Expert 32.8




Not at all Important 0.8

Less Important 1.5




More Important 37.7



90% of respondents indicate their activity has some level of importance to them, while 37.7% indicate the activity is extremely important.







Less important 0.8




More important 24.0


More than 82% of respondents indicated the trail was important to their chosen activity, with 38% of the responding trail users indicating the trail was extremely important to their participation in their preferred activity.



Summary and Implications—Follow Up Surveys Follow up mail surveys of trail users on the Portage Prairie Duneland Trail closely reflect the activity and user characteristics found in the intercept surveys, including activity preferences. More than 76% of all respondents indicated they would participate in the same activity whether or not a trail was provided to them with the streets/sidewalks of the community serving as a secondary site for this activity. Trail users in Portage indicated a fairly advanced skill level with 93% of the respondents considering themselves to posses either intermediate or expert skill levels. This skill level is apparently reflected in the number of trail visitor days, 88 days annually on average, for respondents. Over 28% of users reporting they used the trail in excess of at least 120 days in the past year. None of the trail users surveyed were using the trail as part of an overnight or tourism experience to Portage. None of the trail users indicated they stayed overnight or were visiting Portage primarily to use the trail. This is reflective of the fact that 43.7% of the respondents learned of the trail through some form of word of mouth publicity such as friends, family or neighbors. Finally, it is important to note that the trail was seen by trail users as a very important part of an active lifestyle. Over 80% of all respondents indicated the activity was of significant importance to them, and that the trail was as important to their continued participation. In conclusion, trail users are very committed to use of the Prairie Duneland trail, and see it as an important part of their participation in their chosen activity. All trail users surveyed were apparently local residents who felt the trail was very important to their activity level and continued participation.











Very Satisfied 56.6

It's Perfect 20.2




Yes 65.2

No 34.8

More favorable 55.8



Less favorable 0.0

The responses to this question indicated considerable satisfaction with the Portage trail. Almost 77% of the respondents indicated they were very or extremely satisfied with the trail. It is interesting to note that only 0.8% of trail users expressed any level of dissatisfaction with the trail.

Over 65% of respondents indicated the Prairie Duneland trail has improved their view of the city of Portage.




Table 33: Desire to Spend More Time



Disagree less 1.5



Somewhat agree 27.3

Agree more 31.8

Strongly Agree 25.8



Time Could Be Spent Elsewhere Percentage


Disagree less 22.0



Somewhat agree 18.2

Agree more 3.0

Strongly Agree 3.8

Almost 85% of all trail users responding to the follow up survey indicated some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with more than one-fourth of respondents strongly agreeing with a desire to spend more time on the trail.

More than 56% of respondents indicated that the time they spent on the trail could not be easily spent somewhere else.




Table 35: Trail User Opinion on the Trail As a Major Reason for Location of Domicile



Disagree Less 16.8



Somewhat Agree 9.9

Agree More 3.8

Strongly Agree 6.1


Table 36: Trail Users Indicating Their Attachment to the Prairie Duneland Trail



Disagree Less 3.8



Somewhat Agree 23.3

Agree More 19.5

Strongly Agree 25.6

A majority of trail users (60.3%) indicated that the trail is not a major reason for their current choice of residential location.

Trail users indicated some degree of attachment to the Prairie Duneland trail with over 68% of respondents stating they are attached to the trail at some level.







Disagree Less 15.8



Somewhat Agree 16.5

Agree More 4.5

Strongly Agree 5.3 Survey Question: No other trail can compare with this one.

Table 38: Trail Users Opinion Toward Prairie Duneland Trail in Comparison to Other Trails

No Trail Compares Percentage


Disagree Less 8.9



Somewhat Agree 15.4

Agree More 5.7

Strongly Agree 8.1

Approximately 25% of trail users indicated that their lives were organized around the trail, with about one-fourth of respondents indicating a neutral response. A large percentage of trail users responding (49.6%) disagreed in some form with the statement that their life was organized around the trail.

Trail users seem to indicate that other trails either compare favorably to the Prairie Duneland trail or are neutral in their comparisons.



Summary and Implications—Follow Up Surveys Trail User Attitudes and Lifestyles Prairie Duneland trail users overwhelmingly indicated they were satisfied with the trail and that their view of Portage, as a community, was positively affected by the trail. 65% of trail users indicated this high level of satisfaction and positive view of the area making their overall attitude toward the community more favorable. Trail users were enthusiastic about their desire to spend more time on the trail. Nearly 85% of responding trail users indicating some degree of desire to spend more time on the trail with over 55% of the respondents indicating the time spent on the trail as important. Reflecting this enthusiasm, over 68% of the trail users responding to the follow-up survey indicated they are attached, to some degree, to the Prairie Duneland trail. The Prairie Duneland trail was a factor in organizing about 25% of trail users’ lives, although the majority of trail users responding disagreed with this concept. In addition, over 60% of the trail users indicated that trail location did not affect their current choice for residential location. In conclusion, Prairie Duneland trail users are overwhelmingly satisfied with the trail and it positively effects trail users’ attitudes toward the community and their lifestyles.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the right were important. They considered historic points of interest and congestion to be less important. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more important, and lower mean ratings being less important.



Survey Question: Indicate how satisfied you are with the trail and its management. Indicate how satisfied you are with the following issues with a 1 being no at all satisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Issue


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely


Extremely

Mean Satisfaction Rating By and large trail users responding to the survey indicated that all of the factors at the left were satisfactory on the Portage trail. The lowest rated factors were drinking water and toilet facilities, and adequacy of ranger/safety patrols. A mean rating of 4 would be neutral, with higher mean ratings being more satisfactory, and lower mean ratings being less satisfactory.



Chart 1: A Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Factors on the Prairie Duneland Trail

Importance-Satisfaction Comparison for Prairie Duneland Trail


Quiet

MaintenanceSafe IntersectionsPersonal Safety

RecklessVandalism

Adequate Access

Proximity

Historic

Parking

Water

MapsSafety Surface

WidthCrowded

1

3

5

7

1 3 5 7

SATISFACTION

IMPO

RTA

NC

EConcentrate Here

Low Priority


Possible Overkill

ADJUSTADJUST

Analysis Notes Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis provides organizations with a "snapshot" of how important various factors are to clients or customers, and how well the organization is performing. In this case, the I/P analysis modified terms slightly to measure trail user ratings of importance and satisfaction with various factors along the Prairie Duneland Trail. Significant findings of concern would be identified in this I/P analysis if any of the plotted mean values of importance and satisfaction from Tables 39 and 40 were located in the upper left hand quadrant of this chart; the “Concentrate Here” labeled quadrant. Mean values plotted in this quadrant would basically be defined as important to trail users, and rated as a less than satisfying aspect of the trail.





Table 41: Trail Users Mean Rating of The Importance of Public Benefits of the Prairie Duneland Trail

Public Benefits Rating Preserving Open Space Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aesthetic Beauty Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Community Pride Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tourism & Business Not ExtremelyDevelopment Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alternative Transportation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Health and Fitness Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Access for Disabled Not ExtremelyPersons Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Recreation Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Education Not Extremely Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.83

5.81

5.98

4.48

4.23

6.57

5.44

6.22

5.44





Respondents to the Prairie Duneland trail user follow up survey indicated an overall satisfaction with the trail. Importance/Performance (I/P) analysis of various factors indicated that trail users were overwhelmingly pleased with the trail. The highest-ranking satisfaction factors for the Prairie Duneland Trail included its natural surroundings, quiet setting, proximity to home or office, adequate access points, perceived personal safety, safe road and stream intersections, quality of trail maintenance, and the trail surface. The most important factors for the Prairie Duneland trail and its management included the natural surroundings, drinking water and toilet facilities, perceived personal safety, safe road and stream intersections, adequate access points, and lack of trail vandalism. Parking facilities and crowded conditions were the least important factors to trail users falling well below the average expressed interest of respondents. The lack of importance in the former factor, parking facilities, may be reflective of Portage’s size and the ease with which the community may be navigated using the Prairie Duneland trail. Finally, trail users indicated an understanding of the greater public benefits of greenways and trail development. Those greater public benefits of significant importance as expressed by trail users included positive impacts to health and fitness, preservation of open space, public recreation and community pride. In conclusion, Prairie Duneland trail users expressed a high level of satisfaction with the important factors they found in trails and greenways, including those expressed factors that are of greater public benefit.





Table 42: Percentage of Users Indicating the Most Important Problem on The Prairie Duneland Trail

Problem Percentage

Ranger patrols 25.3

Width 21.1

Historic points of interest

14.7

Rough trail surface 9.5


Congestion 6.3

Natural surroundings 5.3

Parking Facilities 4.2

Safe road intersection 3.2

Maintenance 2.1

Vandalism 1.1

Water fountains/toilets 0.0


Signage 0.0

Quiet Setting 0.0

Shelter for weather 0.0

It would appear that the largest percentage of respondents feel that lack of ranger patrols is the biggest problem.





User Problems Percentage

No 75.4

Yes 24.6




Bikes 10.5

Skaters 9.8

Dog Walkers 6.8

Other: Golfers, Kids, People 6.8

Runners 3.8

Walkers 3.0


10.5 % of the respondents indicated that they had observed trail users who were on bikes causing problems for other users.






Not Courteous 12.0


Too Fast 4.5

Interfering 0.8

Too Slow 0.0



Other Problem Occurring

Percentage

Yes, Other Problems Exist 0.0

About 23% of users felt like the problems they experienced involved blocking or not courteous trail users.








Serious 32.3


Very Serious 12.9

Not sure 3.2


Table 48: Percentage of Trail Users Who Considered Stopping Use Because of Problems

Stop Use Percentage

No 87.5

Yes 12.5

Not sure 0.0



Opinion Percentage


Congested 11.0

Not sure 10.2

Very congested 0.8


Only 12.5% of respondents indicated they have considered not using the trail as a result of these problems.

78% of trail users indicated the trail is not congested at all.




Table 50: Trail User Opinion on the Number of Restrooms on Trail


No 58.0

Yes 42.0


Table 51: Trail User Opinion on Safety of Trail

Safe Percentage

Safe 59.4

Very safe 29.3

Unsafe 6.0

Not sure 3.0

Very unsafe 2.3




Patrols 77.8

Keep high weeds/brush clear from trail paths

22.2

A majority of trail users (58%) indicated the number of restrooms on the trail is inadequate.

Nearly 90% of trail users indicate a feeling of safety, to some degree, while on the trail. Only about 8.3% of trail users expressed an opinion that the trail was unsafe or very unsafe.

Although trail users indicated they feel safe on the Prairie Duneland trail (90%), a large percentage of users indicated that patrols and clearing of high weeds and brush would increase their feelings of safety on the trail.



Summary and Implications—Follow Up Surveys Trail User Problems/Safety Opinions Generally speaking, trail users found very few problems with the Prairie Duneland trail. Only 24.6% of the trail users completing the follow up survey indicated they had experienced a problem. A small percentage of responding trail users indicated they felt that ranger patrols and the width of the trail were the most important problems on the trail. Further, 20.3% of the trail users responding indicated additional problems, and felt the problems to be serious. However, it is very notable that while these problems were reported, 87.5% of all respondents indicated they would not stop using the Prairie Duneland Trail as a result of these problems. Trail users overwhelmingly indicated the trail was safe, and not congested. The most popular trail safety improvement suggested was the addition of patrols to the Prairie Duneland Trail. A majority of trail users felt there were not enough restrooms along the trail.





Table 53: Percentage of Trail Users Who Did Not Have to Pay to Park

Pay Percentage

No 100 Survey Question: Would you be willing to pay a fee for an annual pass for next year?

Table 54: Percentage of Trail Users Who are Willing to Pay User Fee


No 72.3

Yes 27.7



Amount Percentage

5-10$ 74.3

11-20$ 22.9

21-30$ 0.0

50$ 2.9

All of the respondents indicated they did not pay to park.

A majority of the responding trail users indicated they would not be willing to pay a user fee for access to the Prairie Duneland Trail.

Of those trail users indicating they would be willing to pay a trail use fee, almost three-fourths would be willing to pay between $5 –10 annually, with almost another one-fourth wiling to pay between $11-20 annually. Only 2.9% of willing trail users would pay an annual use fee of $21 or more.





Reason Percentage


Am too poor 11.5


Costs too much already 2.3




I paid all of my own expenses & no one else's 80.2

I was part of a group that had no expenses 13.5

I was part of a group that shared expenses 3.1

Someone else paid all of my expenses 3.1

Of the more than 70% of respondents who indicated they would not be willing to pay a fee to use the trail, a large percentage (79.3%) felt that taxes should cover the cost of all trail use.

A majority of trail users either paid their own expenses or were part of a group that had no expenses.




Table 58: Trail Expenditures Annual/Present

Expenditure Category Average $ Spent on Day of Survey

Average $ Spent on Annual Trail Use








Lodging, Motel, Camping, Cabins 0.00 0.00


Totals 81.25 682.50

Only about 15 trail users responded to this survey question. Annual expenditures averaged $682.50 per respondent. Some of these expenditures are likely to be local to the Portage area, creating some economic activity in the community.



Summary and Implications—Follow Up Surveys Trail User Economic Factors Economic issues related to Prairie Duneland trail use included parking fees, trail user willingness to pay for parking and trail use, rationales for fee decisions, and trail related expenditures. Generally speaking Prairie Duneland trail users did not pay for parking, and were not willing to pay a trail use fee. Those responding trail users who indicated they would be willing to pay a use fee were willing to pay between $5 and $20 annually. Approximately 80% of responding trail users who said they would not pay a trail use fee felt that taxes should pay for the cost of trail maintenance and other costs. Only a small number of respondents reported expenditures related to trail use. Among these users, expenditures related to trail use averaged about $680 annually, but it is unclear whether these expenditures pertain only to the Prairie Duneland trail. Because of the small number of responses, reliable estimates of the value cannot be developed.





Table 59: Percentage of Trail Users Indicating a Disability

Disabled Percentage

No 92.9

Yes 7.1


Table 60: Type of Disability Reported by All Trail Users




Other 1.5

Visually Impaired 0.8





Hispanic 2.4


Other 0.8


Only 9.1% of trail users reported having a disability of some type. Of these trail users, hearing impairment and mobility impairment were reported most frequently as a disability.





Table 62: Completed Education Level as Reported by Trail Users




High school 26.4


Some college 27.9


Master's 9.3

Doctoral 0.8







Education 14.6


Music 4.9

Food Service 3.9

Student 1.0

Science 0.0

Attorney 0.0

Sales 0.0

A majority of trail users indicated that they had completed some form of education beyond high school and over 31% had obtained a college or advanced college degree.

Trail users reported a wide variety of occupations.





Income Percentage

< 20,000 12.7

20-39,000 20.9

40-59,000 23.6

60-79,000 24.5

> 80,000 18.2

The income of the trail users was spread out among various levels in a fairly normal distribution. The median income reported by trail users was between $40,000 and $59,000 annually.

Summary and Implications—Follow Up Surveys Trail User Demographics Responding trail users in Portage were from a wide variety of trades and occupations reflective of Portage’s economy. Generally, trail users described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, college educated users earning between $40,000 and $59,000 annually. A small percentage of trail users reported themselves as disabled, with hearing impairment and mobility impairment being the most common disabilities.




The following tables indicate the responses from trail neighbors as defined by the Portage Park and Recreation Department. The trail neighbor population represents those individuals who have property that borders along the Prairie Duneland Trail (which includes parks and open space and is often larger than the trail right-of-way) as found in the Porter County Clerk’s Office. The mailing list was developed and used for the purpose of notifying trail neighbors about the potential development of the Prairie Duneland Trail.





Location Percentage




Don’t Know 0.0

Trail neighbors in Portage reported the trail as near to their property or adjoining their property.




Table 66: Percentage of Neighboring Property Size in Acres

Acres Percentage

.10-.25 12.5

.26-.50 23.4

.51-.75 14.1

.76-1.0 15.6

1.1-2.0 12.6

2.1-4.0 11.0

>4.0 11.1



Use Percentage

Residential 84.8

Commercial 6.3

Cropland 6.3

Undeveloped 2.5

The majority of property adjacent to the Prairie Duneland Trail is under 1 acre in size. The average size of neighboring property is 11,215 square feet for smaller properties under 1 acre, and 5.98 acres for properties over 1 acre in size.

Neighboring property is used primarily for residential purposes, reflecting the location of the Prairie Duneland trail through residential areas of Portage.




Table 68: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Property for Single Family Home


Yes 88.6

No 11.4


Table 69: Percent of Trail Neighbors Using Dwelling Unit as Principle Residence

How Used Percentage

Principle Residence 94.3

Rental 5.7


Table 70: Distance from Trail in Feet

Distance (Ft.) Percentage

1-40 15.7

41-80 10.8

81-120 15.8

121-200 14.6

201-400 7.2

401-600 6.0

601-1000 2.4

>1000 6.0

A significant percentage of neighboring properties were single-family homes used as a principle residence within 200 feet of the Prairie Duneland trail.



Survey Question: Which part of the house faces the trail? Table 71: Direction Dwelling Unit Faces in Relation to Trail

Facing Percentage

Back 74.3

Side 15.7

None 5.7

Front 4.3


Summary and Implications—Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Characteristics Prairie Duneland Trail neighboring properties were largely residential lots, less than one acre in size, and used primarily for single family residential uses. Over ½ the properties were within 200 feet of the trail and backed into the trail right of way.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 72: Trail Neighbor Rating of the Importance of Public Benefits of the Prairie Duneland Trail

Issue

Health & Fitness

1 Not At All 6.00

7 Extremely

Preserving Open space 1

Not At All 5.91 7

Extremely


7 Extremely

Community Pride 1 Not At All 5.81

7 Extremely

Access For Disabled Persons 1 Not At All 5.54

7 Extremely

Public Recreation

1 Not At All 5.49

7 Extremely

Nature Education 1 Not At All 5.36

7 Extremely

Alternative Transportation 1 Not At All 3.99

7 Extremely

Tourism & Business Development 1 Not At All 3.96

7 Extremely


Trail neighbors rated preserving open space, aesthetic beauty, and health and fitness as the most important public benefits of the Prairie Duneland trail.







Issue


Extremely



1 Not At All 5.14 7

Extremely



1 Not At All 4.88 7

Extremely


Extremely



Feeling Percentage

Very opposed to 26.9

More opposed to 6.0



Somewhat supportive 9.0



Mean Satisfaction RatingTrail neighbors expressed greater satisfaction for the natural surroundings of the trail, maintenance of the trail and overall with the trail as a neighbor. However, none of the trail and trail management issues were rated as extremely satisfactory by trail neighbors in Portage.

Trail neighbors initial attitudes toward the trail were either supportive (49.3%) or opposed (35.9%) to the trail. A small group of trail neighbors expressed an initially neutral attitude toward the trail














Table 76: Trail Neighbor Attitude of Trail Effect On Neighborhood Quality


Reduced quality 3.1

Lowered quality 1.5







Exactly 60% of respondents indicated the trail resulted in some level of improvement in neighborhood quality.



Summary and Implications—Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attitudes Toward Prairie Duneland Trail Trail neighbors expressed an overall positive attitude toward the Prairie Duneland trail with 60% of trail neighbors expressing the opinion that the trail improved the quality of their neighborhood. In fact, more than 68% of all trail neighbors responding indicated that their attitude toward the Prairie Duneland trail was better than expected. A large proportion of trail neighbors were neutral in their opinion on the trail. These levels of approval are different than those indicated as initial attitudes toward the trail as expressed by trail neighbors. Initial attitudes toward the trail indicated by responding trail neighbors showed that over one-third (34%) of them were opposed to the trail to some degree. With only 12% of the trail neighbors expressing the attitude that the trail has had a reduced or lowered effect on neighborhood quality of life, it may be surmised that initial reaction to the Prairie Duneland trail has softened. Trail neighbors’ ratings of public benefits to the Prairie Duneland trail were similar to those of trail users. While preservation of open space, aesthetic beauty, and health and fitness were the top rated public benefits to trail neighbors, health and fitness, public recreation, and community pride were the top three rated benefits by trail users, with preservation of open space and aesthetic beauty coming in a very close fourth and fifth. Trail neighbor satisfaction with the Prairie Duneland trail was found to be slightly satisfactory on the whole with the natural surroundings and overall trail as a neighbor being the highest rated satisfaction factors. The quality of ranger/safety patrols, responsiveness of the agency and parking facilities were given relatively low ratings by trail neighbors.



Section 4 of the survey was designed to determine how trail neighbors felt that their property values have been affected by the trail. Survey Question: How do you think that being near the trail has affected resale value of this property?


Effect Percentage


Increased the resale value 38.7





.1-3% 25.8

3.1-5% 25.8

5.1-8% 9.7

8.1-10% 12.9

10.1-15% 9.7


A slight majority of respondents indicated they felt the trail had lowered the resale value of their property. However, over one-third of the trail neighbors responding indicated the trail has increased the resale value of their property. About 10% felt there was no effect on resale value.

The majority of adjacent property owners (75.2%) indicated that the Prairie Duneland trail had less than a 10% effect on resale value.







Easier to sell 20.0








Table 80: Affect of Trail on Decision to Purchase


Reduced appeal 6.5




More appealing 6.5


The opinion of adjacent property owners is that proximity of property to the trail will make it easier, to varying degrees, to sell the property. It is the overall opinion of Portage trail neighbors that the Prairie Duneland trail either has no effect or increases salability. A very small percentage of trail neighbors indicated that proximity to the trail would make it more difficult to sell the property.

The majority of trail neighbors (54.9%) who purchased property along the trail after it opened indicated the presence of the trail increased the appeal of the property in their decision to buy.






Very opposed to 7.5






More than 75% of adjacent property owners, who purchased their property after the trail opened, support the trail. Only 7.5% of all trail neighbors purchasing property after the trail opened are opposed to the trail.

Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Property Value and Resale Opinions A slight majority of Trail neighbors indicate they believe the Prairie Duneland trail has resulted in a decrease in the resale value of their property. However, nearly 40% of trail neighbors indicate just the opposite. In either case, the effect was largely believed to be less than 10% of the resale value. Trail neighbors also felt that the trail’s proximity to their property would make it easier to sell their property with 44% of the neighbors indicating some degree of support for this concept. An equally large grouping of trail neighbors indicated that the trail would not affect salability of the property. Only 12% of trail neighbors indicated proximity to the trail would negatively affect ability to sell their property. For those individuals purchasing property by the Prairie Duneland trail after it was constructed, a majority (54.9%) indicated trail proximity as an appealing factor in their decision to purchase the property. After purchasing the property, over 75% of trail neighbors are supportive, to some degree, of the Prairie Duneland Trail.




Survey Question: Indicate your opinion of how the following aspects of the trail have changed since it opened to the public.

Less of a Problem More of a Problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Problem


More


More


More


More


More

Noise 1 Less 3.72 7

More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More


More

Mean Problem Level RatingTrail neighbors indicate an overall decrease in problems from the time the trail opened. In this specific case, Portage trail neighbors indicated significant reduction in burglary, requests to use restrooms/phone, crop damage, and vandalism since the trail was opened to the public.







Illegal Vehicles 35

Littering 31

Unleashed Pets 29

Trespassing 26

Noise from trail 21

Loitering 18

Vandalism 9

Harass Animals 14

Rude Users 14

Privacy 14

Burglary 4

Illegal Parking 7

Maintenance 11

Dog Manure 20

Request phone 8

Crops damaged 9

Drainage 6

Trail neighbors indicated that some problems do occur on the adjacent trail. The most frequently occurring problem reported by trail neighbors involved illegal vehicles (quad runners, mopeds, etc.) using the trail. Unleashed pets, littering, trespassing, dog manure and noise from the trail were problems that were reported as consistent and frequent problems with the adjacent trail.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attitude Toward, and Reported Problems Problems associated with the Prairie Duneland trail were reported by trail neighbors to include all generally known problem issues. Generally, trail neighbors in Portage indicated that problems were either at the same level of problem as before trail development, or less of a problem after trail development including requests to use bathrooms, burglary, lack of maintenance to the public property, crop damage, dog manure and a host of other problems. This trend is probably reflective of the effect park development has on vacant, unused greenspace as documented by other agencies. It should be noted that an increased lack of privacy, increased noise, and increased issues with parking and illegal vehicle users were reported as significant problem trends by trail neighbors. Specific problems reported by trail neighbors focused largely on illegal vehicle use, unleashed pets, littering, trespassing and noise from the trail. These consistently reported problems might help focus City of Portage response to neighbors’ concerns in their management of the Prairie Duneland Trail.





Table 84: Percentage of Trail Neighbors Who Used The Prairie Duneland Trail in Past 12 Months


Yes 82.1

No 17.9




Summer 2.90

Fall 2.66

Spring 2.63

Winter 1.96







Age Group Number In

Age Category







Over 66 3 Health






Gender Percentage

Male 50.6

Female 49.4




25-35 6.8

36-45 23.3

46-55 36.7

56-65 19.3

66-75 10.9

76-85 0.0

Over 85 4.1

Most trail neighbor survey respondents were between 46-55 years of age. The average age of the trail neighbor survey respondent was 51.5 years.



Summary and Implications – Trail Neighbor Survey Trail Neighbor Attributes and Respondent Demographics Trail neighbors indicated they were likely to use the trails with over 82.1% of them indicating they had used the trail at least once in the past year. Trail neighbors reported a high trail use level with the spring through fall time period being the highest use level at approximately 3 days of use every week (approximately 115 days of use annually). Trail neighbors reported use of the trail by all age groups with recreation being the primary trail use purpose for younger participants and health/fitness and recreation being the primary trail use purposes for older trail neighbors. Trail neighbors responding to the survey were more likely to be male and on average 51 years old.



Conclusions The preceding findings summarize information analyzed from the Prairie Duneland Trail study conducted in July – October 2000 in Portage, Indiana. The study was intended to provide a broad analysis of trail use, trail management and land use issues in order to enhance knowledge and understanding of how the trail is used, and perceived by patrons, the community and neighboring land owners. These matters are important to the effective operation and management of the Prairie Duneland trail in Portage as well as similar trails and agencies in Indiana. Funding and State planning agencies, INDOT and IDNR will rely, in part, on the Portage Prairie Duneland Trail Study to chart directions in funding and development of trail systems in other communities. A review of summary and implication information for the Prairie Duneland Trail Study suggests specific conclusions and recommendations regarding trail users, trail management and trail neighbors. Based on the data analysis, the following conclusions can be made:

1) Trail traffic on the Prairie Duneland trail approaches 10,000 counts per month in the fall season with peak hour use on weekdays between 4-6pm. On weekends, there is fairly steady use between 8am and 6pm.

2) Trail users are predominantly white, middle-aged, and were

morelikely to be male.




5) Prairie Duneland trail users overall are satisfied with the trail

and it positively affects their view of Portage as a community and their quality of life.





7) Trail users, in general, experienced few problems on the trail and felt safe. Feelings of personal safety, however, could be increased with the addition of bike patrols.



9) Prairie Duneland trail users represent a wide variety of trades

and occupations.

10) Prairie Duneland trail neighbors generally have a positive attitude toward the trail and feel it has improved the quality of their neighborhood.


by the trail. 12) Trail neighbors are supportive of the trail, yet have mixed

feelings about its effect on the value and salability of their property. Most felt the trail either had no effect or increased value and salability.



neighbors use the trail approximately 3 days per week, especially during spring, summer and fall.

Indiana Trails Study - IN.gov Institute for Parks & Public Lands School of Health, Physical...

Documents

Transcript of Indiana Trails Study - IN.gov Institute for Parks & Public Lands School of Health, Physical...