North Main Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements February 2015

Home , Ford Center (Evansville), Integra Bank

Economic Impact Study of North Main Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements February 2015

Evansville Redevelopment Commission & Department of Metropolitan Development Rendering Courtesy of Hafer Associates, Rundell-Ernstberger, and the Department of Metropolitan Development of the City of Evansville Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents 1 Governing Dignitaries 2 ǆĞĐƵƟǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ 4 Study Background and Purpose 6 Key Study Cost Variable – Per Trip Spending 16 Trail and Bikeway Usage – Trips Per Day 18 Trail and Bikeway Usage – Total Trips 20 WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨdƌĂŝůŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ 22 Trails’ Impacts on Healthcare Costs 24 >ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ 26 Conclusion 32 Endnotes 34 Special Thanks 35 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study 36 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ 54 Appendix C: Median Income Map 68 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ 70

This study was funded by Jacobsville Tax Increment Finance District Revenue.

1 Governing Dignitaries

KĸĐĞŽĨƚŚĞDĂǇŽƌŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ͗ The Honorable Lloyd Winnecke, Mayor ^ƚĞǀĞ^ĐŚĂĞĨĞƌ͕ŚŝĞĨŽĨ^ƚĂī ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůŽĨƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ͗ Ward 1 -- Dan McGinn Ward 2 -- Missy Mosby tĂƌĚϯͲͲ^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞƌŝŶŬĞƌŚŽīͲZŝůĞǇ Ward 4 -- Constance Robinson Ward 5 -- John Friend Ward 6 -- Al Lindsey At Large -- Dr. H. Dan Adams At Large -- Conor O’Daniel At Large -- Jonathan Weaver ZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ͗ President – Randy Alsman Vice President – Mike Schopmeyer Secretary – Stan Wheeler Member – Cheryl Musgrave Member – Jennifer Raibley ^ĐŚŽŽůŽĂƌĚZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞʹ<ĂƌĞŶZĂŐůĂŶĚ Department of Metropolitan Development <ĞůůĞǇŽƵƌĞƐʹǆĞĐƵƟǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ Lana Abel – Planner and Program Manager

2 ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

3 ǆĞĐƵƟǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ

ŶĞǁEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƟŶŐŽĨ dŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŶĞǁEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝŬĞĂŶĚWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚďŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐĞǆƚĞŶĚŝŶŐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚĨƌŽŵ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŽǀĞƌĂƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚĂŌĞƌ the Lloyd Expressway all the way to Bosse Field and Garvin Park, ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͕ŝƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞĚŽĨ͗ is a key strategic part of the overall bike and pedestrian plan that will connect historic and cultural sites in the urbanized core of Evansville. When completed, a cultural trail network will connect 1. ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ͛ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞŽĨ$446,320; ƚŚĞŶĞǁ/͘h͘DĞĚŝĐĂů^ĐŚŽŽůĐĂŵƉƵƐǁŝƚŚEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͘dŚĞEŽƌƚŚ Main improvement corridor will also strategically form a loop 2. an increase in consumer spending in retail and service with the West Franklin Street commercial district, Virginia Street establishments of $1.7 million; complete street improvements, and the Greenway Passage. 3. an increase in aggregate property values of $1.9 /ŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶǁŝƚŚĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ million; and the I.U. Medical School campus, the cultural trail network will ůŝŶŬEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ͕ƚŚĞǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ 4. an increase in property values associated with the State Hospital grounds and a future Roberts Park (the former site ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŶĞǁůǇůŽĐĂƟŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽĨ$321,827; of Roberts Stadium). Economic impacts of the trail system will be broad and sweeping, bringing added spending by trail users, plus 5. ĂŶĚĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚũŽďƐǁŚŽƐĞŝŶĐŽŵĞƚŽƚĂů ŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐƐƚĂƌƚͲƵƉƐ͕ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶũŽďƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ over six years is $2,598,960. ǀĂůƵĞƐĨŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŽǁŶĞƌƐůŝǀŝŶŐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƚƌĂŝůĂŶĚ the improved bike and pedestrian lanes. dŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĞǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟǀĞĂŶĚĚŽŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ŝŶĚƵĐĞĚƐĞĐŽŶĚƟĞƌƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͕ŽƌŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚĂǆ revenues for the Jacobsville TIF District, in which the commercial ƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͘

4 ŶĞǆĂŵƉůĞŽĨŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƉĂƩĞƌŶƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚEŽƌƚŚ Main infrastructure improvements are the impacts on Bosse Field, ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶĂƉĞǆŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶ ƟĐŬĞƚƐĂůĞƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐĂƚŽƐƐĞ&ŝĞůĚ͕ŚŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ KƩĞƌƐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůďĂƐĞďĂůůƚĞĂŵ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶƵŵĞƌŽƵƐĞǆĂŵƉůĞƐ ŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƐŝƟǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚƌĂŝůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐ ƚŽƐƉŽƌƚƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƐ͘KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞďĞƐƚĞǆĂŵƉůĞƐŝƐƚŚĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƵƌŚĂŵƵůůƐďĂƐĞďĂůůƚĞĂŵŝŶƵƌŚĂŵ͕EŽƌƚŚ ĂƌŽůŝŶĂ͘dŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐĨƌĂŶĐŚŝƐĞ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŽƚŚĞƌ ǀĞŶƵĞƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚƌǇ͕ŝƚŝƐĐůĞĂƌƚŚĂƚƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŽƉƟŽŶƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐďƵƐĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐŚĂǀŝŶŐƐĂĨĞĂƵƚŽ͕ ďŝŬĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͕ǁŝůůƚƌĂŶƐůĂƚĞŝŶƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƟĐŬĞƚ sales and concessions. dŚĞǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϰϲŚŽŵĞĚĂƚĞƐ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌϮϬϭϲƐĞĂƐŽŶ͕ŽŶĐĞŝƚŝƐĮŶĂůŝǌĞĚ͘/ŶƉĂƐƚƐĞĂƐŽŶƐ͕ ƚŚĞKƩĞƌƐŚĂǀĞƐŽůĚĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨĂƌŽƵŶĚϮ͕ϱϬϬƟĐŬĞƚƐƚŽĞĂĐŚ of their home events. For the 2016 season, once the new bike ĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶůĂŶĞƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ ǁŝƚŚĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďŝŬĞƌƐĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐƉŽƉƵůĂƟŶŐƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ ĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ͕ƚŚĞKƩĞƌƐƐŚŽƵůĚĞǆƉĞĐƚĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŽĨĮǀĞ;ϱͿ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĂƩĞŶĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƟĐŬĞƚƐĂůĞƐ͘ƚĂŐĞŶĞƌĂů ĂĚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƉƌŝĐĞŽĨΨϲ͘ϬϬƉĞƌƟĐŬĞƚ;ĂŶĞǆĐĞůůĞŶƚǀĂůƵĞͿ͕ƚŚĞ KƩĞƌƐĐĂŶĞǆƉĞĐƚĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƌĞǀĞŶƵĞŽĨΨϳϱϬƉĞƌŐĂŵĞ͕ ŽƌΨϯϰ͕ϱϬϬĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞƐĞĂƐŽŶ͘dŚĞƵƉƟĐŬŝŶĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ ĨŽƌϭϮϱŶĞǁĂƩĞŶĚĞĞƐƉĞƌŐĂŵĞĐĂŶďĞĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞĂŶ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůΨϲ͘ϬϬƉĞƌƉĞƌƐŽŶ͕ĨŽƌĂŶŽƚŚĞƌΨϯϰ͕ϱϬϬĨŽƌƚŚĞ ĞŶƟƌĞƐĞĂƐŽŶ͘dŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚƟĐŬĞƚĂŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ĐĂŶďĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨ$69,000 per year. In the ƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ improvements, compounding the annualized increases at 3%, yields a total impact of $446,320. (See Appendix D.) dŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐŝƐũƵƐƚŽŶĞ ĞǆĂŵƉůĞŽĨŚŽǁEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐǁŝůůďĞƉŽƐŝƟǀĞůǇ ĂīĞĐƚĞĚďǇŵŽƌĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŽƉƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĂ͞ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ 5 street” makeover. ^ƚƵĚǇĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚWƵƌƉŽƐĞ

Background &ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͗:ĂĐŽďƐǀŝůůĞĐƟǀŝƚǇDĂƉ

IRD SEN T AN DU Z V

TH The City of Evansville’s Redevelopment Commission, in V COLORADO

L OLD

LE BR ID PARKLAND E

G R E OV

AIN KE EY

ĐŽŶũƵŶĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŐƌŽƵƉƐĂŶĚĐŝƟǌĞŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ:ĂĐŽďƐǀŝůůĞ S L R AN A T M S G

BE LANDBRIDGE LSA

V OR ERL CROSSV Y ALLEY NEGLEY N NESTOR R EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂŶĚƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚ^ŝĚĞƵƐŝŶĞƐƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͕ŚĂƐ E

VE DY T CO T

NESTOR E

A AVON DIAMOND DIAMOND LAF ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƌŝŐŚƚŽĨǁĂǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚ CODY CODY MAIN

O TH RICHARDT CEDAR LI

Main Street. (See accompanying map in Figure 1.) Scheduled E

SEVEN CEDAR R GAVITT RN WEDEKING WEDEKING

improvements include removal of parking along the east side of T L HERNDON

KELLER GO

F KELLER

T D KECK UHLHORN X FTH

R I

S FI

TT EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ>ůŽǇĚǆƉƌĞƐƐǁĂǇŶŽƌƚŚƚŽDĂƌǇůĂŶĚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ TTE UHLHORN H

FLORENCE REIS ELLIO Protected bike lanes are scheduled for the commercial segment FLORENCE LAFAYE DRESDEN DRESDEN DRESDEN SIXTH DRESDE Bosse Field N MILLNER INDUSTRIAL ŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͘WƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐĂƌĞĂůƐŽƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞ SHANKLIN SHANKLIN Y

LE K ^ OA MORGAN EICHEL ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƐĞŐŵĞŶƚŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĨƌŽŵDĂƌǇůĂŶĚƚŽDŽƌŐĂŶ EICHEL

E EICH EL H EICHEL V

O N TENNESSEE WN R O

VE G GEORGI T RK A G Avenue. However, no parking is to be removed in the blocks SE TENNESSEE TENNESSEE N

PA GEORGIA R RI FLORIDA T FLORIDA S FLORIDA FLOR FLORIDA DGA IDA E FLORIDA FLORIDA

from Maryland to Morgan. The separated pedestrian/bike lane is C U L LOUISIANA LOUISIANA OUISIANA

S LOUISIANA

D LOUISIANA MI FIFTH SSOURI

MISSOURI READ

ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĞǆŝƐƟŶŐƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƉĂĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚŽĨǁĂǇŽĨƚŚŝƐ MISSOURI MISSOURI Y

SECON MISSOURI MISSOURI

H OREGON E

MAR T OREGON L FOUN TAIN OAK OREGON

FOUR ŶŽƌƚŚĞƌŶƐĞŐŵĞŶƚŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͘ T

DGAR

R North Main Cycle Track

E MARYLAND E

AK MARY LAND ARRIE MA RYLAND B

MARYLAND H

L RE COLUMBIA E &ŝŐƵƌĞƐϮĂŶĚϯŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞĐŽŶĮŐƵƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ DELAWA DELAWARE

Y T DELAWARE

D L

FIFTH

E T IOWA R

HAR

ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďŝŬĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶůĂŶĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ E IOWA T

S S VIRGINIA

EL VIRGINIA VIN

FOUR

TT In the commercial segment (Figure 2), extending from the Lloyd G

MICHIGAN LIO L

Expressway north to Maryland Street, parking on the east side of E D FRANKLI ST N T

E R

Y H

R ELD C

THI

IFTH A

I ILLINOIS R M

LAF D

A ILLINOIS A ILLINOIS

G ILLINOIS M

the street is shown to be removed to accommodate a separated ON

SIX

HEIDELB

INDIANA SEC

LEY TH INDIANA INDIANA

K R INDIANA

O ĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďŝŬĞůĂŶĞ͘/ŶƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉŽƌƟŽŶ͕ĨƌŽŵDĂƌǇůĂŶĚ F LLOYD DIVISION

RK JOHN LLOYD O A HI CL F NINT Street north to Morgan Avenue (Figure 3), parking is maintained O O EI TE

GOODSELL URT GH D N

R H I TH T H H

H LE TT

T BOND G IN ELSAS SYCAMORE

LIO

ĂůŽŶŐďŽƚŚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞƐϰĂŶĚϱƌĞŇĞĐƚ SCO E C FIF A O P CARPENTER MA LI T S H OL RKET E IVE U FIRST E M ĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƟŽŶĂůǀŝĞǁƐŽĨďŽƚŚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů L ARK ING Ford Center CL NOR

FIR UT E

V ST LN TT THI WA O

T G UT T SE RD N ƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ CUS N T UR S ELLIO C LO I CO O N CHE N TH L D NA ^ T A NE ORE tor C VI ENTH SYCAM onnec FI C R n S w T to R ^ n New Hotel IV ow ERS AIN LINCOLN M - D I 2 DE e MULB ER Phas K RY OA Y

UDSON

ERT J LIB BELLEMEADE IU Med Campus Ohio River GUM RRY CHE

N Y E

VIN RR FO O

S FI R OAK LIN RST UR D CHANDLE ELLIOT R GA MULBE H TH JU

IGHT

X North Main Cycle Track I R S POWELL

L E NDL RK HA & Connectors PA C BLACKFORD

T EMORIA

North Main and Connectors R EN WASHIN GTON ND PA

RANS M RANS LI SUN GE OLLE Greenway S C VETE ADAM S

E N T ADAMS A

VI 6 N

UT JEFFERSON

GAR Jacobsville_redevelopment_area WNEE P SHA 7 ^ƚƵĚǇĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚWƵƌƉŽƐĞ

&ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͗:ĂĐŽďƐǀŝůůĞŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐͲŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů

8 &ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͗:ĂĐŽďƐǀŝůůĞŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐͲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů

9 ^ƚƵĚǇĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚWƵƌƉŽƐĞ

&ŝŐƵƌĞϰ͗DĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůWůĂŶ

MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL section south of Maryland St.

Jacobsville Complete Streets Study RUNDELL ERNSTBERGER ASSOCIATES, LLC Evansville, Indiana land planning + urban design + landscape architecture October 2014 INDIANAPOLIS, IN | MUNCIE, IN | LOUISVILLE, KY 10 &ŝŐƵƌĞϱ͗DĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůWůĂŶ

MAIN STREET RESIDENTIAL section north of Maryland St.

WƵƌƉŽƐĞĂŶĚDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇ • Increases in Consumer Expenditures • Improved Quality of Life The Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) solicited • Urban Redevelopment ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂŶ͞ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements.” Subsequently, • Community Improvement and Enhancement ŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϭϰ͕ƚŚĞDƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚ>ŽĐŚŵƵĞůůĞƌ'ƌŽƵƉƚŽ • /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƵƐŝŶĞƐƐdƌĂĸĐĂŶĚŶŶƵĂů^ĂůĞƐ͘ complete this Economic Impact Study. The purpose of the study ŝƐƚŽŐŝǀĞůŽĐĂůŽĸĐŝĂůƐĂŶĚĐŝƟǌĞŶƐĂŶĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƟĂů /ŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƚƌĂĐŬĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽǀĞƌƟŵĞ͕ŝƚŝƐŽŌĞŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇďĞĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨŵĂŬŝŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ and customary to conduct extensive business and bike/trail-user Street more walkable and bicycle-friendly. This report summarizes ƐƵƌǀĞǇƐ͘^ƵĐŚƐƵƌǀĞǇƐĂƌĞĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŝŶƚŽĂĚŝŐŝƟǌĞĚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ƚŚĞĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚƉƌŽũĞĐƟŽŶƐŝŶĂƐŝǆͲǇĞĂƌƟŵĞůŝŶĞ͘/ŵƉůŝĐŝƚŝŶƚŚĞ process applying local demographic and economic data to form ƟŵĞĨƌĂŵĞƉƌŽũĞĐƟŽŶŝƐƚŚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƟŽŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ ĂƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŶƉƵƚͲŽƵƚƉƵƚŵŽĚĞů͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶĞƐƟŵĂƚĞƐ ǁŝůůĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝƚƐƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚǁŝůůĂĐŚŝĞǀĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ of bikeway/trail user spending in consumer goods, services and ůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƐŝŶĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞ ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ͕ƚŚƌĞĞ ǁŝĚĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘dŚŝƐŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇĨŽƐƚĞƌƐ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚŵĂǇďĞƋƵĂŶƟĮĞĚŝŶĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚ ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ǁĞůů amounts in the computerized input-output model. ďĞǇŽŶĚŶŽƌŵĂůůŝŶĞĂƌ͞ĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐ͟ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘ EĂƟŽŶĂůWĂƌŬ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚƵĚǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞϵϬ͛ƐƐŚŽǁĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐďĞŶĞĮƚƐŽĨĂĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚƌĂŝůŝŶǀŽůǀĞĂĐŽŵďŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨŶĞǁ ƚƌĂŝůͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚũŽďƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨŶĞĂƌďǇĞǆŝƐƟŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ associated with equipment, clothes, food, travel, souvenirs and maps. 1 Combining green infrastructure with trail infrastructure ĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĐŽƵŶƚůĞƐƐďĞŶĞĮƚƐĨŽƌƚŚŽƐĞ ǁŚŽůŝǀĞĐůŽƐĞƚŽƚƌĂŝůƐ͕ƚŚŽƐĞǁŚŽƚƌĂǀĞůƚŽĞŶũŽǇƚƌĂŝůƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŽƐĞ ǁŚŽĚĞƌŝǀĞĂŶĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐďĞŶĞĮƚĨƌŽŵƚƌĂŝůƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůǁĂǇƐ ƚŚĂƚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚƌĂŝůƐ͕ďŝŬĞǁĂǇƐ͕ĂŶĚŐƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƐƉŽƐŝƟǀĞůǇĂīĞĐƚ ďŽƚŚƚŚĞůŽĐĂůĂŶĚŶĂƟŽŶĂůĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗

• /ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚdŽƵƌŝƐŵĂŶĚEƵŵďĞƌŽĨsŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ • WƌŽŵŽƟŽŶŽĨ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚƐ • Increased Property Values • Decreased Health Care Costs • Improved Air Quality 12 • WƌŝǀĂƚĞ/ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚEĞǁ:ŽďƐ 1. ŝƌĞĐƚīĞĐƚƐ = impact of total ůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ͘dŚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƟŶŐů consumer spending for various tthe conclusion that trails, bikeways, and greenways improve ĐŽŵŵŽĚŝƟĞƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞŐƌŽƐƐ llocal economies grows greater by the day. Therefore, it sales of local businesses. A computer ŝŝƐƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƟŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐ͞ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨEŽƌƚŚ model would normally deduct imports MMain Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements” to ŽĨĐŽŵŵŽĚŝƟĞƐĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĨƌŽŵ rreview recent literature and academic analysis from other gross sales, in order to limit the ĐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͕ĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŽŶĚĂƚĂƚŚĂƚ calculated impacts to local producers ŵŵĂǇďĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƚŽEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞ͕/ŶĚŝĂŶĂ͘ ŽŶůǇ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůǇ͕ŝƚŝƐĐƵƐƚŽŵĂƌǇ ƚŽĞƐƟŵĂƚĞƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ddŚĞ͞ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŬĞĂŶĚ ǀĂůƵĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ͘ PPedestrian Infrastructure Improvements” will focus pprimarily on ŝƌĞĐƚīĞĐƚƐ of consumer spending and 2. /ŶĚŝƌĞĐƚīĞĐƚƐ = impact on local ƉƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ͕ƉůƵƐƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐĞīĞĐƚƐŽŶŶĞǁ ƐƵƉƉůŝĞƌƐŽĨƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶŝŶƉƵƚƐƚŽ ũũŽďĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚĂƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĂďŽƵƚŚĞĂůƚŚǇŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ĂůůƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇͲĂīĞĐƚĞĚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͕ ĂĂĐƟǀŝƚǇĂŶĚŝƚƐƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƚŽŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞĐŽƐƚƐ͘dŚĞƐƚƵĚǇ ƚŚĞƌĞďǇŵĞĂƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ͞ƌŝƉƉůĞĞīĞĐƚ͟ ddoes not purport to include the analysis of other Indirect of trail spending as expenditures on īĞĐƚƐŽƌ/ŶĚƵĐĞĚīĞĐƚƐ͘tŝƚŚŽƵƚŽŶͲƐŝƚĞƵƐĞƌƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ secondary inputs are increased to ssurveys or the capability of introducing computer input- meet trail users’ spending demands. ŽƵƚƉƵƚŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐ͕ƉƌĞĚŝĐƟŶŐ/ŶĚƵĐĞĚīĞĐƚƐďĞĐŽŵĞƐ ĚĚĞĚũŽďƐĐĂŶďĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂƐĂŶŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚĞīĞĐƚ͕ƐŝŶĐĞŝƚƐƚĞŵƐ ƵŶƌĞůŝĂďůĞ͘ƵƚƐŝŶĐĞŽŶůǇŝƌĞĐƚīĞĐƚƐĂŶĚ:ŽďƌĞĂƟŽŶĂƌĞ ĨƌŽŵĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͘ analyzed in this study, it should be acknowledged that there EĞǁũŽďƐ͞ƐƉŝŶŽī͟ŝŶƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶĚƵĐĞĚƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ͕ĂƐ ǁŽƵůĚďĞŽƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ͞ƐƉŝŶͲŽī͟ĞīĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĞŝŐŚƚĞŶ described below. ĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘ƐƟŵĂƚĞƐĨŽƌĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ĞǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟǀĞ͘ 3. /ŶĚƵĐĞĚīĞĐƚƐ = impact of re-spending on the incomes ĞĂƌŶĞĚďǇĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐŽĨĂůůĂīĞĐƚĞĚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶůŽĐĂů dŚŝƐƐƚƵĚǇǁŝůůĐŝƚĞĐŽŶǀŝŶĐŝŶŐĞǆĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĂŶĚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ͕ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶ͕ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůŐŽŽĚƐĂŶĚ ĨƌŽŵŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐƚŽƐŚĞĚůŝŐŚƚŽŶǁŚĂƚǁĞŵĂǇĞǆƉĞĐƚŝŶ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘dŚŝƐĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐƉƌĞĚŝĐƚƐƚŚĞ͞ƐƉŝŶͲŽīĞīĞĐƚƐ͟ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞŽǀĞƌĂƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚĂŌĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĐŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶ ǁŝƚŚƚƌĂŝůƵƐĞƌƐ͛ƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƉĂƩĞƌŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ ŽĨƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶďŝŬĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶůĂŶĞƐ͘dŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ this spending. Metropolitan Development may elect to do surveys and computer input-output modeling at some future date when there is a track- &ŽƌƚŚŝƐ͞ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚǇŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŬĞĂŶĚWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ record of performance for both the Greenway and the pedestrian /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕͟ƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƟŵĞ͕ĨĞĞƐĂŶĚƐĐŽƉĞ ĂŶĚďŝŬĞǁĂǇƚƌĂŝůƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ of the study do not allow for user surveys or computer modeling ŽĨŝŶƉƵƚƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůďŽĚǇŽĨĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǁŽƌŬ ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐďĞŶĞĮƚƐŽĨƚƌĂŝůƐĂŶĚŐƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƐĨƌŽŵ 13 ^ƚƵĚǇĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚWƵƌƉŽƐĞ

ĂƚĂŽĐƵŵĞŶƟŶŐWŽƐŝƟǀĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐ • The Mineral Wells to Weatherford Rail-Trail outside Dallas, Texas draws around 300,000 users annually and generates local dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŽďƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĂůǇƐĞƐ͕ƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ͕ĂŶĞĐĚŽƚĂůŶĂƌƌĂƟǀĞ͕ revenue of $2 million. 6 and vital data from other places in the United States, at various • /ŶϮϬϬϭ͕WƌŝĐĞͲtĂƚĞƌŚŽƵƐĞͲŽŽƉĞƌƐĂŶĂůǇǌĞĚĂϮϬϭͲŵŝůĞƐĞĐƟŽŶ ƟŵĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚĮŌĞĞŶǇĞĂƌƐ͕ŵĂǇďĞŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƟǀĞĨƌŽŵĂ of a proposed trans-Canada trail system and found that it conceptual point of view. These facts and measurements are ǁŽƵůĚĐƌĞĂƚĞϭϳϬƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚũŽďƐĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĐŽŵĞŝŶƚŚĂƚ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚƚŽŐŝǀĞĂŶŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ province permanently by about $7 million (in U.S. dollars). 7 that trails, bikeways, and greenways are moving. • A 2001 study of the Rivergreenway Trail in Fort Wayne, Indiana • showed that the average trail user spent $1,350 a year directly &ƌŽŵϭϵϵϬƚŽϮϬϬϵ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨďŝŬĞƚƌŝƉƐŝŶƚŚĞh͘^͘ 8 doubled from 1.8 to 4 billion yearly. 2 ŝŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝů͘ • KǀĞƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚϭϬǇĞĂƌƐ͕h͘^͘ďŝŬĞĐŽŵŵƵƟŶŐŐƌĞǁϰϳй ŶĂƟŽŶĂůůǇĂŶĚϳϯйŝŶƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚŵĞƌŝĐĂŶĐŝƟĞƐ͘2 • 47% of Americans surveyed want more lanes, bike paths, and ƚƌĂŝůƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ͘2 • ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶƐƐƉĞŶĚΨϴϭďŝůůŝŽŶĂŶŶƵĂůůǇŽŶďŝĐǇĐůŝŶŐ͕ŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŶŐ ϳϳϬ͕ϬϬϬũŽďƐĂŶĚΨϭϬďŝůůŝŽŶŝŶƚĂǆƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ͘2 • /ŶϮϬϬϭ͕WŝƩƐďƵƌŐŚDĂǇŽƌdŽŵDƵƌƉŚǇ͕ƚĞƐƟĨǇŝŶŐďĞĨŽƌĞ ŽŶŐƌĞƐƐ͕ĐƌĞĚŝƚĞĚƚƌĂŝůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĨŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŶŐŝŶĂŵĂũŽƌ ǁĂǇƚŽƚŚĞĚƌĂŵĂƟĐĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶƌĞǀŝƚĂůŝǌĂƟŽŶŝŶŚŝƐĐŝƚǇ͘DŝůĞƐ of trails now connect millions of dollars’ worth of economic ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ŽĸĐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕ƐƚĂĚŝƵŵƐ͕ĂŶĚ riverfront parks. 3 • Likewise in 2001, Ruby Tuesday, Inc. moved its Restaurant Support Center next to the Greenway Trail in Maryville, dĞŶŶĞƐƐĞĞ͘^ĂŵƵĞů͘ĞĂůů͕///͕ŚĂŝƌŵĂŶĂŶĚK͕ƐĂŝĚ͕͞/ was very impressed with the beauty of the park, which helps provide a sense of community to this area, as well as the many ďĞŶĞĮƚƐŝƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƚŽŽƵƌŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϯϬϬĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ͘͟4 • In 2001, following the opening of the Mineral Belt Trail in >ĞĂĚǀŝůůĞ͕ŽůŽƌĂĚŽ͕ƚŚĞĐŝƚǇĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚĂϭϵƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ in sales taxes. Restaurant owners also reported that they ǁĞƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌƐǁŚŽŚĂĚĐŽŵĞƚŽƚŽǁŶƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĂůůǇƚŽ 5 14 experience the Mineral Belt Trail. • In a 2002 survey of recent home buyers, sponsored by the ^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞtĂǇƐdĂǆƉĂǇĞƌƐĞŶĞĮƚĨƌŽŵŝŬĞƐ EĂƟŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨ,ŽŵĞƵŝůĚĞƌƐĂŶĚƚŚĞEĂƟŽŶĂů ƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨZĞĂůƚŽƌƐ͕ďŝŬĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƚƌĂŝůƐƌĂŶŬĞĚĂƐ and Bike Trails the second most important community amenity in a list of 18 There are at least four main reasons that individual taxpayers possible choices. ϵ ďĞŶĞĮƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽůŝĨĞƌĂƟŽŶŽĨďŝĐǇĐůĞƵƐĂŐĞŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ • The Indiana Chamber of Commerce, in 2004, named Muncie, States and Canada: (Quoted from an editorial in the Toronto Indiana the Community of the Year due to development in its ^ƚĂƌƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚdƵĞƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵŶĞϮ͕ϮϬϬϵ͘KƉŝŶŝŽŶĐŽůƵŵŶďǇůďĞƌƚ downtown – including $12 million (mostly in federal dollars) Koehl.) allocated to hiking and biking trails accessible around and through the downtown. 8 1. ͞ŝŬĞŵĂŬĞƌƐĂƌĞŶ͛ƚďĞŐŐŝŶŐĨŽƌŚĂŶĚŽƵƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ • Bloomington, Indiana has acquired an outdated rail line that will taxpayer. While automakers want money to create cars be converted into an urban trail in order to energize the arts and more money to create buyers for their automobiles district and help create a more lively downtown. 8 ;ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚͲĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞĚĮŶĂŶĐŝŶŐͿ͕ƚŚĞƌĂƚĞŽĨďŝŬĞ ŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƐƚŽĐůŝŵďƐƚĞĞƉůǇĂůůŽǀĞƌƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ • Evansville, Indiana is in the process of designing its High Rail – and now outstrips car manufacturing by about three units ŽƌƌŝĚŽƌďŝŬĞͬƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌƵŶŶŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚͲƐŽƵƚŚĂůŽŶŐ to one. Highway 41. • In June 2006, the Monon Trail in Indiana celebrated its 10th 2. ŝŬĞƐĐĂŶŚĞůƉƌĞĚƵĐĞĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞǇŽŶůǇŶĞĞĚ anniversary. With 1.2 million visits a year, the trail is so ĂĨƌĂĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞŽĨĐĂƌƐƚŽŵŽǀĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞŶƵŵďĞƌ popular that entrepreneurs are building hundreds of high-end of people. According to the Greater Toronto Chamber of ĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐĂŶĚƚŽǁŶŚŽƵƐĞƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĂŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞ ŽŵŵĞƌĐĞ͕ŵŽƚŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĐŽƐƚƐƚŚĞ to the trail. 8 Greater Toronto Area $1.8 billion each year. • Two shopkeepers by a new trail in Indianapolis described the trail’s advantages to retailers. They claimed that over 4,000 3. Bikes cause less wear and tear on pavement and less people use that trail every day. A deli-owner near the trail property damage than cars, while cyclists contribute more than their fair share to the road infrastructure through their ŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚ͕͞ůŽƚŽĨƉĞŽƉůĞĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐŝŶŚĞƌĞƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŶĞǀĞƌ been here before.” The owner of another local store also ƚĂǆĞƐ͘ĂƌĚƌŝǀĞƌƐŽŶůǇĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĂƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞĂůĐŽƐƚŽĨ maintaining the road system. ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚĞĚ͕͞dŚĞƚƌĂŝůŚĂƐŚĞůƉĞĚƚŽƉƵƚŽƵƌŶĂŵĞĂƚƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚ 8 of people’s minds.” 4. ŝŬĞƐĂƌĞƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶƚŽĂŝƌƉŽůůƵƟŽŶĂŶĚƵƌďĂŶŚĞĂƚ ŝƐůĂŶĚƐ͘DŽƚŽƌƚƌĂĸĐƉŽůůƵƟŽŶĐĂƵƐĞƐϰϰϬĚĞĂƚŚƐŝŶdŽƌŽŶƚŽ alone each year and more than $2 billion in mortality-related costs. Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse emissions from even 1 million bikes (the total number of Toronto adults who ride a bike) would be zero – a level that not even the most advanced car technologies will ever meet.” 15 <ĞǇ^ƚƵĚǇŽƐƚsĂƌŝĂďůĞʹWĞƌdƌŝƉ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ

ŽŶƐƵŵĞƌ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ dĂďůĞϭ͗WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚŝĐǇĐůĞdƌĂŝůƐʹĂŝůǇ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ ŶĞǆĂŵŝŶĂƟŽŶŽĨƐĞǀĞƌĂůŝŬĞͬdƌĂŝůĂƐĞ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐƌĞǀĞĂůƐĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨ Per Trip indices for trail and bike user spending on a per trip basis. dƌĂŝů^ǇƐƚĞŵ zĞĂƌ^ƵƌǀĞǇĞĚ dĂďůĞϭƐŚŽǁƐĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐĮŐƵƌĞƐĨŽƌƐĞǀĞƌĂůƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ in the United States. It is important to realize that spending will >ŝƩůĞDŝĂŵŝ͕KŚŝŽ^ĐĞŶŝĐdƌĂŝů8 2000 $13.54 vary from place to place based on mileage (length) of trip, distance ;ŝŶĐŝŶŶĂƟͿ ŽĨďŝŬĞƌƐŽƌƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶŚŽŵĞƐĂƚƟŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉ͕ĂŶĚ >ŝƩůĞDŝĂŵŝ͕KŚŝŽ^ĐĞŶŝĐdƌĂŝů 2006 $15.05 whether the trip is part of an overnight stay or simply a day trip ;ŝŶĐŝŶŶĂƟͿ ;ƚŽƚĂůƟŵĞĚƵƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƚƌŝƉͿ͘ >ŝƩůĞDŝĂŵŝ͕KŚŝŽ^ĐĞŶŝĐdƌĂŝů ϮϬϭϱƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ $17.50 ƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨĂƐĞ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚƌĞĞĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƐǁŝƚŚƚŚƌĞĞ ;ŝŶĐŝŶŶĂƟͿ ƐĞƚƐŽĨƵŶŝƋƵĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƌĞǀĞĂůĞĚƚŚĂƚƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƉĂƩĞƌŶƐŽĨƚƌĂŝů Greater Allegheny Passage 18 ϮϬϬϵ $15.61 ƵƐĞƌƐĂƌĞƐŝŵŝůĂƌĂĐƌŽƐƐĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƌĞŐŝŽŶƐ͘^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ Greater Allegheny Passage 2014 Ψϭϳ͘ϲϵ results are shown in Table 1 for the three Case Studies: Virginia Creeper Rail Trail ϭϵ 2007 $17.16* Virginia Creeper Rail Trail ϮϬϭϱƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚ $18.50 1. >ŝƩůĞDŝĂŵŝ^ĐĞŶŝĐdƌĂŝů͖ State of Minnesota Trails 20 2008 $18.81** 2. Greater Allegheny Passage; and * See Table 2 for breakdown of costs for Virginia Creeper Trail. ** See Table 3 for breakdown of costs for Minnesota Trails. 3. Virginia Creeper Rail Trail.

reasonable proximity to the bikeways and trails. The important concept to In order to illustrate the types of expenditures made on a per trip bear in mind is that there appears to be a mean or average expenditure basis, Table 2 shows typical costs and expenditures associated with level that trail users will tend to expend, regardless of the products or the 2007 Virginia Creeper Rail Trail analysis; and Table 3 shows services available. a per trip breakdown for all trails in Minnesota, with surveys conducted in 2008. It should be noted that the Virginia Creeper ŌĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐƚŚĞĞǆƉĞŶƐĞƐŽĨƚŚƌĞĞƚĂƌŐĞƚĂƐĞ^ƚƵĚǇƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͕ ZĂŝůdƌĂŝůĮŐƵƌĞŝƐĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐůŝǀŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶϯϬŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŽĨĂƚƌĂŝůŽƌ along with the expenses for the State of Minnesota, a per trip expense ďŝŬĞǁĂǇ͖ĂŶĚƚŚĞDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂĮŐƵƌĞŝƐĨŽƌƉĞƌƐŽŶƐůŝǀŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϱ ĮŐƵƌĞŽĨ$17.50ƉĞƌĚĂǇƚƌŝƉŝŶǇĞĂƌϭ;ŽŶĐĞƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƚƌĂŝůŝƐ miles of a trail or bikeway. ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚͿǁŝůůďĞƵƐĞĚĨŽƌĂŶŶƵĂůŝǌĞĚƚŽƚĂůƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƟŽŶƐ͘dŚŝƐ ĮŐƵƌĞĐůŽƐĞůǇƌĞƐĞŵďůĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚĮŐƵƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĞ>ŝƩůĞDŝĂŵŝ͕KŚŝŽ dŚĞĮŐƵƌĞƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞƐϮĂŶĚϯĂƌĞĨŽƌĐŽŵƉĂƌĂƟǀĞ ^ĐĞŶŝĐdƌĂŝůĨŽƌϮϬϭϱĂŶĚŝƚĮƚƐŶĞĂƚůǇǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƌĂŶŐĞŽĨΨϭϱ͘ϲϭ;ůŽǁĞŶĚͿ purposes. The types of expenditures trail users make is largely of the Greater Allegheny Passage; and the $18.81 (high end) of the State 16 dependent on the types of products and services available with of Minnesota's average trails and bikeways expenditures. dĂďůĞϮ͗sŝƌŐŝŶŝĂƌĞĞƉĞƌZĂŝůdƌĂŝůǆƉĞŶƐĞƐ

dǇƉŝĐĂůĂŝůǇǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞ Price Food in Restaurants, Delis $6.37 Carry-out Food Purchases ΨϬ͘ϳϵ WƌŝŵĂƌǇdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ;ĨŽƌƚƌĂŝůĂƌƌŝǀĂůͿ $3.41 KƚŚĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ $0.01 Bike Rental Costs Ψϯ͘ϰϵ ^ŚƵƩůĞͬ'ƵŝĚĞƐ $2.74 User Fees $0.04 DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ;ƵŶĐůĂƐƐŝĮĞĚͿ $0.26 Total $17.11

dĂďůĞϯ͗ǀĞƌĂŐĞdƌŝƉ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐʹtĂůŬĞƌƐΘŝŬĞƌƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ of Minnesota (2008)

dǇƉŝĐĂůĂŝůǇǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞ Price Restaurant/Bar Meals & Drinks $4.62 Grocery or Convenience Store $6.32 dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŽƐƚƐ $0.45 ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚWƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐ $1.82 Payments to Public Agencies/Fees $1.38 Entertainment (primarily casinos) $1.12 Shopping ΨϮ͘ϵϯ DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ;ƵŶĐůĂƐƐŝĮĞĚͿ $0.14

Total $18.78 17

dƌĂŝůĂŶĚŝŬĞǁĂǇhƐĂŐĞʹdƌŝƉƐWĞƌĂǇ

WŝŐĞŽŶƌĞĞŬ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇhƐĂŐĞ^ƚƵĚǇ ŵĂĚĞƵƉĂůŵŽƐƚŚĂůĨ;ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϰϵƉĞƌĐĞŶƚͿŽĨƚŚĞƵƐĞƌƐ͘/ƚ ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŶŽƚĞĚ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ͞ŐĞŶĚĞƌŐĂƉ͟ŚĂƐŶĂƌƌŽǁĞĚ Included as Appendix A is the Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage at the Garvin Park intercept point; in 2006 almost three Study, completed in December of 2012 for the Evansville Parks ƋƵĂƌƚĞƌƐ;ϳϮƉĞƌĐĞŶƚͿŽĨƚŚĞƵƐĞƌƐĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƟŽŶǁĞƌĞŵĞŶ͘ Board by Dr. Glenna G. Bower, Ph.D. and Dr. Mary Hallock Morris, • Based on the census counts, the most popular Greenway Ph.D. This study compares overall Greenway Passage Usage in ĂĐƟǀŝƚǇĨŽƌďŽƚŚ͞ĞŶĚƐ͟ŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůǁĂƐǁĂůŬŝŶŐ;ϱϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨ 2006 and 2012, giving a sense of usage increases over this 6-year users), followed by cycling (23 percent of users) and running ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘/ƚŝƐŝŶƐƚƌƵĐƟǀĞƚŽŽďƐĞƌǀĞƚŚĞĚĞůƚĂ;ĐŚĂŶŐĞͿŝŶƵƐĞ͕ĂůŽŶŐ (21 percent of users). Data from the user intercept surveys ǁŝƚŚĚĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůƵƐĞƌƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƵƐĂŐĞ also shows that walking (58 percent of the respondents) was ƉĂƩĞƌŶƐ͘ ƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƉŽƉƵůĂƌĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ͕ĨŽůůŽǁĞĚďǇĐǇĐůŝŶŐ;ϮϴƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƚĞŵƐƚĂŬĞŶĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞǆĞĐƵƟǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨ respondents) and running (12 percent of respondents). In the ƚŚĞϮϬϭϮƐƚƵĚǇďǇŽǁĞƌĂŶĚDŽƌƌŝƐĐĂŶďĞƵƟůŝǌĞĚƚŽďĞŐŝŶƚŚĞ ŵŝĚĚůĞŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝů͕ĐǇĐůŝŶŐǁĂƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƉŽƉƵůĂƌĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ;ϰϱ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨƉƌĞĚŝĐƟŶŐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚƵƐĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁƚƌĂŝůĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚ percent of users counted at the Shirley James intercept point). Main Street. • Approximately 70 percent of survey respondents indicated that they used the trail at least once per week, with 46 percent • ͞h^/ƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĐŽƵŶƚĞĚϰ͕ϯϱϯ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƵƐĞƌƐĂŶĚĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌĞĚ ŽĨƐƵƌǀĞǇƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚƐƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůƚŚƌĞĞŽƌŵŽƌĞƟŵĞƐƉĞƌ 282 surveys during the seven-day period running from Monday, week. Once on the trail, 44 percent of survey respondents will September 24 to Sunday, September 30, 2012. The counts and use the trail for 60 or more minutes and 22 percent will use the surveys were taken at three intercept points along the Pigeon trail for 50 minutes to an hour. Creek Greenway: The Pagoda Trailhead, the Shirley James • KǀĞƌĂůů͕ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϵϲƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƐƵƌǀĞǇƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚƐĨĞůƚ Memorial Gateway Plaza, and the Garvin Park Trailhead. ͞ǀĞƌǇƐĂĨĞ͟Žƌ͞ƐŽŵĞǁŚĂƚƐĂĨĞ͟ǁŚĞŶƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇ͘ • ƐŝŶϮϬϬϲ͕ƚŚĞZŝǀĞƌĨƌŽŶƚƐĞĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇŝƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚ DŽƌĞŵĂůĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚƐ;ϲϴƉĞƌĐĞŶƚͿƐĂŝĚƚŚĞǇĨĞůƚ͞ǀĞƌǇ used segment with over 2,500 users during the week-long safe” on the trail when compared to female respondents (46 study. percent). • From 2006 to 2012, the number of Greenway users increased • Close to 100 percent of survey respondents stated that approximately 51 percent at the Pagoda and Garvin Park ƚŚĞǇǁĞƌĞ͞ǀĞƌǇƐĂƟƐĮĞĚ͟Žƌ͞ƐŽŵĞǁŚĂƚƐĂƟƐĮĞĚ͟ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ dƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚƐ͘tŚĞŶĂŶĂůǇǌĞĚƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůǇ͕ƚŚĞZŝǀĞƌĨƌŽŶƚƐĞĐƟŽŶ Greenway. of the trail experienced a 33 percent increase in usage while • When asked about improvements to the trail, the common Garvin Park experienced a 138 percent increase. ƚŚĞŵĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ͗ŵŽƌĞƐĂĨĞƚǇĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐďĞƩĞƌůŝŐŚƟŶŐ͕ • In 2012, the census counts demonstrated that there was a ĐĂŵĞƌĂƐĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉĂƚƌŽůƐďǇƉŽůŝĐĞŽĸĐĞƌƐ͖ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨ ͞ŐĞŶĚĞƌŐĂƉ͟ŝŶ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇhƐĞƌƐĂƚďŽƚŚƚŚĞ'ĂƌǀŝŶWĂƌŬĂŶĚ water fountains and public restrooms; less trash and vandalism; ^ŚŝƌůĞǇ:ĂŵĞƐDĞŵŽƌŝĂůŝŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚƉŽŝŶƚƐ͘ƚďŽƚŚůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ extending the trail; improving maintenance of the trail; making only 44 percent of the users were women. This phenomenon the trail wider; and improving the smell.” 11 18 did not occur at the Pagoda intercept point where women ƐƟŵĂƟŶŐ&ƵƚƵƌĞhƐĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŬĞ dĂďůĞϰ͗ŽŵƉĂƌĂƟǀĞĞŶƐƵƐŽƵŶƚƐʹ'ĂƌǀŝŶWĂƌŬ ĂŶĚWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ^ǇƐƚĞŵ Trailhead ĂƚĂĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚĂďůĞ;dĂďůĞϰͿǁĂƐƚĂŬĞŶĨƌŽŵƉĂŐĞϵŽĨ 2006 2012 2015 the 2012 Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study by USI professors Glenna Bower and Mary Morris (Appendix A). Since the Garvin Park Monday 4 44 64 dƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŶĞĂƌƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞŶĚŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ƋƵŝƚĞĐůŽƐĞ Tuesday 22 84 115 ŝŶƉƌŽǆŝŵŝƚǇƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂŶĚďŝŬĞǁĂǇ Wednesday 52 ϵϬ ϭϬϵ improvements, it is safe to assume that the census counts and Thursday 26 56 71 percentage of change from 2006 to 2012 are the most relevant ŶƵŵďĞƌƐƚŽĞǆĂŵŝŶĞŝŶĂŶĞīŽƌƚƚŽĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƚƌĂŝů Friday 64 64* 68 ƵƐĂŐĞ͘ŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽůƵŵŶŽĨĮŐƵƌĞƐŝƐĂĚĚĞĚĨŽƌϮϬϭϱďĂƐĞĚŽŶ Saturday ϵϬ 472 663 half (3 years) of the same rate of growth experienced between 2006 Sunday 116 145 160 and 2012 (6 years). tĞĞŬůǇdŽƚĂů 374 955 1,250

ΎƐƟŵĂƚĞĚ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞƐƵŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘

The 2015 total of 1,250 weekly trail visits converts to an annualized ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϲϱ͕ϬϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƚŽƚŚĞ'ĂƌǀŝŶWĂƌŬdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚ͘ĚũƵƐƟŶŐƚŚŝƐ ĂŶŶƵĂůŝǌĞĚƚŽƚĂůĨŽƌƐĞĂƐŽŶĂůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐďǇĞůŝŵŝŶĂƟŶŐƚƌŝƉƐ in January and February in any given year results in an annualized ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϱϰ͕ϮϭϬĂŶŶƵĂůƚƌŝƉƐ͘EŽƚĂůůƵƐĞƌƐǁŚŽǀŝƐŝƚƚŚĞ'ĂƌǀŝŶ WĂƌŬdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚǁŝůůĞŶĚƵƉŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ďƵƚŝƚŝƐƐĂĨĞƚŽĂƐƐƵŵĞ ĂƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞǁŝůůǀŝƐŝƚEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚƐƉĞŶĚŵŽŶĞǇ ƚŚĞƌĞ͘ƐƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƚƌĂŝůďĞĐŽŵĞƐŵŽƌĞǁŝĚĞůǇŬŶŽǁŶ and familiar to trail users, the number of visits will increase ƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞůǇ͘

19 dƌĂŝůĂŶĚŝŬĞǁĂǇhƐĂŐĞʹdŽƚĂůdƌŝƉƐ

dĂďůĞϱƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶdƌĂŝůǀŝƐŝƚƐŽǀĞƌĂƐŝǆͲǇĞĂƌ ƟŵĞĨƌĂŵĞĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǇĞĂƌ͛ƐƌĞƐƵůƟŶŐƵƐĞƌĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐĂƚĂ ƌĂƚĞŽĨΨϭϳ͘ϱϬƉĞƌƚƌŝƉŽŶƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶdƌĂŝůƐƚĂƌƟŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĮƌƐƚ ǇĞĂƌĂŌĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͘WĞƌƚƌŝƉĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĂƚ Ϯ͘ϱйĂŶŶƵĂůůǇĂƐĂĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƚƌŝƉĂƐƐŝŐŶŵĞŶƚƐ start at 12.5 % of the Garvin Park Trailhead in year one and ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĂƚĂƌĂƚĞŽĨĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůϮϱйĂŶŶƵĂůůǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ ĞŶƐƵŝŶŐƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚ͘dŚĞĞǆĐĞƉƟŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐϮϱйƌĂƚĞŽĨŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŝƐƚŚĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶĨŽƌǇĞĂƌƚǁŽ͘/ŶƚŚĂƚǇĞĂƌ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŽƉĞŶŝŶŐŽĨ the new I.U. Medical School Campus in downtown Evansville, the rate of increase is expected to be 50%. The overall six year ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚĂůŝƐ$1,708,811. This is a very ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟǀĞĮŐƵƌĞĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŶǇŝŶĚƵĐĞĚŽƌƐƉŝŶͲŽī impacts.

dĂďůĞϱ͗hƐĞƌsŝƐŝƚƐΘ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐʹEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ ŝŬĞΘWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶdƌĂŝů

EĞǁsŝƐŝƚƐͲ ĚĚĞĚ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐͲ North Main North Main Year 1 6,776 $118,580 Year 2 10,164 $182,317 Year 3 12,705 $233,645 Year 4 15,881 ΨϮϵϵ͕ϯϱϳ Year 5 ϭϵ͕ϴϱϭ $383,521 Year 6 24,814 Ψϰϵϭ͕ϯϵϭ Total 90,191 $1,708,811

20 /ŶƐƵŵŵĂƌǇ͕ƚŚĞƐƚĞƉƐŝŶƚŚĞĂůŐŽƌŝƚŚŵƵƐĞĚĨŽƌĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŶŐƚŚĞ economic spending impact is as follows: (Refer to Table 5.)

1. Start with 1,250 ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐĨŽƌϮϬϭϱƟŵĞƐ52 weeks = 65,000 annual projected trips for the Garvin Park trailhead.

2. 65,000 trips ƟŵĞƐ.834 = 54,210 annualized trips, seasonally ĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚ;ŽŵŝƫŶŐ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇͬ&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇͿ͘dŚĞƐĞĂƌĞĂŶŶƵĂůŝǌĞĚ trips for the Garvin Park trailhead.

3. 54,210 trips ƟŵĞƐ.125 = 6,776 tripsĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚ͘ŝŶ year 1. Assume that only 12.5% of new Garvin Park bikers/ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƚƌĂŝůŝŶǇĞĂƌϭ͘ 4. 6776 tripsƟŵĞƐ$17.50 in expenditures per trip = $118,580 in ŶĞǁƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝŶǇĞĂƌϭ͘ 5. 6,776 trips ƟŵĞƐ1.50 = 10,164 trips ĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŶǇĞĂƌ Ϯ͘dŚŝƐϱϬйŐƌŽǁƚŚĨĂĐƚŽƌŝƐĂƩƌŝďƵƚĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ of the I.U. Medical School campus in downtown Evansville. dŚĞĐĂŵƉƵƐŝƐĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŵĞŽŶůŝŶĞŝŶǇĞĂƌϮŽĨƚŚĞ ϲͲǇĞĂƌƟŵĞĨƌĂŵĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͘ŌĞƌǇĞĂƌϮ͕ĂŐƌŽǁƚŚƌĂƚĞŽĨ 25% is applied yearly to represent growth in the number of annualized trips.

6. 10,164 trips ƟŵĞƐ$17.94 spent per trip = $182,317 annual ĂĚĚĞĚĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŝŶǇĞĂƌϮ͘dŚĞŝŶŝƟĂůΨϭϳ͘ϱϬĞǆƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞ ƉĞƌƚƌŝƉŝƐŝŶŇĂƚĞĚĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌĂŌĞƌǇĞĂƌŽŶĞŝŶƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĂ ĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ 2.5%. 7. ŽŶƟŶƵĞĂůŐŽƌŝƚŚŵĂƚƌĂƚĞŽĨϮϱйŐƌŽǁƚŚŝŶƚƌŝƉƐĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ ƐƚĂƌƟŶŐŝŶǇĞĂƌϯ͕ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂϮ͘ϱйĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌĨŽƌĂůůƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚǇĞĂƌƐ͘

21 WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨdƌĂŝůŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ

ǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŽĨKƚŚĞƌŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂŶĚdŚĞŝƌ • In Dallas, Texas, developers reported a 25% premium in sales 16 dƌĂŝů^ǇƐƚĞŵƐ ĨŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐŶĞǆƚƚŽƚŚĞ<ĂƚǇdƌĂŝů͘ • ϮϬϬϲƐƚƵĚǇŝŶEŽƌƚŚĂŵƉƚŽŶ͕DĂƐƐĂĐŚƵƐĞƩƐ͕ďǇĂůŽĐĂůƌĞĂůƚŽƌ ϮϬϬϮƐƚƵĚǇƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶďǇƚŚĞEĂƟŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨ concerning the impact of two rail-trails on local residences, ,ŽŵĞďƵŝůĚĞƌƐĂŶĚEĂƟŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨZĞĂůƚŽƌƐĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚƚƌĂŝůƐ revealed that homes near trails stayed on the market for 42 ĂƌĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƚŚĂƚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂů percent fewer days than distant homes, and that homes near homeowners cite when choosing a new community. Trails were trails sold 1.3 percent closer to the list price than distant ĐŝƚĞĚďǇϱϳƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƉƌŽƐƉĞĐƟǀĞŚŽŵĞďƵǇĞƌƐŝŶĂϮϬϬϰƐƵƌǀĞǇ homes. 17 ďǇƚŚĞĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŚĞĂĚŽĨƉƵďůŝĐƉĂƌŬƐĂŶĚŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƉƵďůŝĐƉŽŽůƐ͘ • ϮϬϬϵƐƚƵĚǇŽĨƚŚĞƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉďĞƚǁĞĞŶǁĂůŬĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚƌĞĂů ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůǇ͕ƚŚĞƐƚƵĚǇĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚ͞ƚƌĂŝůĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇ͟ŽƵƚƌĂŶŬĞĚϭϲ estate value shows an increase in assessed value of $700 – ŽƚŚĞƌŽƉƟŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐĞĐƵƌŝƚǇ͕ďĂůůĮĞůĚƐ͕ŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞƐ͕ƉĂƌŬƐ͕ĂŶĚ $3,000 for every one-point increase in Walk Score (a walkability access to shopping. ϵ ŝŶĚĞǆͿ͘/ŶƚǇƉŝĐĂůƵƌďĂŶĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĂďŽǀĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞtĂůŬ^ĐŽƌĞƌĂƟŶŐƐ brought a premium of between $4,000 and $34,000. 10 Home-buyer preferences such as these translate into increased ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƐĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚƚĂǆƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐƚŚĂƚ incorporate trails into their infrastructure planning. A 2003 study on ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚĂƚƚƌĂŝůƐŚĂǀĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƐŝŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƚƌĂŝůƐŽŶƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƐǁĂƐĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŽ be more than $140 million dollars. 11 Other examples include the following:

• /Ŷϭϵϵϴ͕ĂƐƚƵĚǇŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƐĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶĂǇ dƌĂŝůŝŶƌŽǁŶŽƵŶƚǇ͕tŝƐĐŽŶƐŝŶƐŚŽǁĞĚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ ĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚƌĂŝůƐƐŽůĚĨĂƐƚĞƌĂŶĚĨŽƌĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƉƌŝĐĞ ŽĨϵƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐŶŽƚůŽĐĂƚĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇ ĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƚƌĂŝů͘12 • /ŶƵƐƟŶ͕dĞǆĂƐ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĂƐŝŶŐůĞ ŐƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƉĂƐƐĂŐĞǁĞƌĞĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶΨϭϯ͘ϲϰŵŝůůŝŽŶŝŶ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇƚĂǆƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ͘13 • dŚĞ^ŚĞƉĂƌĚ͛ƐsŝŶĞǇĂƌĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƉĞǆ͕EŽƌƚŚĂƌŽůŝŶĂ͕ ĂĚĚĞĚΨϱ͕ϬϬϬƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŝĐĞŽĨϰϬƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ƚŽƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵʹĂŶĚƚŚŽƐĞŚŽŵĞƐƐƟůůƐŽůĚĮƌƐƚ͘14 • WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽĂŐƌĞĞŶǁĂǇŝŶ^ĂůĞŵ͕KƌĞŐŽŶ͕ǁĂƐĨŽƵŶĚ 22 ƚŽďĞǁŽƌƚŚĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇΨϭ͕ϮϬϬĂŶĂĐƌĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶůĂŶĚũƵƐƚ a thousand feet away. 15 dƌĂŝů/ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞƐůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ dĂďůĞϲ͗ǆƉĞĐƚĞĚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚʹEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ dŚĞϮϬϭϰĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚǀĂůƵĞŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝƐ dƌĂŝů^ǇƐƚĞŵ ĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇΨϭϬŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞsĞĐƚƌĞŶKƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇĂƚϭ EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ƉůƵƐĂŶŽƚŚĞƌΨϭϬŵŝůůŝŽŶĨŽƌĂůůŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨ 3% Annual Increase ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘;^ĞĞƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͘ͿtŚŝůĞŝƚŝƐĚŝĸĐƵůƚƚŽƉƌĞĚŝĐƚƚŚĞ ŝŶŐŐƌĞŐĂƚĞZĞĂůƐƚĂƚĞsĂůƵĞƐ impact on the assessed value of the Vectren facility, it is safe to Year 1 $300,000 ĂƐƐƵŵĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶǁŝůůĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ Year 2 ΨϯϬϵ͕ϬϬϬ ƌĞĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞƵƉŽŶĐŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶĂŶĚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ separated bike and pedestrian trail system. Year 3 $318,270 Year 4 $327,818 Ever since the Great Recession of 2008-2010, aggregate real estate Year 5 $337,653 ǀĂůƵĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƐŚŽǁŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ Year 6 $347,782 through 2014. However, with the prospect of a new I.U. Medical School campus in downtown Evansville, along with the proposed Total $1,940,523 ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ǀĂůƵĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂƌĞƉƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĂƚĂƌĂƚĞĞƋƵĂůƚŽ or slightly greater than the annual general cost-of-living index. Therefore, the expected economic impact of the trail system along EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŶƚŚĞŶĞǆƚƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƐŝƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϲ͘dŚĞƉƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚ ĂŶŶƵĂůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŚŽǁƐĂϯƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƟŽŶƌĂƚĞ͕ĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚĞĚ ĞĂĐŚǇĞĂƌ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĂŌĞƌƐŝǆǇĞĂƌƐŝƐ $1,940,560.

23 Trails’ Impacts on Healthcare Costs

/ŶĂĐƟǀŝƚǇĂƵƐĞƐ>ŽƐƚWƌŽĚƵĐƟǀŝƚǇĂŶĚ>ĞĂĚƐ to Disease dŚĞĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůŝŶĂĐƟǀŝƚǇŝƐƐƚĂŐŐĞƌŝŶŐ͘dŚĞ 2012 Benchmarking Report on Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. 21 ĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚŝĨũƵƐƚŽŶĞŽƵƚŽĨĞǀĞƌǇƚĞŶĂĚƵůƚƐƐƚĂƌƚĞĚ a regular walking program, the U.S. could save around $5.6 billion in health care services.

ZĞĐĞŶƚĚĂƚĂĨƌŽŵĐƟǀĞ>ŝǀŝŶŐ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ͕Ăƚ^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ^ƚĂƚĞ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ĞƐƟŵĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĐŽƐƚŽĨƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůŝŶĂĐƟǀŝƚǇŝŶŽƵƌ own State of Indiana to be almost $7 billion annually, with ŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵƌĚĞŶĐŽŵŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĨŽƌŵŽĨůŽƐƚƉƌŽĚƵĐƟǀŝƚǇ͘ According to the Indiana State Trails, Greenways & Bikeways Plan, 8 ŝĨŽŶůǇϱƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞ͛ƐƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶďĞĐĂŵĞ ƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůůǇĂĐƟǀĞ͕ƚŚĞƐƚĂƚĞ͛ƐĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůďƵƌĚĞŶĐŽƵůĚďĞ reduced by over $300 million every year. If Indiana improves ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚƌĂŝůƐĨŽƌŝƚƐĐŝƟǌĞŶƐ͕,ŽŽƐŝĞƌƐĐŽƵůĚƐĂǀĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƐŽĨ millions of dollars annually. Indiana is one of the top states for obesity and related diseases, ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝĂďĞƚĞƐ͕ŚĞĂƌƚĚŝƐĞĂƐĞ͕ƐƚƌŽŬĞ͕ĐĂŶĐĞƌĂŶĚĂƌƚŚƌŝƟƐ͘ ǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŶŐĞǆŝƐƟŶŐƚƌĂŝůƐǁŝůůƐĞƌǀĞƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐƚŽďĞĐŽŵĞŵŽƌĞĂĐƟǀĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞďǇŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐŚĞĂůƚŚ and quality of life in Evansville and the State of Indiana. While it is ĞǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇĚŝĸĐƵůƚƚŽƋƵĂŶƟĨǇĂŶĚƉƌĞĚŝĐƚŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞĐŽƐƚƐĂǀŝŶŐƐ ƚŚĂƚŵĂǇďĞĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂƩƌŝďƵƚĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁďŝŬĞĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ůĂŶĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ƐƵĸĐĞƚŽƐĂǇƚŚĂƚĂ ďĞŶĞĮĐŝĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĮƚŶĞƐƐŽĨǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞĐŝƟǌĞŶƐǁŚŽ ƵůƟŵĂƚĞůǇƵƐĞƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƚƌĂŝůƐǁŝůůďĞƵŶĚĞŶŝĂďůĞ͘

24 25 >ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ

sĂĐĂŶƚ^ŝƚĞƐĂŶĚsĂĐĂŶƚ&ůŽŽƌ^ƉĂĐĞŽŶƚŚĞDĂŝŶ dĂďůĞϳ͗ǆƉĞĐƚĞĚEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐʹEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶdƌĂŝů^ǇƐƚĞŵ >ĞǀĞůŝŶŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ǆƉĞĐƚĞĚEĞǁ Added dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŵĂƉƐ;&ŝŐƵƌĞƐϲ͕ϳ͕ĂŶĚϴͿĚĞƉŝĐƚƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚ ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ^Ƌ&ƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐĞĐƟŽŶƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŶĂŵĞƐ of various commercial, retail and service companies. The square Year 1 ------ĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞŵĂŝŶĮƌƐƚŇŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͘ Year 2 5,000 $100,000 windshield survey reveals that there is an inventory of vacant space Year 3 2,500 $53,000 available. It is safe to assume that the new bike and pedestrian Year 4 2,500 $54,680 ƚƌĂŝůƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚǁŝůůĂƩƌĂĐƚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐƚŚĂƚĐĂƚĞƌƚŽ Year 5 2,500 $56,230 ďŝŬĞƌƐĂŶĚŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ͞ƐƉŽƌƚƐŵĞŶ͟ĂŶĚ͞ƐƉŽƌƚƐǁŽŵĞŶ͘͟ Year 6 2,500 Ψϱϳ͕ϵϭϳ dĂďůĞϳƐŚŽǁƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ͕ĮůůŝŶŐǀĂĐĂŶƚĂŶĚůĞĂƐĂďůĞ ĮƌƐƚŇŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞ͕ŝŶƚŚĞǇĞĂƌƐĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞďŝŬĞ Total 15,000 $321,827 ĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƚƌĂŝůƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘dŚĞĂƐƐƵŵƉƟŽŶ behind Table 7 is that there would be few, if any, new businesses ŝŶǇĞĂƌϭƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂĚŝƌĞĐƚƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ /ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ͕ŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚ:ŽďƐ by year 2, with the I.U. Medical School Campus opening for business in downtown Evansville, there will undoubtedly be new The 2012 Benchmarking Report on Bicycling and Walking in the entrepreneurial retail and service businesses eager to move to U.S. ĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚďŝĐǇĐůŝŶŐĂŶĚǁĂůŬŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĐĂŶĐƌĞĂƚĞϭϬͲϭϰ EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͘ŽŵƉĂŶŝĞƐĐĂƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŽďŝŬĞƌƐĂŶĚǁĂůŬĞƌƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ ũŽďƐƉĞƌΨϭŵŝůůŝŽŶƐƉĞŶƚ͕ĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽŽŶůǇϳũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚƉĞƌ bike accessory shops, delicatessens making luncheon packages for ΨϭŵŝůůŝŽŶƐƉĞŶƚŽŶŵĂũŽƌŚŝŐŚǁĂǇƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘21dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂ͕ ďŝŬĞƌƐ͕ŐŝŌƐŚŽƉƐ͕ŝĐĞĐƌĞĂŵƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ĐŽŶĨĞĐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƐƵŶĚƌŝĞƐƐŚŽƉƐ͕ which stretches from the Lloyd Expressway northward to Morgan ƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐ͕ĂƚŚůĞƟĐƐŚŽĞƐŽƵƚůĞƚƐ͕ĮƚŶĞƐƐĂŶĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͕Ăůů Avenue at Garvin Park and Bosse Field, is almost exactly one lineal ǁŝůůůŽŽŬĐůŽƐĞůǇĂƚEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌůĂƵŶĐŚŝŶŐƉůĂƞŽƌŵ͘ ŵŝůĞ;ϱ͕ϮϴϬĨĞĞƚͿ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͕ŝƚŝƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŚĂƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚĞŶ;ϭϬͿũŽďƐƉĞƌŵŝůůŝŽŶĚŽůůĂƌƐƐƉĞŶƚŵĞĂŶƐƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůů The economic impacts shown in Table 7 include expected ďĞĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϭϮϬũŽďƐĚƵƌŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͕ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇǀĂůƵĞ͘ĂĐŚǇĞĂƌĂŌĞƌǇĞĂƌϮĂĚĚƐƚŚĞ ďƵĚŐĞƚŝƐΨϭϮŵŝůůŝŽŶ͘ƚĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶǁĂŐĞŽĨΨϰϱ͕ϬϬϬ compounded increment of property value increase from the ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ŝƚŝƐĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶũŽďƐǁŝůůƚŽƚĂůĂƌŽƵŶĚ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐǇĞĂƌ͕ŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐƐƚĂƌƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĂƚ Ψϱ͕ϰϬϬ͕ϬϬϬŝŶǁĂŐĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘10 ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌƐƵďũĞĐƚǇĞĂƌ͘dŚĞƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĐŽƐƚĨŽƌŶĞǁ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŝƐĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚĂƚΨϮϬƉĞƌƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŽƚĂů /ŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶũŽďƐ͕ĂŶĞƐƟŵĂƚĞŽĨŶĞǁũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ expected property value growth, for a six year period following trail ďǇƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐWƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͕ŝƐ$321,827. ŽĨƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďǇďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͘/ŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ 26 ƚĞƌŵ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕͟ĂƌĞũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďǇĞǆŝƐƟŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚůǇĞǆƚĂŶƚŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŶĞǁũŽďƐƚŚĂƚƌĞƐƵůƚĨƌŽŵ dĂďůĞϴ͗:ŽďƐ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďǇEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐʹEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ ŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐůŽĐĂƟŶŐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂů ĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĨŽƌƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďǇďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚ dƌĂŝů^ǇƐƚĞŵ Main are 5 permanent jobs ĨŽƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĂůƌĞĂĚǇĞǆŝƐƟŶŐŽŶEŽƌƚŚ Added Main, plus 30 more permanent jobs created by new businesses ǆƉĞĐƚĞĚEĞǁ Aggregate Income ǁŚŽǁŝůůůŽĐĂƚĞŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞĞƐƟŵĂƚĞŽĨũŽďƐ Job Totals ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďǇŶĞǁďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŝƐϮũŽďƐĨŽƌĞǀĞƌǇϭ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨ ($22,500/job)* ŶĞǁůǇĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽƌƌĞŶŽǀĂƚĞĚďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐƐƉĂĐĞĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͘ Year 1 ------dĂďůĞϴƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŶĞǁũŽďƐŽǀĞƌĂƐŝǆǇĞĂƌ Year 2 11 $247,500 period. The average median income of the three census tracts ĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƐƐŝŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͕ƵƐŝŶŐϮϬϭϯƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĐĞŶƐƵƐĮŐƵƌĞƐ͕ŝƐ Year 3 6 $382,500 around $22,500 annually. (See Appendix C.) While there are no Year 4 6 $517,500 ŶĞǁũŽďƐĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚŝŶǇĞĂƌϭ͕zĞĂƌϮĚŝƐƉůĂǇƐĞŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚŐĂŝŶƐ Year 5 6 $658,230 primarily associated with the new I.U. Medical School campus and Year 6 6 Ψϳϵϯ͕ϮϯϬ the new business it will generate. Total 35 $2,598,960

*See Appendix C.

27 >ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ

&ŝŐƵƌĞϲ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚWĂƌĐĞůƐĂŶĚƵŝůůĚŝŶŐƐ

28 29 >ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽĨEĞǁƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŽŶEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ

&ŝŐƵƌĞϳ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚWĂƌĐĞůƐĂŶĚƵŝůůĚŝŶŐƐ

30 &ŝŐƵƌĞϴ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚWĂƌĐĞůƐĂŶĚƵŝůůĚŝŶŐƐ

31 Conclusion

The Importance of ŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ &ŝŐƵƌĞϵ͗'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇWĂƐƐĂŐĞĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĂůdƌĂŝůƐ>ŽŽƉ dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĨŽƌEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂƐƐƵŵĞ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞĂŶŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĂƌĞĂͲǁŝĚĞĞīŽƌƚƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐŝŶĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞƚŽŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ 'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇWĂƐƐĂŐĞ^ǇƐƚĞŵ͘ŽŶŶĞĐƟŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐĂŶĚĐƵůƚƵƌĂů districts is a strategy that has been called for in numerous local ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĞīŽƌƚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƚŚĞ^ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůWůĂŶĨŽƌ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ Development, the current update of the Comprehensive Plan for Vanderburgh County, and the Jacobsville Area Redevelopment Plan. ^ƚƌŽŶŐĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶdƌĂŝůƐǇƐƚĞŵƚŽsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ Street, the Greenway Passage, and to West Franklin Street will likely ĨŽƐƚĞƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚŽƐĞƉŽƌƚƌĂǇĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞϵ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞůŝŶŬĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĂīŽƌĚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ ƚŽEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘ dŽƚĂůĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐ dŚĞĮŐƵƌĞƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϴƐƵŵŵĂƌŝǌĞƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝŶĂƐŝǆͲǇĞĂƌƉĞƌŝŽĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͘dŚĞƚŽƚĂůĚŝƌĞĐƚ North Main Project impacts are based on:

1. ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ͛ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞ͖ 2. new business generated by the bike and pedestrian ƚƌĂŝůƐʹŵŽƌĞďŝŬĞƌĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƚƌĂĸĐŵĞĂŶƐŵŽƌĞ sales; 3. increased property values for all current landowners ĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůĞƌƐĂůŽŶŐEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ͖ New Linkages 4. impact of new business on property values of currently vacant space; and

32 5. ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŶĞǁũŽďƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ͘ dĂďůĞϵ͗dŽƚĂůĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐʹEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚdƌĂŝůƐ

Annual Impact Year 1 $487,580 Year 2 ΨϵϬϵ͕ϴϴϳ Year 3 $1,060,617 Year 4 $1,274,753 Year 5 Ψϭ͕ϱϭϯ͕Ϯϵϰ Year 6 $1,770,310 Total $7,016,441

/ŶdĂďůĞϵ͕ŝƚŝƐĞǀŝĚĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐďƵŝůĚ ƵƉŽŶŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĂŶŶƵĂůůǇ͕ĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŐĂŝŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽůŝĨĞƌĂƟŶŐ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƟŵƵůƵƐĂůůĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƚĂŝůĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů ĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ͘KŶĞƐŚŽƵůĚĞǆƉĞĐƚƚŚŝƐƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŐƌŽǁƚŚƚŽ ĐŽŶƟŶƵĞ͕ĂŌĞƌƚŚĞŝŶĂƵŐƵƌĂůƐŝǆǇĞĂƌŝŶŝƟĂƟŽŶƉĞƌŝŽĚ͕ǁĞůůŝŶƚŽƚŚĞ future. dŚĞĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĐŽƐƚĨŽƌƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂůƐŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐĂůŽŶŐsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚĨƌŽŵEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶ ƚŽ&ŝƌƐƚǀĞŶƵĞ͕ŝƐĂůŝƩůĞŽǀĞƌ$12 million in 2015 dollars.

Adding the total six-year economic impacts ($7,016,441) to the income for the 120 ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶũŽďƐŝŶƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ($5,400,000), gives a grand total economic impact of $12,416,441 by the end of six years. 33 ŶĚŶŽƚĞƐ

1 The Impacts of Rail-Trails, A Study of Users and Nearby Property 12 ZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶdƌĂŝůƐ͕ƌŝŵĞĂŶĚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞƐ͗ƌŽǁŶŽƵŶƚǇ͛Ɛ Owners from Three Trails͕EĂƟŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕ZŝǀĞƌƐ͕dƌĂŝůƐ DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶͲĂǇdƌĂŝůĂŶĚƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ&ŽǆZŝǀĞƌdƌĂŝů, Brown ĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ϭϵϵϮ͘ ŽƵŶƚǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕'ƌĞĞŶĂǇ͕tŝƐĐŽŶƐŝŶ͕:ƵůǇϲ͕ϭϵϵϴ͘ 2 ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞŶĞĮƚƐŽĨŝĐǇĐůŝŶŐ&ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐĂŶĚdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ, 13 dŚĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚŽĨ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƐĂŶĚdƌĂŝůƐŽŶWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞƐ͗ǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ǁǁǁ͘ƉĞŽƉůĞĨŽƌďŝŬĞƐ͘ŽƌŐ͕^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ>ŝďƌĂƌǇͬĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ^ƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ͘ ĨƌŽŵƵƐƟŶ͕dĞǆĂƐ, Journal of Leisure Research 37: 321-341. 3 dĞƐƟŵŽŶǇďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŽŵŵŝƩĞĞŽŶƚŚĞ:ƵĚŝĐŝĂƌǇŽĨƚŚĞh͘^͘ 14 WƌŝŵĞ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶŽŶƚŚĞdƌĂŝů, by D. Hopey, Rails-to-Trails Magazine, ,ŽƵƐĞŽĨZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞƐ͕:ƵŶĞϮϬ͕ϮϬϬϮ͘ &ĂůůtŝŶƚĞƌ͕ϭϵϵϵ͘ 4 ŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛ƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ͗'ƵŝĚĞƚŽdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ 15 On the Value of Open Spaces, by E. Brabec, Scenic America, Enhancements͕EĂƟŽŶĂůdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ^ĞƌŝĞƐ͕sŽů͘ϭ͕EŽ͘Ϯ͕ϭϵϵϮ͘ ůĞĂƌŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞ͕EŽǀĞŵďĞƌ͕ϮϬϬϮ͕Ɖ͘ϭϭ͘ 16 DĂŬŝŶŐdƌĂĐŬƐƚŽƚŚĞ<ĂǇdƌĂŝů͗hƌďĂŶƉĂƚŚŝƐĂŶĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƚŚĂƚ 5 ŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐŵĞƌŝĐĂ͛ƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ, p.17. developers are rushing to incorporate into plans, by S. Brown, ĂůůĂƐDŽƌŶŝŶŐEĞǁƐ͕ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϬϲ͘ 6 'ƵŝĚĞƚŽdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕EĂƟŽŶĂů dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐůĞĂƌŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞ͕ϭϵϵϵ͕Ɖ͘ϭϭ͘ 17 Economic Impact Analysis of the WOW Trail, prepared by the ĞůŬŶĂƉŽƵŶƚǇĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽƵŶĐŝů͕>ĂĐŽŶŝĂ͕E,͕ 7 An Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Alignment January, 2012. of the TransCanada Trail in East-Central Alberta, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2001. 18 Trails in Marylandʹ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨDĂƌǇůĂŶĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨEĂƚƵƌĂů ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕͞ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ'ƌĞĂƚůůĞŐŚĞŶǇWĂƐƐĂŐĞ͘͟ 8 Hoosiers on the Move, the Indiana State Trails, Greenways & Bikeways Plan͕/ŶĚŝĂŶĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ ϭϵ ƐƟŵĂƟŶŐƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǀĂůƵĞĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůƐ͗ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚEĂƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ϮϬϬϲ͕ŚĂƉƚĞƌƐϯĂŶĚϰ͘ a case study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail; J.M. Bowker, John C. Bergstrom, Joshua Gill; in Tourism Economics 13 (2). ϵ Consumer’s Survey on Smart Choices for Home Buyers͕EĂƟŽŶĂů ƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨZĞĂůƚŽƌƐĂŶĚEĂƟŽŶĂůƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŽĨ,ŽŵĞ 20 ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚŽĨZĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůhƐĞŝŶĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƌĞŐŝŽŶƐŽĨ Builders, April 2002. Minnesota, prepared for University of Minnesota Tourism Center ŝŶƚŚĞDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨEĂƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐďǇƌŶĞƐƚŽ͘ 10 ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞŶĞĮƚƐŽĨtĂůŬŝŶŐĂŶĚŝĐǇĐůŝŶŐ, Pedestrian and sĞŶĞŐĂƐ͕WŚ͕͘͘EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϬϵ͘ ŝĐǇĐůĞ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĞŶƚĞƌǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨEŽƌƚŚ Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Funded by the U.S. 21 ŝĐǇĐůŝŶŐĂŶĚtĂůŬŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ͗ϮϬϭϮĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬŝŶŐ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶͬ&ĞĚĞƌĂů,ŝŐŚǁĂǇĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ͘ Report, by Alliance for Biking and Walking, www. BikeWalkAlliance.org/Benchmarking.org. 11 WƵďůŝĐŚŽŝĐĞƐĂŶĚWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇsĂůƵĞƐ͗ǀŝĚĞŶĐĞĨƌŽŵ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇƐŝŶ Indianapolis͖'͘>ŝŶĚƐĞǇ͕^͘WĂǇƚŽŶ͕:͘DĂŶ͕ĂŶĚ:͘KƩĞŶƐŵĂŶŶ͖ 34 The Center for Urban Policy and Environment, 2003. ^ƉĞĐŝĂůdŚĂŶŬƐ

Lochmueller Group wishes to thank Hafer Associates, Rundell-Ernstberger, Lana Abel of the Department

ŽĨDĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƚŚĞZĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ<ĞůůĞǇŽƵƌĞƐ͕ǆĞĐƵƟǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨ DMD for their assistance and guidance throughout the process. Special thanks also go to Dan Dilegge and

ŽŶEĞŝĚŝŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞEŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞƵƐŝŶĞƐƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͕:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌDĂƐŽŶǁŝƚŚ:ĂĐŽďƐǀŝůůĞ:ŽŝŶ/Ŷ͕^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞ dĞŶďĂƌŐĞ͕ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨƚŚĞ,K,ŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŝůůƵƐƐŝŶŐ͕ŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƚŚĞǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ͘

35 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗h^/WŝŐĞŽŶƌĞĞŬ'ƌĞĞŶǁĂǇhƐĂŐĞ^ƚƵĚǇAppendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS 8QLYHUVLW\RI6RXWKHUQ,QGLDQD Executive Summary ...... 4

Introduction ...... 5

Study Purpose and Methods ...... 7

Scope ...... 7 Study Methods ...... 7

Climatological Data ...... 8 3LJHRQ&UHHN3LJHRQ &UHHN *UHHQZD\ Greenway Census Counts ...... 9 8VDJH6WXG\ Comparative Data, 2006 and 2012 ...... 9 Averages and Peak Hours, Pagoda and Garvin Park Trailheads ...... 10

The Shirley James Gateway, 2012 ...... 11

The User Intercept Survey ...... 13

Demographics ...... 13

Trail Usage ...... 15

'HFHPEHU Signage, Shirley James Gateway, and the Marchand Bridge ...... 18

Safety Issues ...... 20

Overall Satisfaction Levels ...... 22 3UHSDUHGIRU Recommendations ...... 24 7KH(YDQVYLOOH3DUNV%RDUG Appendices ...... 25

h^/ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚdĞĂŵ͗ Appendix A. Hourly Counts, Pagoda & Garvin Trailheads Combined ...... 26

*OHQQD*%RZHU3K' Appendix B. Hourly Counts, Shirley James Gateway ...... 26 Assistant Professor, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Appendix C. Manual Counting Form ...... 27

0DU\+DOORFN0RUULV3K' Appendix D. User Intercept Survey ...... 28 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and Public Administration

(USI Researchers names appear in alphabetical order)

Partially funded by grants provided through the Real USI Service Learning program 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 1

Prepared under the auspices of USI Center for Applied Research and Economic Development

2011-608 36 TABLES CHARTS AND MAPS

Table 1. Preliminary Local Climatological Data for Study Period ...... 8 Map 1. Intercept Points for User Survey ...... 6

Table 2. Comparative Census Counts, Pagoda & Garvin Park Trailheads ...... 9 Chart 1. Mode of Transportation Used to Travel to the Greenway ...... 15

Table 3. Greenway Users by Gender, 2012 ...... 10 Chart 2. Respondents’ Originating Location ...... 16

Table 4. User Activities, Pagoda & Garvin Park Trailheads Combined ...... 10 Chart 3. How Often Respondents Use the Greenway ...... 16

Table 5. Greenway Users by Gender, Shirley James Gateway Memorial ...... 11 Chart 4. Time Spend on Greenway during a Single Visit ...... 17

Table 6. User Activities, Shirley James Gateway Memorial ...... 11 Chart 5. Activity Done Most Often on Greenway ...... 18

Table 7. Respondents by Age ...... 13 Chart 6. Respondents’ Satisfaction Levels with Greenway Signage ...... 20

Table 8. Respondents’ Educational Attainment ...... 13 Chart 7. Responses Regarding Greenway Safety ...... 21

Table 9. Respondents’ Employment Status ...... 14 Chart 8. Gender Differences Regarding Greenway Safety ...... 21

Table 10. Respondents’ Family Income, 2011 ...... 14 Chart 9. Respondents’ Satisfaction Levels ...... 22

Table 11. Popular Greenway Activities ...... 17

Table 12. Requested Improvements, Marchand Bridge & Shirley James Memorial ...... 19

Table 13. Safety Responses by Gender ...... 20

Table 14. Requested Improvements, Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage ...... 23

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 2 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 3

37 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION

USI students counted 4,353 Greenway users and administered 282 surveys during the seven-day The Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage is a recreational walking, jogging, and cycling trail located period running from Monday, September 24 to Sunday, September 30, 2012. The counts and in Evansville, Indiana. The trail starts at Sunrise Park in downtown Evansville, extending surveys were taken at three intercept points along the Pigeon Creek Greenway: The Pagoda northwest along the Ohio River. At the Shirley James Memorial Gateway, the Greenway follows Trailhead, the Shirley James Memorial Gateway Plaza, and the Garvin Park Trailhead. As in Pigeon Creek north before crossing Fulton Avenue near Cedar Hall Community School. The 2006, the Riverfront section of the Greenway is the most used segment with over 2,500 users Greenway follows the creek south and east to Garvin Park, and then runs northeast before during the week-long study. Other key findings from the study are listed below. terminating at the Heidelbach Canoe Launch. At the time this study was conducted, construction on Phase 4 was under construction; this phase ultimately connected the two “ends” of the From 2006 to 2012, the number of Greenway users increased approximately 51 percent at the Greenway with a link between Louisiana and Dresden Streets, creating a 6.75 mile stretch of Pagoda and Garvin Park Trailheads. When analyzed separately, the Riverfront section of the trail. Future plans include combining the Greenway with new urban bike lanes to create a loop trail experienced a 33 percent increase in usage while Garvin Park experienced a 138 percent from the Heidelbach Canoe Launch to downtown Evansville. increase. Currently, the Greenway includes three sections: the Riverfront Corridor, the Industrial Corridor, In 2012, the census counts demonstrated that there was a “gender gap” in Greenway Users at both the Garvin Park and Shirley James Memorial intercept points. At both locations, only 44 and the Middle Levee Corridor. The Riverfront Corridor extends for 1.5 miles from Sunrise percent of the users were women. This phenomenon did not occur at the Pagoda intercept Park to Casino Aztar. The corridor passes by the Evansville Museum of Art, History and point where women made up almost half (approximately 49 percent) of the users. It should Science, the Pagoda, the Convention and Visitor Bureau, the Four Freedoms Monument and be noted, however, that the “gender gap” has narrowed at the Garvin Park intercept point; in Dress Plaza. Trailheads are located at Sunrise and Sunset Parks, the Evansville Museum, and the 2006, almost three-quarters (72 percent) of the users at this location were men. Evansville Pagoda. The Industrial Corridor extends 3.5 miles from Casino Aztar to the Middle Levee Corridor. Located along this corridor are the Shirley James Memorial Gateway Plaza and Based on the census counts, the most popular Greenway activity for both “ends” of the trail the Lamasco Skate Park. In addition, a spur of the trail leads to the Marchand Bridge Overlook was walking (51 percent of users), followed by cycling (23 percent of users) and running (21 which is located at the mouth of Pigeon Creek. The Middle Levee Corridor extends 1.7 miles percent of users). Data from the user intercept surveys also shows that walking (58 percent of from the Industrial Corridor to the Heidelbach Canoe Launch. The Middle Levee Corridor respondents) was the most popular activity, followed by cycling (28 percent of respondents) includes the Uhlhorn Trailhead. The corridor passes by Kleymeyer Park and passes through and running (12 percent of respondents). In the middle of the trail, cycling was the most Garvin Park. The Middle Levee Corridor was the first trail constructed by the City of popular activity (45 percent of users counted at the Shirley James intercept point). Evansville.1 Approximately 70 percent of survey respondents indicated that they used the trail at least In June 2004, the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage was designated a National Recreation Trail once per week, with 46 percent of survey respondents using the trail three or more times per by the National Parks Service. This award designates the Greenway as a component of a larger week. Once on the trail, 44 percent of survey respondents will use the trail for 60 or more national trail system that stretches across the United States. Portions of the Greenway are also minutes and 22 percent will use the trail for 50 minutes to an hour. included as a part of the Upgrade Now campaign’s Walk EVV Map.2 Overall, approximately 96 percent of survey respondents felt “very safe” or “somewhat safe” when using the Greenway. More male respondents (68 percent) said they felt “very safe” on the trail when compared to female respondents (46 percent). Close to 100 percent of survey respondents stated that they were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the Greenway. When asked about improvements to the trail, the common themes included: more safety

features such as better lighting, cameras and increased patrols by policy officers; the addition 1 Source: City of Evansville | Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage websites: (1) http://evansvillegov.org/ of water fountains and public restrooms; less trash and vandalism; extending the trail; index.aspx?page=589; (2) http://evansvillegov.org/index.aspx?page=660; (3) http://evansvillegov.org/ improving maintenance of the trail; making the trail wider; and improving the smell. index.aspx?page=2102; and (4) http://evansvillegov.org/index.aspx?page=2103.

2 Upgrade Now Campaign. http://www.upgradenow.org/EVVWalkingMap.pdf

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 4 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 5

38 Map 1. Intercept Points for User Survey STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODS

Scope. In 2006, the Evansville Parks Department commissioned a study through the Center for Applied Research at the University of Southern Indiana to quantify the number of users on the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage and gain user perspectives through intercept surveys. The Parks Department asked for a replication study in 2012 to update its data regarding usage and user perceptions. The 2012 study was conducted in a similar fashion to the 2006 study, with a two minor modifications: (1) the inclusion of an additional intercept point; and (2) additional survey questions pertaining to some of the new features on the trail such as signage, the Shirley James Gateway Memorial, and the Marchand Bridge.

Study Methods. The 2012 Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Project used a combination of two methods to obtain quantitative data about the use of trails: manual counts and user intercept surveys. Teams of two to three trained students were placed at three intercept points along the Greenway: the Pagoda Trailhead, the Shirley James Gateway Memorial Plaza, and the Garvin Park Trailhead. [See Map 1] The students received specialized training from the two lead researchers (Dr. Glenna Bower and Dr. Mary Hallock Morris) and participated in a professionalization seminar conducted by USI’s Center for Applied Research. The student data collectors were also required to complete the Collaborative Institution Training Initiative (CITI) before participating in the project.

The data was collected during a seven-day period running from Monday, September 24 to Sunday, September 30, 2012. The data was collected using the following methods:

Manual Counting Forms were utilized to record the number of trail users at 60 minute intervals. The counting forms also allowed data collectors to note the user’s activity and gender. The counts took place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in most locations; due to safety considerations, the counts at the Shirley James Memorial Gateway ended at dusk. A copy of the counting form can be found in Appendix C.

User Intercept Surveys consisting of 19 questions (and additional follow up questions) were used to obtain information about the users’ perceptions of the Greenway. The student data collectors were asked to survey every fifth adult who passed by their intercept point. If the fifth adult declined to participate, then the data collector asked the next user to participate. Once a user completed the survey, the count would reset.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 6 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 7

39 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA GREENWAY CENSUS COUNTS

Table 1. Preliminary Local Climatological Data for Study Period USI students counted 4,353 Greenway users over a seven-day period running from Monday, September 24, to Sunday, September 30, 2012. User counts were taken at three intercept points User User Average User Count Count along the Pigeon Creek Greenway: the Pagoda Trailhead (2,504 users), the Shirley James

Wind Total Count Shirley Garvin Memorial Gateway Plaza (958 users), and the Garvin Park Trailhead (891 users). Average Weekday Date Speed Precipitation Pagoda James Park Temperature (MPH) Trailhead Gateway Trailhead Comparative Data, 2006 and 2012. In 2006, trail counts were conducted on the Riverfront and at the Garvin Park trailhead. The total number of Greenway users for these two Monday 9/24/12 56.0 4.0 .00” 474 ** 44 locations was 2,254. In 2012, the total number of Greenway users for these two locations was Tuesday 9/25/12 68.0 7.0 .06” 199 79 84 3,395. The increase in users for these two locations was 1,141 people – an increase of 50.6 Wednesday 9/26/12 73.0 7.0 .41” 268 94 90 percent. The Riverfront trail experienced a 33 percent increase in users (i.e., 620 people) from 2006 to 2012 while the Garvin Park area saw an increase of 138 percent (i.e., 517 users). Thursday 9/27/12 73.0 3.0 .01” 89 260 56

Friday 9/28/12 67.0 4.0 .06” 163 74 ** Table 2. Comparative Census Counts, Pagoda & Garvin Park Trailheads Saturday 9/29/12 67.0 3.0 .00” 537 186 472 Pagoda Trailhead Garvin Park Trailhead Sunday 9/30/12 62.0 3.0 .00” 774 265 145 2006 2012 2006 2012 Source: www.evansville-weather.com Monday 7 474 4 44 Table 1 utilizes the Preliminary Local Climatological Data for the Evansville area to illustrate the effects Tuesday 278 199 22 84 of weather conditions during the study period. In 2006, weather conditions may have suppressed the Wednesday1 221 268 52 90 number of Greenway users; as noted in the report from that year3, four out of the seven coldest days and three out of four of the windiest days in the month of October occurred during the study period. In 2012, Thursday 175 89 26 56 at the request of the contracting agency, the study was conducted during the last week of September Friday 143 163 64 ** which was the week prior to the Westside Nut Club Fall Festival. The weather during this time period was Saturday 469 537 90 472 ten to 20 degrees warmer than during the 2006 study. It should be noted that a severe thunderstorm that Sunday 587 774 116 145 came through Evansville on the evening of Wednesday, September 26; however, this did not appear to have a significant impact on the census counts. Weekly Total 1,880 2,504 374 891 1In 2012, the census counts ended at 6 p.m. due to a severe storm warning.

Between 2006 and 2012, there was a slight change in the ratio of male to female Greenway users. In 2006, 43 percent of Greenway users (n = 980) were female; in 2012, this has increased to 47 percent (n = 1,610). Male users made up 57 percent (n = 1,274) of the Greenway users in 2006; in 2012, male users (n = 1,785) accounted for 53 percent of the total census counts.

In 2006, there was a large “gender gap” among Greenway users at the Garvin Park trailhead. During this baseline study, 72 percent of the users (n = 269) were male and 28 percent of the users were female (n = 105). This gap has started to close: in 2012, the ratio of male to female users at the Garvin Park trailhead was 56 percent to 44 percent. It should be noted that the disparity between male and female users is not as defined along the Riverfront section of the Greenway. In 2006, 53 percent of the users were male (n = 1,005) and 47 percent of the users were female (n = 875). In 2012, the difference was smaller: 51 percent of the users were male 3 Center for Applied Research. (2006, December 5). Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study: Summary and 49 percent of the users were female. [See Table 3] Report. Evansville, IN: University of Southern Indiana.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 8 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 9

40 Table 3. Greenway Users by Gender, 2012 users during the week and 964 users on the weekend. The highest hourly count occurred from 8 – Pagoda Trailhead Garvin Park Trailhead 9 a.m. on Saturday, September 29 when 355 users were counted at the Pagoda and Garvin Park Trailheads. Peak usage during the week occurred between noon – 1 p.m.; on the weekends, peak Male Female Male Female usage is in the mornings between 8 – 9 a.m. Monday 246 228 34 10 Tuesday 101 98 61 23 The Shirley James Gateway, 2012. USI students also conducted census counts at the Shirley James Gateway Memorial; the census counts for this location are incomplete due to Wednesday 162 106 69 21 safety and security concerns. [See Appendix B] During the study period, the students counted Thursday 32 57 37 19 958 Greenway users at this location. As shown in Table 5, there is a “gender gap” in the users Friday 94 69 ** ** counted at this location which is similar to the one that occurred at the Garvin Park Trailhead. Saturday 229 308 207 265 Fifty-six (56) percent of the users at this location were male and 44 percent were female. Sunday 422 352 91 54 Weekly Total 1,286 1,218 499 392 Table 5. Greenway Users by Gender, Shirley James Gateway Memorial Percentages 51.4% 48.6% 56% 44% Male Female Total Tuesday 46 33 79

Table 4 summarizes the Greenway users’ activities for 2006 and 2012 along the Riverfront and Wednesday 69 25 94 at the Garvin Park Trailhead. The percentage of walkers decreased from 76 percent in 2006 to Thursday 134 126 260 51 percent in 2012 while the percentage of runners and joggers increased from 10 percent in Friday 35 39 74 2006 to 21 percent in 2012. These percentages may be influenced by the fact that Half-Marathon Saturday 101 85 186 training runs were being held on the Greenway during the 2012 census counts. Furthermore, the Sunday 154 111 265 percentage of cyclists increased from 12 percent in 2006 to 23 percent in 2012. The number of Total 539 419 958 cyclists should continue to grow as the Greenway is now completed from Sunrise Park in downtown Evansville to the Heidelbach Trailhead located northeast of Garvin Park. Percentage 56.3% 43.7%

Table 4. User Activities, Pagoda & Garvin Park Trailheads Combined 2006 2012 Table 6. User Activities, Shirley James Gateway Memorial Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 2012 Walking 1,711 75.9% 1,746 51.4% Frequency Percentage Jogging | Running 225 10% 708 20.8% Walking 371 38.7% Cycling 267 11.8% 794 23.4% Jogging | Running 124 12.9% Roller Blading 28 1.2% 29 1.0% Cycling 426 44.5% ** ** 66 1.9% Pushing a Stroller Roller Blading 18 1.9% Other 23 1.0% 52 1.5% Pushing a Stroller 14 1.5% Total 2,254 100% 3,395 100% Other 5 0.5%

958 Averages and Peak Hours, Pagoda and Garvin Park Trailheads. An analysis of the Total census counts for the Pagoda and Garvin Park Trailheads demonstrated that the Greenway was Table 6 summarizes the Greenway users’ activities at the Shirley James Memorial Gateway. more heavily used on the weekends than during the week. In 2012, the Greenway averaged 293 Unlike the two “ends” of the trail, cycling appears to be the predominant activity through this

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 10 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 11

41 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

portion of the Greenway. Almost 45 percent of the individuals (n = 426) counted at the Memorial THE USER INTERCEPT SURVEY were cyclists. Walking was the second most popular activity, making up almost 39 percent of the census count, followed by running at approximately 13 percent. USI students collected 282 surveys from Greenway users over a seven-day period running from Monday, September 24, to Sunday, September 30, 2012. The surveys were administered at three Although the census count for the Shirley James intercept site is not as complete as the counts locations along the Greenway: the Pagoda Trailhead, the Shirley James Gateway Plaza, and the for the Pagoda and Garvin Park sites, we can state that the traffic through the Gateway is higher Garvin Park Trailhead. on the weekends than during the week. Although the peak hour of traffic was on Thursday from 6-7 p.m. (159 users), this was due to a training run for the Half-Marathon. The second, third, and Demographics. Of the respondents who indicated their gender on the survey (n = 265), fourth highest hours of usage all occurred during the weekend: Sunday from 4-5 p.m. (50 users), 151 (57 percent) were male and 114 (43 percent) were female. The racial composition of the Sunday from 2-3 p.m. (45 users), and Saturday from 10-11 a.m. (40 users). The lowest counts sample was 91.9 percent Caucasian, 6.3 percent African-American, and 1.1 percent occurred during from 7-8 a.m. (mean = 5.25 users) and from 9-10 a.m. (mean = 6.4 users). Latino/Latina. Less than 1 percent of the respondents indicated that they were Native American (1 respondent) or of Indian descent (1 respondent). The ages of the survey’s respondents ranged from 13 to 87 years old with a mean of 46.8 years and a median age of 49 years.

Table 7. Respondents by Age* Frequency Percentage Under 20 years old 5 1.9 20 to 29 years old 52 19.3 30 to 39 years old 38 14.1 40 to 49 years old 49 15.6 50 to 59 years old 71 26.3 60 to 69 years old 34 12.6 70 to 79 years old 24 8.9 80 years and older 4 1.5 *Number of respondents = 270

Table 8. Respondents’ Educational Attainment* Frequency Percentage Less than high school 13 4.8 High school diploma/GED 49 18.1 Technical/trade school 7 2.6 Some college 67 24.8 Bachelor’s degree 80 29.6 Graduate degree 54 20.0 *Number of respondents = 270

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 12 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 13

42 The majority of survey respondents (95.2 percent) have earned at least a high school diploma. Trail Usage. Eighty-four (84) percent of the survey respondents had used the Greenway Close to half of respondents (49.6 percent) hold a bachelor’s or graduate degree. Almost two- before, with only 45 individuals (16 percent) indicating that this was their first time using the thirds of the respondents (63.7 percent) were employed at the time the survey was administered. trail. Of the respondents, only five people indicated that they would not be using the trail again. Another 23 percent indicated that they were retired and 4.8 percent indicated that they were More than half of the respondents (55 percent) used the trail alone, with 34 percent using the trail currently students. The median family income for the survey respondents was between $50,000 in pairs and 11 percent using the trail in groups of three or more people. and $59,999 for the 2011 calendar year. Individuals traveled between one and 90 minutes to use the Greenway. The majority of Table 9. Respondents’ Employment Status* respondents stated that they traveled 10 minutes to use the trail; the mean travel time was slightly higher (12.5 minutes). The majority of respondents (57.9 percent) used their car to travel to one Frequency Percentage of the trailheads; 19.1 percent of users walked, 18.7 percent rode a bicycle, and 3.5 percent used Currently employed 172 63.7 other modes of transportation such as a skateboard or roller blades. Only two of the respondents Currently unemployed/laid off 15 5.5 used the bus to get to the Greenway. Retired 62 23.0 Chart 1. Mode of Transportation Used to Travel to the Greenway Student 13 4.8 Homemaker 1 0.4 Other 7 2.6 *Number of respondents = 270

Table 10. Respondents’ Family Income, 2011* Frequency Percentage Less than $10,000 20 10.2 $10,000 to $19,999 15 7.6 $20,000 to $29,999 14 7.1 $30,000 to $39,999 27 13.7 $40,000 to $49,999 22 11.2 $50,000 to $59,999 16 8.1

$60,000 to $69,999 20 10.2 $70,000 to $79,999 6 3.0 The majority of survey respondents (81.3 percent) traveled from their home to use the trail. Only 11.7 percent of the respondents came from their place of employment (8.8 percent) or from $80,000 to $89,999 9 4.6 school (2.9 percent). Seven (7) percent of respondents indicated that they traveled to the $90,000 to $99,999 6 3.0 Greenway from “somewhere else.” Survey respondents in this category included visitors who $100,000 to $149,999 28 14.2 were staying in the downtown hotels. $150,000 and above 14 7.1

*Number of respondents = 197

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 14 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 15

43 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

Chart 2. Respondents’ Originating Location Most respondents (56.1 percent) will spend an hour or less on the Greenway during a single visit: 1.4 percent of respondents spend 10 to 20 minutes on the trail; 10.1 percent spend 21 to 30 minutes; 12.9 percent spend 31 to 40 minutes; 9.4 percent spend 41 to 50 minutes; and 22.3 percent spend 51 to 60 minutes. Interestingly, 43.9 percent of respondents report that they spend more than an hour on the Greenway during a single visit; this was the mode for our dataset.

Chart 4. Time Spend on Greenway during a Single Visit

Close to 70 percent of survey respondents use the trail at least once per week, with 46.2 percent of individuals using the trail three or more times per week. Another 15.1 percent of respondents use the trail two to three times per month, with 15.5 percent of respondents indicating that they use the Greenway once a month or less.

Chart 3. How Often Respondents Use the Greenway The survey respondents were given the opportunity to list the types of activities they usually participated in when using the Greenway. Walking was the activity most often cited by the respondents (71.6 percent), followed by cycling (37.9 percent) and jogging/running (20.9 percent). Seven respondents listed other activities such as skateboarding and roller blading.

Table 11. Popular Greenway Activities* Frequency Percentage Walking 202 71.6 Bicycling 107 37.9 Jogging | Running 59 20.9 Other 7 2.48 * Percentages are equal more than 100 as survey respondents could select more than one activity.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 16 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 17

44 Survey respondents were then asked to select the activity that they did most often when on the When asked, 50.4 percent of respondents indicated that they had been to the Marchand Bridge Greenway. Again, walking was selected as the most popular activity (57.4 percent), followed by overlook and 42.5 percent had been to the Shirley James Memorial. cycling (28.1 percent), and jogging/running (12.3 percent). Only 2.1 percent of the respondents selected some other activity. It should be noted that cyclists may be underrepresented in this Those individuals who indicated that they had been to the landmarks were asked to list what they sample as the majority of survey respondents were traveling by foot on the Greenway. liked about the landmark and what could be improved about the landmark. Individuals who had been to the Marchand Bridge stated: (1) they enjoyed the view; (2) they liked the history signs; Chart 5. Activity Done Most Often on Greenway (3) they liked the color of the bridge; and (4) they found it relaxing. They asked for the following improvements: (1) more benches; (2) better lighting; (3) trash pickups along the river; (4) improving the smell in the area; and (5) more security patrols, with a particular focus on removing drug dealers. Individuals who had been to the Shirley James Memorial stated: (1) they liked the history; and (2) that they found the architecture/artwork to be aesthetically pleasing. They also liked the fact that the memorial replaced a former scrap yard. The respondents suggested the following improvements: (1) installing public restrooms and a water fountain; (2) adding more picnic tables; (3) adding more plants and flowers; (4) better lighting; and (5) more police patrols to improve safety in the area. Respondents also stated more generally that the landscaping needs to be maintained at the site.

Table 12. Requested Improvements, Marchand Bridge & Shirley James Memorial Requested Improvements Marchand Bridge More benches Better lighting Trash pickups along the Ohio River Minimizing the smell from the Ohio River More security

Shirley James Memorial Public restrooms and water fountains More picnic tables Signage, Shirley James Gateway, and the Marchand Bridge. The Pigeon Creek Improved landscaping | More plants and flowers Greenway Passage includes two landmarks: The Marchand Bridge located on the Greenway’s More security Ohio Street spur and the Shirley James Gateway Memorial Plaza located along the Greenway Better lighting between Ohio Street and the Lloyd Expressway. The Marchand Bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was restored in 2009 using funds Riverboat funds and a state Transportation Enhancement Grant.4 The Shirley James Gateway is an interpretative center that 5 Survey respondents were also asked about the signage along the Greenway Passage, with 94.1 tells the story of how transportation has influenced Evansville and was dedicated in 2010. percent of individuals indicating that they were “very satisfied” (62.3 percent) or “somewhat satisfied” (31.9 percent) with the signs. In an open-ended follow up question, respondents were given the opportunity to elaborate on why they were not satisfied with the signage. Their 4 Nesbitt, J. (2009, April 2009). “1891 Bridge Gets Face-Lift.” Evansville Courier & Press. comments provided three useful suggestions: (1) add mile markers to the trail; (2) add directional http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/apr/09/1891-bridge-gets-face-lift/; Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage, signs to the trail; and (3) make the signs easier to read. Some people noted that the Upgrade signs “Marchand Bridge Overlook,” http://evansvillegov.org/index.aspx?page=660. should be translated from steps to miles. 5 “Shirley James Gateway Plaza Ribbon Cutting.” WFIE. http://www.14news.com/story/12328621/shirley- james-gateway-plaza-ribbon-cutting; Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage, “Shirley James Gateway Plaza,” http://www.14news.com/story/12328621/shirley-james-gateway-plaza-ribbon-cutting.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 18 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 19

45 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

Chart 6. Respondents’ Satisfaction Levels with Greenway Signage Chart 7. Responses Regarding Greenway Safety

Safety Issues. Overall, 95.7 percent of survey respondents stated that they felt “very safe” Chart 8. Gender Differences Regarding Greenway Safety (59.2 percent) or “somewhat safe” (36.5 percent) when using the Greenway. Only 12 people answered “not very safe” or “not safe at all.” When analyzing the data, the researchers found difference between male and female respondents on the issue of safety. Female respondents were less likely than male respondents to state that they felt “very safe” when using the Greenway, compared to 67.8 percent of male respondents.

Table 13. Safety Responses By Gender Male Respondents Female Respondents n = 149 n = 113 Very safe 67.8 46.0 Somewhat safe 29.5 46.9 Not very safe 0.7 4.4 Not safe at all 2.0 2.7 Ȥ2 = 14.522, p =.002

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 20 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 21

46 In an open-ended follow-up question, survey respondents who stated that they felt unsafe when the Garvin Park Trailhead included: (1) a need to repair the asphalt on the trail and (2) better using the trail were asked to describe the reasons for their concern. Respondents who answered landscaping at the trailhead.6 the survey at the Shirley James Gateway listed three reasons: (1) the presence of homeless people under the bridges; (2) people using drugs in the area; and (3) some uncertainly about Survey respondents were also asked to list what changes or improvements they would like to see safety in some of the more remote areas of the Greenway. Individuals who answered the survey along the entire Greenway. Common themes included: (1) more safety features such as better in Garvin Park also listed three reasons: (1) the presence of “unsafe people” and crime in the lighting, cameras, and increased patrols by police officers; (2) the addition of water fountains and area; (2) the lack of a police presence in the area; and (3) the lack of other people on the trail. It public restrooms along the Greenway; (3) less trash and vandalism along the trail; (4) finishing should be noted that safety issues did not seem to be a concern for respondents who answered the survey at the Pagoda trailhead. and/or extending the trail; (5) improving maintenance of the trail; (6) making the trail wider by adding a lane for cyclists; and (7) improving the smell. Additional comments included: adding Overall Satisfaction Levels. Close to 100 percent of the survey’s respondents (98.9 bicycle rental stations; having entertainment (i.e., music, bands) on the Greenway, and having percent) indicated that they were “very satisfied” (73.7 percent) or “somewhat satisfied” (25.2 more animals such as ducks to feed. percent) with the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage. Only three people (1.1 percent) responded that they were “not very satisfied” with the trail and no one indicated that they were “not Table 14. Requested Improvements, Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage satisfied at all.” More safety features (i.e., improved lighting, cameras, increased police patrols) Chart 9. Respondents’ Satisfaction Levels Adding public restrooms and water fountains Less trash and vandalism Finishing the construction of the Greenway Extending the Greenway Improving the maintenance of the Greenway Making the Greenway wider by adding a lane for cyclists Improving the smell

Finally, survey respondents were asked where the next “link” of the Greenway should be built. The responses can be summarized into three categories: (1) east towards Angel Mounds, Marina Pointe, and Newburgh; (2) west towards the Burdette Park/USI; and (3) north towards the Stringtown Road area. Additional respondents stated that the connection between Lamasco and Garvin Park needed to be completed and that the Greenway should loop around the City of Evansville.

Survey respondents were given the opportunity to discuss issues that affected their satisfaction levels. Prevalent concerns among respondents who answered the survey at the Pagoda Trailhead and/or the Shirley James Gateway included: (1) the need for bathrooms, trash cans, and water fountains; (2) the need to keep motorized vehicles off the Greenway; (3) the length of the trail; and (4) animal excrement along the trail. There was also some concern that the bicycles went “too fast” on the trail. Prevalent concerns among respondents who answered the survey at 6 One individual listed several concerns: (1) the need for water fountains; (2) bigger playgrounds; (3) dogs using the bathroom on the trail; and (4) the need to finish construction of the trail.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 22 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 23

47 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

RECOMMENDATIONS Appendices Throughout the Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study of the Pagoda Trailhead, the Shirley James

Memorial Gateway Plaza, and the Garvin Park Trailhead, users provided valuable insight on ways to enhance and improve on three inceptor areas. It is recommended,

x To have additional safety features added to the trail including improved lighting, cameras

and increased police patrols. Safety issues were of most concern in the Shirley James

Memorial area due to the presence of “unsafe people,” which may include the homeless, and crime in the area. x To install public restrooms and water fountains along all parts of the Pigeon Creek Greenway.

x To be less trash and vandalism along the Pigeon Creek Greenway. It is recommended the

Pigeon Creek Greenway passage to add additional trash receptacles on the trail and to have a plan to pick-up trash on a consistent basis (including along the Ohio River). In addition, there needs to be a plan to fix items that have been vandalized on the trail in a

timely manner. x To develop and implement a maintenance plan to repair the Pigeon Creek Greenway

Passage. There are several areas of the trail at Garvin Park that are in need of repair.

x To provide more picnic tables, benches, and landscaping to many areas of the Pigeon Creek Greenway passage.

x To minimize the smell of the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage. x To finish the construction of the Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage between Lamasco Park

and Garvin Park.

x To extend the Pigeon Creek Greenway passage with individuals identifying (1) east towards Angel Mounds, Marina Pointe, and Newburg; (2) west towards the Burdette Park/USI; and (3) north towards the Stringtown Road area.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 24 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 25

48 APPENDIX A. HOURLY COUNTS, PAGODA & GARVIN TRAILHEADS COMBINED APPENDIX C. MANUAL COUNTING FORM

9/24 9/251 9/262 9/27 9/283 9/29 9/30 Direct User Manual Counting Form 7 a.m. 20 20 32 5 1 221 29 8 a.m. 19 8 23 5 5 355 37 Day: Date: Time: 9 a.m. 30 13 8 3 11 63 37

10 a.m. 30 20 16 4 15 84 75 Location: Counter name: 11 a.m. 58 43 45 3 18 61 65 Noon 77 51 61 6 43 67 65 Time Sex ROLLER 1 p.m. 44 43 29 2 43 62 81 WALK JOG BIKE BLADE STROLLER OTHER 2 p.m. 23 9 19 2 27 34 122 7:00-7:59 M 3 p.m. 61 ** 40 30 ** 34 133 F 4 p.m. 64 ** 57 33 ** 20 119 8:00-8:59 M 5 p.m. 52 ** 28 24 ** 6 104 F 6 p.m. 40 ** ** 28 ** 2 52 9:00-9:59 M Total 518 283 358 145 163 1,009 919 F Average4 43 24 33 12 20 84 77 10:00-10:59 M 1 Breakout data by hour was not collected from 3-7 p.m. at the Pagoda Trailhead on this date. The total F number of users for the 3-7 p.m. shift was 76. 11:00-11:59 M 2 Due to severe thunderstorm warnings, the census takers were sent home at 6 p.m. on this date. F 3 Data based on Pagoda Trailhead, 7 a.m. – 3 p.m. 12:00-12:59 M 4 Average number of users per hour per day. F 1:00-1:59 M F 2:00-2:59 M

1 F APPENDIX B. HOURLY COUNTS, SHIRLEY JAMES GATEWAY 3:00-3:59 M F 9/24 9/25 9/26 9/27 9/28 9/29 9/30 4:00-4:59 M 7 a.m. ** ** 8 5 3 ** 5 F 8 a.m. ** ** 14 12 5 32 19 5:00-5:59 M 9 a.m. ** ** 10 5 3 7 7 F 10 a.m. ** ** 4 9 2 40 23 6:00-6:59 M 11 a.m. ** 12 8 12 7 8 18 F Noon ** 10 13 3 10 35 20 1 p.m. ** 4 2 3 6 30 22 2 p.m. ** 10 3 6 7 34 45 3 p.m. ** 9 10 30 8 ** 22 4 p.m. ** 8 14 6 16 ** 50 5 p.m. ** 11 8 10 0 ** 34 6 p.m. ** 15 ** 159 7 ** ** Total ** 79 94 260 74 186 265 Average ** 10 9 22 6 27 24 1 Due to safety considerations, there were several dates and times when the census takers were moved to other locations during the study.

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 26 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 27

49 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

APPENDIX D. USER INTERCEPT SURVEY 2. What kinds of activities do you usually do on the trail? If this is your first time using the trail, what activity did you do today? The Interview – Question by Question Specifications Interviewer Directions: Do not read the categories; check them off as the respondent answers. This section lists the text for each of the questions in the survey along with explanatory [1] Jogging information that may be helpful to you when you conduct the interview. The explanatory [2] Bicycling information is in bold type. [3] Roller Blading [4] Walking Introduction [5] Other [Interviewer: list response below] Hello. My name is ______and I am a student at the University of Southern Indiana. I am working with the Evansville Parks Board and USI to conduct a usage study of the Pigeon Creek Greenway. The information that I collect today will be used to help the Parks Board maintain and improve the Greenway. I would like to ask you a few questions which will take less than 10 minutes of your time. Before we start, I would like to assure you that this interview Interviewer: If the respondent lists more than one activity go to Question 2B. If not, go directly to Question 3. NOTE: For first time users, skip question 2B. is confidential and completely voluntary. If at any time and for any reason, you would prefer not to answer any questions, please feel free not to. If at any time you would like to stop 2B. Of the activities that you have listed, which one do you do most often? participating, please tell me and we will end the interview. If you have questions, you are free to [1] Jogging ask them now. If you have questions later, you may contact the study’s sponsors by using the [2] Bicycling information on this sheet. [Student hands the participant a contact card] Are you interested in [3] Roller Blading participating in this study?

[4] Walking SURVEY QUESTIONS [5] Other [Interviewer: list response below]

1. Is this your first time using this trail?

[1] Yes Æ Skip to Question 1B

[0] No Æ Go to Question 1A 3. How much time do you usually spend on the trail? If this is your first time

using the trail, how much time will you spend on the trail today? 1A. How often do you use this trail? Interviewer: Do not read the categories and mark after your respondent answers. If a respondent [1] At least 3 times a week says he/she spends more time during weekend than weekdays, ask again specifically “how much [2] Once or twice a week time do you usually spend on the trail on (your interview day).” If a respondent is not sure, [3] 2 or 3 times a month clarify that spending time only includes his/her activities. [4] Once a month or less [1] 10 to 20 minutes [2] 21 to 30 minutes 1B. Do you think you will use this trail again? [3] 31 to 40 minutes [1] Yes Æ Skip to Question 2 [4] 41 to 50 minutes [0] No Æ go to Question 1C [5] 51 to 60 minutes [6] More than 1 hour 1C. Why won’t you be using this trail again? Interviewer Directions: Give the respondent enough time to think and answer. If your respondent 4. Do you usually come to this trail from your home, your place of employment, has a problem with giving exact reasons after some time, ask “would it be a personal reason or your school, or somewhere else? If this is your first time using the trail, where does it have anything to do with the trail?” Remember! You wait first and ask exactly as worded did you come from today? here only if a respondent is willing to answer but has a problem with reasons. [1] Home [2] Place of employment [3] School [4] Somewhere else: ______

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 28 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 29

50 5. How do you usually get to the trail? If this is your first time on the trail, how 9. Have you been to the Shirley James Memorial? did you get to the trail today? [1] Yes Æ Go to Question 9A Interviewer: Do not read the categories and mark after your respondent answers. If respondent is [2] No Æ Skip to Question 10 not sure, remind him/her to answer the most common modes of transportation. [1] Car 9A. What did you like about the Memorial site? [2] Bus Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item. [3] Bicycle

[4] Walk

[5] Other: ______

6. How many minutes does it typically take you to get to this trail from _____ [his

or her answer to Question 4]? 9B. What could be improved at the Memorial site? Number of minutes: ______Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item.

7. How satisfied are you with this trail? Would you say very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied? [1] Very satisfied Æ Skip to Question 8 [2] Somewhat satisfied Æ Skip to Question 8 [3] Not very satisfied Æ Go to Question 7A 10. Have you been to the Marchand Bridge Overlook? [4] Not at all satisfied Æ Go to Question 7A [1] Yes Æ Go to Question 10A [2] No Skip to Question 11 Æ 7A. Why are you unsatisfied with the trail? Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one reason. 10A. What did you like about the Overlook?

Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item.

8. Overall, how safe do you feel when you are using this trail? Would you say very safe, somewhat safe, not very safe, or not at all safe? 10B. What could be improved at the Overlook site? [1] Very safe Æ Skip to Question 9 Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item. [2] Somewhat safe Æ Skip to Question 9 [3] Not very safe Æ Go to Question 8A [4] Not at all safe Æ Go to Question 8A

8A. Why do you feel unsafe when using the trail? Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one reason. 11. How satisfied are you with the signage along the trail? By signage, I mean the history and information signs located along the Greenway. Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied?

[1] Very satisfied Æ Skip to Question 12

[2] Somewhat satisfied Æ Skip to Question 12 [3] Not very satisfied Æ Go to Question 11A [4] Not at all satisfied Æ Go to Question 11A

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 30 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 31

51 Appendix A: USI Pigeon Creek Greenway Usage Study

11A. Why are you unsatisfied with the signage? 17. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item. [1] Less than high school [2] High school diploma | GED [3] Technical | Trade School

[4] Some college

[5] Bachelor’s Degree [6] Graduate Degree [JD, MD, Master’s degree, PH.D.] 12. How did you learn about the Pigeon Creek Greenway? Interviewer: Write down the answer as given to you. Try to get at least one item. 18. Are you currently employed, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, a student, homemaker, or something else? Interviewer: If a respondent says he/she has more than one status, ask to pick only one that she/he thinks describes him/her well.

[1] Currently employed

[2] Currently unemployed 13. What changes or improvements would you like to see made to the Greenway? [3] Temporarily laid off Interviewer: Try to get at least one item. [4] Retired [5] Student

[6] Homemaker | Stay at Home Parent [7] Other | Please List: ______

14. In your opinion, where should the Parks Board build the next “link” of the 19. To better understand the type of people who use this trail, we would like to Pigeon Creek Greenway? know the general range of income of all people who participate in this study. Interviewer: Try to get at least one location. As with all of your answers, this information is completely confidential and will be used only to group respondents. Now, thinking about your family’s total income from all sources, which of the following income ranges is closest

to your family’s 2011 total income from all sources? You may stop me when I get to the right category. [1] Less than $10,000 [2] $10,000 to $19,999 DEMOGRAPHICS [3] $20,000 to $29,999 INTERVIEWER SCRIPT: To help us gain a better understanding about the people who [4] $30,000 to $39,999 use the Pigeon Creek Greenway, I have a few final questions.

[5] $40,000 to $49,999 15. What is your age? ______[6] $50,000 to $59,999 [7] $60,000 to $69,999 16. Would you mind telling me your race or ethnic origin? Are you Caucasian, [8] $70,000 to $79,999 African American, Latino or Latina, American Indian or Alaska native, [9] $80,000 to $89,999 Asian or Pacific Islander, or something else? [10] $90,000 to $99,999 [1] Caucasian [11] $100,000 to $149,999 [2] African American [12] $150,000 or more [3] Latino/a [4] American Indian | Alaskan Native FOR THE INTERVIEWER TO COMPLETE [5] Asian | Pacific Islander [6] Other | List response: ______20. Respondent’s gender [1] Male [2] Female

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 32 2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 33

52 21. Was the respondent alone or with other people? [0] Alone Æ End survey here [1] With one other person Æ Answer Question 20 [2] With two other people Æ Answer Question 20 [3] With three or more people Æ Answer Question 20

22. Where any of these people children (middle school age or under)? [1] Yes [2] No

23. If so, how many children? List: ______

24. Where any of the children in a stroller? [1] Yes [2] No

Time Completed: ______Circle Location: 4F | SJ | GP

2012 PIGEON CREEK GREENWAY USAGE STUDY Page 34

53 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

54 55 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

56 Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 1 41 W DIVISION ST - - 4,771 $ - $ - 2 25 W DIVISION ST - - 5,913 $ - $ - Echo Community Healthcare 3 10 N 20 MAIN ST 34,040 9,707 6,661 Commercial$ - $ 389,400 McDonalds 4 40 W INDIANA ST - - 660 $ - $ - 5 14 W INDIANA - - 24,018 $ - $ - Husk and Son Trans & Repair 6 28 W INDIANA - - 24,018 $ - $ - Center City Auto 7 100 N MAIN ST 11,844 5,573 6,277 Commercial$ - $ 246,900 Old National Bank 8 33 W INDIANA ST - - 1,131 $ - $ - 9 35 W INDIANA ST - - 1,649 $ - $ - 10 1 N MAIN ST 654,271 192,437 192,202 Utility$ - $ 10,670,100 Vectren 11 41 W INDIANA ST - - 1,142 $ - $ - 12 110 N MAIN ST Transferred 3/14/11 7,434 6,350 6,301 Commercial$ - $ 115,600 13 22 W ILLINOIS ST - - 1,879 $ - $ - 14 40 W ILLINOIS ST - - 1,453 $ - $ - 15 120 N MAIN ST 15,927 3,406 3,624 Commercial$ - $ 122,400 16 122 E 124 ILLINOIS ST - - 6,110 $ - $ - 17 24 W 26 FRANKLIN ST Sold 3/9/04 110,913 33,640 36,863 Commercial$ 593,334 $ 842,900 Buehler's IGA 17 24 W 26 FRANKLIN ST Sold 3/9/04 - - 5,580 Commercial$ - $ - D S Metal Supplies 18 301 N MAIN ST 2,698 2,916 1,628 Commercial$ - $ 40,300 19 303 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,180 1,172 Commercial$ - $ 20,300 20 19 W FRANKLIN ST - - 803 $ - $ - 21 26 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,226 $ - $ - 22 12 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,531 $ - $ - 23 18 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,311 $ - $ - 24 14 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,443 $ - $ - 25 25 W FRANKLIN ST - - 2,180 $ - $ - 26 20 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,810 $ - $ - 27 39 W FRANKLIN ST - - 1,367 $ - $ - 28 15 W FRANKLIN ST - - 2,068 $ - $ - 29 29 W FRANKLIN ST - - 2,024 $ - $ - 30 28 E FRANKLIN ST - - 1,652 $ - $ - 31 305 N MAIN ST 7,100 3,400 3,656 Commercial$ - $ 43,100 Bike Parts & Art ; Plus Sized Chick Cons. Shop 32 37 W FRANKLIN ST - - 3,629 $ - $ - 33 311 N MAIN ST Sold 8/23/99 3,550 2,895 3,086 Commercial$ - $ 30,500 Barb's Cpnsignement and Tanning 34 300 N 310 MAIN ST Transferred 8/20/04 24,638 9,375 9,802 Commercial$ - $ 486,000 Hutch & Son Industrial Electronics 35 315 N MAIN ST Sold 7/25/07 9,940 4,398 4,333 Commercial$ 236,000 $ 197,700 Hoosier Account's Service 36 23 E MICHIGAN ST - - 1,441 $ - $ - 37 16 W MICHIGAN ST - - 2,141 $ - $ - 38 13 E MICHIGAN ST - - 1,544 $ - $ - 39 15 E MICHIGAN ST - - 1,519 $ - $ - 40 316 N MAIN ST 3,810 2,548 3,091 Commercial$ 47,500 $ 50,300 1st Choice Furniture 41 24 W MICHIGAN ST - - 2,602 $ - $ - 42 14 W MICHIGAN ST - - 1,794 $ - $ - 43 17 E MICHIGAN ST - - 1,771 $ - $ - 44 34 W MICHIGAN ST - - 1,969 $ - $ - 45 19 E MICHIGAN ST - - 1,347 $ - $ - 46 317 N MAIN ST Sold 1/20/11 - 5,234 5,332 Commercial$ 47,500 $ 50,300 Hammerheads 57 47 22 W MICHIGAN ST - - 1,226 $ - $ - ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 48 36 W MICHIGAN ST - - 1,462 $ - $ - 49 320 N MAIN ST Expired 4/6/05 - - 4,262 Commercial$ 219,000 $ 44,200 50 10 E 12 MICHIGAN ST - - 8,042 $ - $ - Lutheran Community Outreach Center 51 401 N 415 MAIN ST Sold 7/3/12 - 2,622 4,098 Commercial$ 180,000 $ 142,300 Integra Bank Drive Thu ATM 52 22 E MICHIGAN ST - - 455 $ - $ - 53 410 N MAIN ST 26,964 9,554 9,774 Commercial$ - $ 168,400 Turoni's Pizzery & Brewery 54 16 W VIRGINIA ST - - 29,111 $ - $ - Swirca 55 416 N MAIN ST 3,150 999 1,190 Commercial$ - $ 33,600 Ba's Kitchen Konnection 56 417 N 423 MAIN ST Expired 6/19/14 16,330 10,698 5,501 Commercial$ 495,000 $ 491,900 Evangel Temple 57 422 N MAIN ST 3,150 1,685 1,768 Commercial$ - $ 40,600 Abbey Road Coffee Bean 58 506 N MAIN ST Sold 11/14/08 12,600 3,485 3,155 Commercial$ 200,000 $ 113,400 Knotty Pine Cafe 59 22 E VIRGINIA ST - - 829 $ - $ - 60 30 E VIRGINIA ST - - 1,887 $ - $ - 61 24 E VIRGINIA ST - - 1,506 $ - $ - 62 18 E VIRGINIA ST - - 1,713 $ - $ - 63 21 W VIRGINIA ST - - 1,307 $ - $ - 64 39 W VIRGINIA ST - - 10,456 $ - $ - 65 501 N 511 MAIN ST Sold 5/16/03 22,436 5,460 5,903 Commercial$ 140,000 $ 350,300 Subway; Payday Loans; Jackson Hewitt; China Garden 66 515 N MAIN ST Sold 12/10/10 7,384 2,025 2,117 Residential$ - $ 48,300 67 25 E 31 IOWA ST - - 2,777 $ - $ - 68 21 E IOWA ST - - 1,880 $ - $ - 69 517 N MAIN ST Sold 4/20/99 5,964 2,732 3,076 Commercial$ - $ 43,000 Lover's Playground 70 17 E IOWA ST - - 1,296 $ - $ - 71 516 N 520 MAIN ST Sold 1/28/04 22,098 11,805 12,215 Commercial$ 375,000 $ 260,600 Paint and Carpet Depot 72 30 W IOWA ST - - 1,973 $ - $ - 73 24 W IOWA ST - - 2,396 $ - $ - 74 22 W IOWA ST - - 1,955 $ - $ - 75 28 W IOWA ST - - 1,745 $ - $ - 76 34 W 36 IOWA ST - - 1,821 $ - $ - 77 32 W IOWA ST - - 1,190 $ - $ - 78 523 N MAIN ST Sold 5/7/12 4,648 2,980 2,547 Commercial$ 45,000 $ 57,600 Lucky Lady Lounge 79 601 N MAIN ST Sold 11/21/06 6,390 6,057 6,266 Commercial$ 137,500 $ 106,300 North Main Pawn 80 25 W 27 IOWA ST - - 1,907 $ - $ - 81 31 W IOWA ST - - 1,070 $ - $ - 82 39 W IOWA ST - - 1,228 $ - $ - 83 33 W IOWA ST - - 1,419 $ - $ - 84 605 N MAIN ST Sold 11/9/01 3,550 3,013 2,909 Commercial$ 39,500 $ 44,800 85 29 W IOWA ST - - 1,762 $ - $ - 86 11 W IOWA ST - - 11,639 $ - $ - 87 606 N MAIN ST Sold 04/13/13 3,150 1,429 1,642 Commercial$ 36,909 $ 20,400 88 607 N MAIN ST 12,354 2,629 3,735 Commercial$ - $ 91,000 DiLegge's 89 608 N MAIN ST 3,175 1,016 1,082 Residential$ - $ 8,800 90 611 N BAKER AVE - - 869 $ - $ - 91 610 N MAIN ST 3,150 2,020 1,732 Commercial$ - $ 14,800 Vickers Radio and TV Sales 92 614 N MAIN ST Sold 11/6/01 2,646 792 828 Commercial$ - $ 14,700 Jeff's Barber adn Styling Shop 93 615 N MAIN ST Sold 9/26/11 5,254 - 627 Commercial$ 15,000 $ 12,300 58 94 25 E DELAWARE ST - - 2,580 $ - $ - 95 13 E DELAWARE ST - - 2,349 $ - $ - Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 96 19 E DELAWARE ST - - 2,107 $ - $ - 97 17 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,998 $ - $ - 98 617 N MAIN ST Sold 9/29/11 4,260 2,077 1,756 Commercial$ 15,000 $ 61,800 99 15 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,724 $ - $ - 100 621 N MAIN ST Expired 1/15/10 63,900 3,200 29 Exempt$ 235,000 $ 154,500 101 36 W DELAWARE ST - - 4,724 $ - $ - Jay Sales Co 102 30 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,621 $ - $ - 103 618 N MAIN ST Sold 4/4/14 2,250 532 707 Residential$ 105,500 $ 15,100 104 28 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,268 $ - $ - 105 14 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,736 $ - $ - 106 621 N MAIN ST Expired 1/15/10 63,900 3,200 4,114 Exempt$ 235,000 $ 154,500 107 32 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,999 $ - $ - 108 26 W DELAWARE ST - - 931 $ - $ - 109 10 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,342 $ - $ - 110 620 N MAIN ST Sold 4/4/14 2,250 1,326 1,697 Residential$ 105,500 $ 67,600 111 701 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,414 1,468 Commercial$ 24,000 $ - Daily's Annex Bakery & Cafe 112 10 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,234 $ - $ - 113 16 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,508 $ - $ - 114 700 N MAIN ST Sold 3/23/12 6,300 5,325 6,383 Commercial$ 65,000 $ 68,300 115 18 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,219 $ - $ - 116 703 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,477 1,731 Residential$ 15,300 $ - 117 13 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,229 $ - $ - 118 15 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,311 $ - $ - 119 19 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,365 $ - $ - 120 27 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,699 $ - $ - 121 35 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,475 $ - $ - 122 17 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,297 $ - $ - 123 29 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,179 $ - $ - 124 31 W DELAWARE ST - - 1,381 $ - $ - 125 14 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,829 $ - $ - 126 12 E DELAWARE ST - - 1,519 $ - $ - 127 23 W DELAWARE ST - - 2,158 $ - $ - 128 28 E DELAWARE ST - - 5,525 $ - $ - Parke Memorial Presbyterian 129 705 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,510 1,745 Commercial$ 18,800 $ - 130 706 N MAIN ST - - 1,541 $ - $ - American & European Antiques 131 707 N MAIN ST Transferred 9/27/05 3,550 2,566 1,296 Commercial$ - $ 22,500 Edward Creek and Antiques 132 709 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,186 1,318 Commercial$ - $ 20,200 133 710 N MAIN ST Transferred 2/6/09 4,410 2,006 2,203 Commercial$ - $ 31,600 Martin Sales and Service 134 711 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,166 1,423 Residential$ - $ 14,600 135 E DELAWARE ST & E COLUMBIA ST - - 165 $ - $ - 136 27 E COLUMBIA ST - - 935 $ - $ - 137 713 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,422 1,727 Residential$ - $ 16,100 138 712 N MAIN ST Expired 1/31/05 3,150 2,125 2,311 Commercial$ 225,000 $ 26,600 139 715 N MAIN ST Transferred 1/20/10 3,550 2,224 2,620 Residential$ - $ 85,900 140 714 N MAIN ST 3,150 1,125 1,654 Commercial$ - $ 22,700 Kirby Signs 141 32 W COLUMBIA ST - - 3,722 $ - $ - 142 40 W COLUMBIA ST - - 5,017 $ - $ - Columbia Place Apartments 59 143 717 N MAIN ST Transferred 1/20/10 3,550 1,220 1,382 Residential$ - $ 38,700 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 144 17 E COLUMBIA ST - - 2,174 $ - $ - 145 26 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,075 $ - $ - 146 28 W COLUMBIA ST - - 1,770 $ - $ - 147 19 E COLUMBIA ST - - 1,859 $ - $ - 148 10 W COLUMBIA ST 10,033 1,173 1,285 Commercial$ - $ 37,900 Kempf's Service Center 149 21 E COLUMBIA ST - - 1,357 $ - $ - 150 16 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,298 $ - $ - 151 23 E COLUMBIA ST - - 1,394 $ - $ - 152 22 W COLUMBIA ST - - 1,620 $ - $ - 153 18 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,047 $ - $ - 154 13 E 15 COLUMBIA ST - - 1,725 $ - $ - 155 25 E COLUMBIA ST - - 1,348 $ - $ - 156 721 N MAIN ST Transferred 1/20/10 4,260 2,400 3,024 Commercial$ - $ 78,100 Winiger Chiropractic 157 12 E COLUMBIA ST - - 319 $ - $ - American Sanitary Supply, Inc 158 11 W COLUMBIA ST - - 1,779 $ - $ - 159 27 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,125 $ - $ - 160 39 W COLUMBIA ST - - 3,824 $ - $ - Columbia St. Antique Mall 161 31 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,520 $ - $ - 162 25 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,501 $ - $ - 163 21 W COLUMBIA ST - - 1,971 $ - $ - 164 19 W COLUMBIA ST - - 2,678 $ - $ - 165 35 W COLUMBIA ST - - 3,165 $ - $ - 166 805 N 809 MAIN ST Transferred 10/20/04 17,892 5,356 5,784 Commercial$ - $ 105,700 DAVCO Vac & Sew 167 26 W MARYLAND ST - - 519 $ - $ - 168 813 N MAIN ST Transferred 10/20/04 12,906 2,220 2,221 Commercial$ - $ 86,700 American Sanitary Supply Co. Inc. 169 800 N MAIN ST For Lease/Sale 34,902 10,722 11,090 Commercial$ - $ 192,000 170 25 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,772 $ - $ - 171 27 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,601 $ - $ - 172 21 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,757 $ - $ - 173 16 W MARYLAND ST - - 2,369 $ - $ - 174 24 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,956 $ - $ - 175 22 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,969 $ - $ - 176 11 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,738 $ - $ - 177 14 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,802 $ - $ - 178 18 W MARYLAND ST - - 2,229 $ - $ - 179 40 W MARYLAND ST - - 2,737 $ - $ - 180 23 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,276 $ - $ - 181 30 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,890 $ - $ - 182 36 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,537 $ - $ - 183 15 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,326 $ - $ - 184 17 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,120 $ - $ - 185 819 N MAIN ST Sold 11/13/97 2,880 1,761 2,647 Residential$ 75,000 $ 81,300 186 901 N MAIN ST Sold 4/11/00 3,250 1,611 1,767 Commercial$ 30,984 $ 53,300 Michael D. Dilegge Insurance Agency 187 27 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,723 $ - $ - 188 16 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,466 $ - $ - 189 12 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,295 $ - $ - 60 190 39 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,211 $ - $ - 191 29 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,450 $ - $ - Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 192 26 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,919 $ - $ - 193 903 N MAIN ST 3,250 1,184 1,337 Residential$ - $ 43,700 194 19 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,540 $ - $ - 195 21 W 23 MARYLAND ST - - 2,794 $ - $ - 196 18 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,703 $ - $ - 197 10 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,800 $ - $ - 198 14 E MARYLAND ST - - 1,399 $ - $ - 199 37 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,455 $ - $ - 200 25 W MARYLAND ST - - 2,335 $ - $ - 201 35 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,405 $ - $ - 202 24 E MARYLAND ST - - 2,129 $ - $ - 203 41 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,704 $ - $ - 204 905 N MAIN ST Sold 3/9/00 3,250 1,839 1,778 Residential$ - $ 32,600 205 907 N MAIN ST Expired 10/9/13 3,250 1,290 1,695 Residential$ 29,900 $ 25,500 206 908 N ELSAS AVE - - 1,537 $ - $ - 207 900 N 920 MAIN ST 41,162 3,772 3,855 Commercial$ - $ 227,800 Burger King 208 909 N MAIN ST Sold 5/30/03 3,250 966 1,067 Commercial$ 18,819 $ 32,900 209 31 W MARYLAND ST - - 1,094 $ - $ - 210 911 N MAIN ST Sold 8/5/97 2,860 1,035 811 Residential$ 9,360 $ 20,500 211 913 N MAIN ST Transferred 3/23/11 3,250 982 968 Residential$ - $ 14,300 212 18 W OREGON ST - - 2,399 $ - $ - 213 915 N MAIN ST Sold 5/30/14 4,810 1,501 3,008 Residential$ 24,000 $ 42,500 214 22 W OREGON ST - - 1,411 $ - $ - 215 21 E OREGON ST - - 2,391 $ - $ - 216 15 E OREGON ST - - 2,224 $ - $ - 217 40 W OREGON ST - - 2,385 $ - $ - 218 26 W OREGON ST - - 1,505 $ - $ - 219 17 E OREGON ST - - 1,634 $ - $ - 220 13 E OREGON ST - - 1,092 $ - $ - 221 24 W OREGON ST - - 858 $ - $ - 222 19 E OREGON ST - - 1,940 $ - $ - 223 36 W OREGON ST - - 1,217 $ - $ - 224 32 W OREGON ST - - 1,311 $ - $ - 225 28 W OREGON ST - - 1,294 $ - $ - 226 29 E OREGON ST - - 1,161 $ - $ - 227 27 E OREGON ST - - 980 $ - $ - 228 25 E OREGON ST - - 909 $ - $ - 229 919 N 921 MAIN ST Expired 1/31/10 6,386 2,940 2,150 Residential$ 99,900 $ 39,200 230 7 W OREGON ST Expired 1/31/09 3,275 934 1,049 Residential$ 19,900 $ 18,200 231 1001 BAKER AVE - - 1,718 $ - $ - 232 13 W OREGON ST - - 1,354 $ - $ - 233 21 W OREGON ST - - 924 $ - $ - 234 19 W OREGON ST - - 1,254 $ - $ - 235 1002 N MAIN ST Sold 2/24/05 6,550 16,000 1,683 Commercial$ 14,500 $ 27,400 Hay Now Graphics LLC 236 30 E OREGON ST - - 1,407 $ - $ - 237 1003 BAKER AVE - - 1,370 $ - $ - 238 1003 N MAIN ST 13,000 13,000 13,442 Commercial$ - $ 234,800 Gethsemane Church 61 239 27 W OREGON ST - - 1,224 $ - $ - ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 240 23 W OREGON ST - - 2,030 $ - $ - 241 17 W OREGON ST - - 2,004 $ - $ - 242 26 E OREGON ST - - 1,631 $ - $ - 243 1005 BAKER AVE - - 1,262 $ - $ - 244 1007 BAKER AVE - - 1,224 $ - $ - 245 1008 N MAIN ST Transferred 12/26/07 6,550 1,612 2,148 Exempt$ 15,000 $ 19,200 246 1009 1011 BAKER AVE - - 3,324 $ - $ - 247 1016 N MAIN ST Sold 11/19/03 19,257 7,248 338 Commercial$ 68,334 $ 126,200 248 1013 BAKER AVE - - 1,454 $ - $ - 249 1011 N 1023 MAIN ST - - 2,611 $ - $ - 250 1016 N MAIN ST Sold 11/19/03 19,257 7,248 7,439 Commercial$ 68,334 $ 126,200 Baylor 251 1015 BAKER AVE - - 1,487 $ - $ - 252 13 E MISSOURI ST - - 7,640 $ - $ - 253 17 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,373 $ - $ - 254 1017 BAKER AVE - - 1,367 $ - $ - 255 20 W MISSOURI ST - - 2,034 $ - $ - 256 25 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,412 $ - $ - 257 24 W MISSOURI ST - - 2,180 $ - $ - 258 18 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,332 $ - $ - 259 16 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,193 $ - $ - 260 22 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,611 $ - $ - 261 21 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,940 $ - $ - 262 28 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,323 $ - $ - 263 1101 N MAIN ST Transferred 12/9/10 3,250 1,264 2,325 Residential$ - $ 77,600 264 1100 N MAIN ST Sold 12/20/13 2,997 1,802 1,684 Commercial$ 60,000 $ 64,300 265 9 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,576 $ - $ - 266 1101 BAKER AVE - - 2,190 $ - $ - 267 17 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,448 $ - $ - 268 15 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,609 $ - $ - 269 27 W MISSOURI ST - - 1,447 $ - $ - 270 18 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,435 $ - $ - 271 13 W MISSOURI ST - - 2,034 $ - $ - 272 1103 BAKER AVE - - 1,421 $ - $ - 273 21 W MISSOURI ST - - 2,406 $ - $ - 274 23 W MISSOURI ST - - 2,250 $ - $ - 275 1104 N MAIN ST Sold 6/3/13 4,250 1,542 1,848 Residential$ 6,000 $ 53,000 276 16 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,904 $ - $ - 277 14 E MISSOURI ST - - 2,103 $ - $ - 278 28 E MISSOURI ST - - 3,019 $ - $ - 279 24 E MISSOURI ST - - 2,494 $ - $ - 280 20 E MISSOURI ST - - 1,924 $ - $ - 281 1105 BAKER AVE - - 1,460 $ - $ - 282 1107 N MAIN ST Transferred 7/1/03 5,460 1,406 1,595 Residential$ - $ 38,900 283 1106 N MAIN ST Transferred 10/3/13 4,250 1,401 1,691 Residential$ - $ 59,800 284 1107 BAKER AVE - - 1,741 $ - $ - 285 1111 N MAIN ST 3,900 1,326 1,314 Residential$ - $ 14,200 62 286 1110 N MAIN ST Expired 8/1/09 5,375 1,746 2,320 Residential$ 74,900 $ 65,400 287 1109 BAKER AVE - - 1,952 $ - $ - Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 288 1114 N MAIN ST 4,625 1,789 1,929 Residential$ - $ 59,000 289 1111 BAKER AVE - - 1,867 $ - $ - 290 1116 N MAIN ST Sold 7/29/2011 3,750 1,680 1,974 Residential$ 7,300 $ 50,000 291 1113 BAKER AVE - - 1,138 $ - $ - 292 29 E LOUISIANA ST - - 2,065 $ - $ - 293 16 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,912 $ - $ - 294 25 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,942 $ - $ - 295 24 W LOUISIANA ST - - 2,009 $ - $ - 296 1120 N Main St 4,250 1,584 1,921 Commercial$ - $ 63,500 Raycroft III Chester a DDS 297 1115 BAKER AVE - - 1,059 $ - $ - 298 26 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,709 $ - $ - 299 18 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,139 $ - $ - 300 20 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,233 $ - $ - 301 27 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,215 $ - $ - 302 22 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,099 $ - $ - 303 1125 N MAIN ST Sold 11/6/13 5,460 3,741 2,434 Residential$ 45,000 $ 61,100 304 1124 N MAIN ST 3,625 336 417 Commercial$ - $ 9,300 305 1200 N MAIN ST Sold 7/9/13 3,024 1,763 1,800 Commercial$ 19,000 $ 22,400 306 1201 BAKER AVE - - 3,282 $ - $ - Roofers Local 106 307 21 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,435 $ - $ - 308 17 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,211 $ - $ - 309 20 E LOUISIANA ST - - 364 $ - $ - 310 12 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,293 $ - $ - 311 24 E LOUISIANA ST - - 931 $ - $ - 312 19 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,689 $ - $ - 313 1201 N MAIN ST Sold 3/11/10 6,500 1,845 1,859 Commercial$ 15,000 $ 18,300 Gator's Hot Fish House 314 1202 N 1204 MAIN ST Expired 12/30/13 7,938 2,384 2,400 Residential$ 39,900 $ 69,800 315 25 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,797 $ - $ - 316 23 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,926 $ - $ - 317 27 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,578 $ - $ - 318 13 W LOUISIANA ST - - 1,502 $ - $ - 319 28 E LOUISIANA ST - - 2,245 $ - $ - 320 18 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,416 $ - $ - 321 10 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,537 $ - $ - 322 22 E LOUISIANA ST - - 1,580 $ - $ - 323 1205 N MAIN ST 3,900 1,163 1,034 Residential$ - $ 17,900 324 16 E LOUISIANA ST - - 2,042 $ - $ - 325 1206 N MAIN ST Sold 3/28/07 3,150 2,012 2,181 Residential$ - $ 53,400 326 1207 N MAIN ST 3,900 1,333 567 Residential$ - $ 25,400 327 1207 N MAIN ST 3,900 1,333 1,448 Residential$ - $ 25,400 328 1209 BAKER AVE - - 1,860 $ - $ - Shorty's Bar 329 1208 N MAIN ST For Sale 3,150 820 1,139 Residential$ 29,900 $ 19,400 330 1209 N MAIN ST Expired 7/9/14 4,550 2,240 769 Residential$ 69,900 $ 57,900 331 1209 N MAIN ST Expired 7/9/14 4,550 2,240 1,659 Residential$ 69,900 $ 57,900 332 1210 N ELSAS AVE - - 729 $ - $ - 333 1210 N 1212 MAIN ST - - 1,180 $ - $ - 334 1213 N MAIN ST Sold 8/1/12 7,150 3,118 4,464 Residential$ 5,500 $ 47,300 63 335 1214 N 1216 MAIN ST sold 2/18/00 6,300 1,070 1,099 Residential$ - $ 50,600 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 336 38 W FLORIDA ST - - 3,143 $ - $ - 337 30 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,655 $ - $ - 338 1219 N MAIN ST Expired 4/28/07 5,850 1,562 2,517 Residential$ 79,900 $ 27,900 339 1218 N MAIN ST Sold 10/19/04 3,528 1,064 1,081 Residential$ 63,050 $ 47,800 340 18 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,607 $ - $ - 341 15 E FLORIDA ST - - 2,026 $ - $ - 342 11 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,468 $ - $ - 343 25 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,325 $ - $ - 344 13 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,548 $ - $ - 345 28 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,493 $ - $ - 346 26 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,618 $ - $ - 347 23 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,387 $ - $ - 348 14 W 16 FLORIDA ST - - 1,440 $ - $ - 349 36 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,150 $ - $ - 350 34 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,105 $ - $ - 351 22 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,344 $ - $ - 352 32 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,065 $ - $ - 353 21 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,154 $ - $ - 354 1221 N MAIN ST Sold 12/23/99 7,020 1,242 1,391 Residential$ 23,000 $ 21,500 355 20 W FLORIDA ST - - 1,264 $ - $ - 356 1222 N MAIN ST Sold 9/26/05 6,300 1,598 2,560 Residential$ 25,000 $ 41,000 357 8 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,476 $ - $ - 358 1300 N MAIN ST Sold 2/12/07 6,300 2,998 3,514 Residential$ 50,000 $ 73,600 359 12 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,335 $ - $ - 360 10 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,515 $ - $ - 361 16 E FLORIDA ST - - 2,016 $ - $ - 362 17 W FLORIDA ST - - 2,471 $ - $ - 363 24 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,760 $ - $ - 364 28 E FLORIDA ST - - 1,746 $ - $ - 365 20 E FLORIDA ST - - 2,770 $ - $ - 366 14 E FLORIDA ST - - 2,066 $ - $ - 367 1301 N BAKER AVE - - 2,422 $ - $ - 368 23 W FLORIDA ST - - 2,776 $ - $ - 369 1304 N MAIN ST 5,670 1,539 2,333 Residential$ - $ 52,400 370 1317 N 1319 MAIN ST Sold 4/15/08 36,345 14,014 4,222 Commercial$ 235,000 $ 214,600 371 1308 N MAIN ST Sold 4/12/04 5,040 1,584 2,499 Residential$ 94,000 $ 71,300 372 1312 N MAIN ST Sold 8/1/06 5,544 1,929 2,307 Residential$ 67,250 $ 64,100 373 1317 N 1319 MAIN ST Sold 4/15/08 36,345 14,014 8,207 Commercial$ 235,000 $ 214,600 Chris's Auto Repair ; AraMark 374 22 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,652 $ - $ - 375 1316 N MAIN ST 5,544 1,902 2,779 Residential$ - $ 64,700 376 20 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,938 $ - $ - 377 17 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,573 $ - $ - 378 19 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,623 $ - $ - 379 30 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,420 $ - $ - 380 28 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,490 $ - $ - 381 26 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,448 $ - $ - 64 382 24 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,502 $ - $ - 383 18 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,496 $ - $ - Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 384 21 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,632 $ - $ - 385 12 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,444 $ - $ - 386 14 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,757 $ - $ - 387 23 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,288 $ - $ - 388 32 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,139 $ - $ - 389 13 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,306 $ - $ - 390 16 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,062 $ - $ - 391 25 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,357 $ - $ - 392 15 E TENNESSEE ST - - 810 $ - $ - 393 1317 N 1319 MAIN ST Sold 4/15/08 36,345 14,014 3,182 Commercial$ 235,000 $ 214,600 394 11 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,110 $ - $ - 395 1320 N MAIN ST Expired 10/27/07 4,662 1,258 2,797 Residential$ 99,900 $ 59,700 396 1400 N 1402 MAIN ST Sold 3/6/13 4,000 883 1,216 Commercial$ 27,000 $ 22,600 Charlie's Food Market 397 9 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,259 $ - $ - 398 24 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,066 $ - $ - 399 11 W TENNESSEE ST - - 728 $ - $ - 400 28 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,684 $ - $ - 401 14 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,673 $ - $ - 402 20 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,639 $ - $ - 403 18 E TENNESSEE ST - - 1,680 $ - $ - 404 15 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,522 $ - $ - 405 23 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,350 $ - $ - 406 25 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,392 $ - $ - 407 27 W TENNESSEE ST - - 8,604 $ - $ - Well's Body Shop 408 21 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,517 $ - $ - 409 1405 N MAIN ST Expired 12/31/09 10,650 5,130 5,272 Commercial$ 49,900 $ 43,900 410 17 W TENNESSEE ST - - 2,072 $ - $ - 411 19 W TENNESSEE ST - - 1,831 $ - $ - 412 1404 N MAIN ST 4,788 1,014 1,819 Residential$ - $ 60,900 413 1406 N MAIN ST 7,056 1,434 3,346 Residential$ - $ 70,200 414 1410 N ELSAS AVE - - 1,171 $ - $ - 415 1421 N MAIN ST Sold 6/28/12 20,874 7,496 5,701 Commercial$ 80,000 $ 130,500 416 1414 N 1418 MAIN ST - - 2,874 $ - $ - Swonder Mattress 417 28 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,399 $ - $ - 418 20 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,706 $ - $ - 419 29 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,906 $ - $ - 420 25 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,251 $ - $ - 421 15 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,721 $ - $ - 422 14 W EICHEL AVE - - 3,415 $ - $ - 423 30 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,274 $ - $ - 424 34 W 36 EICHEL AVE - - 1,519 $ - $ - 425 21 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,098 $ - $ - 426 22 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,059 $ - $ - 427 16 W EICHEL AVE - - 897 $ - $ - 428 27 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,190 $ - $ - 429 17 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,015 $ - $ - 430 1420 N 1424 MAIN ST 6,300 3,162 3,452 Commercial$ - $ 39,100 Big M's Pizza 65 431 16 E EICHEL AVE - - 994 $ - $ - ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗EŽƌƚŚDĂŝŶĂŶĚĚũĂĐĞŶƚƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐʹWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ

Property Building Calculated Property Sale/Lease 2014 Assessed ID Address Availability Business Name sq ft sq ft 1st Floor sq ft Type Price Value 432 1500 N MAIN ST Sold 4/27/10 6,300 3,262 3,635 Commercial$ 35,250 $ 37,500 M&M Auto Body Supply and Repair 433 17 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,366 $ - $ - 434 19 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,355 $ - $ - 435 22 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,389 $ - $ - 436 25 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,267 $ - $ - 437 18 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,133 $ - $ - 438 35 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,360 $ - $ - 439 1501 N MAIN ST Sold 10/4/13 16,934 4,576 4,567 Commercial$ 39,000 $ 71,400 440 31 W EICHEL AVE - - 862 $ - $ - 441 15 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,652 $ - $ - 442 24 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,319 $ - $ - 443 13 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,700 $ - $ - 444 21 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,326 $ - $ - 445 28 E EICHEL AVE - - 2,335 $ - $ - 446 37 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,939 $ - $ - 447 14 E EICHEL AVE - - 1,555 $ - $ - 448 27 W EICHEL AVE - - 2,609 $ - $ - 449 33 W EICHEL AVE - - 1,694 $ - $ - 450 1507 N MAIN ST Sold 9/26/08 3,550 1,004 1,818 Residential$ 52,500 $ 45,700 451 1509 N MAIN ST 3,550 932 1,655 Residential$ - $ 26,900 452 1511 N MAIN ST Sold 1/28/97 3,550 - 385 Res-accesory$ 2,000 $ 1,800 453 1513 N MAIN ST 3,550 1,631 1,685 Residential$ - $ 32,400 454 16 W MORGAN AVE - - 9,209 $ - $ - Dream Center 455 36 W MORGAN AVE - - 4,925 $ - $ - 456 15 E MORGAN AVE - - 1,487 $ - $ - 457 13 E MORGAN AVE - - 2,666 $ - $ - VIP Cleaning services 458 29 E MORGAN AVE - - 1,082 $ - $ - 459 27 E MORGAN AVE - - 906 $ - $ - 460 25 E MORGAN AVE - - 891 $ - $ - 461 21 E MORGAN AVE - - 858 $ - $ - 462 19 E MORGAN AVE - - 851 $ - $ - 463 1504 N 1518 MAIN ST 26,172 3,840 3,934 Commercial$ - $ 92,100 464 1521 N MAIN ST Sold 10/19/10 14,070 2,058 2,503 Commercial$ - $ 47,100 Hickery Pit Stop

66 Έd,/^W'/EdEd/KE>>z>&d>E<Ή

67 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗DĞĚŝĂŶ/ŶĐŽŵĞDĂƉ

68 Έd,/^W'/EdEd/KE>>z>&d>E<Ή

69 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ͗ǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ

EĞǁdŝĐŬĞƚƐΘŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐͶǀĂŶƐǀŝůůĞKƩĞƌƐ

Annual Impact Year 1 Ψϲϵ͕ϬϬϬ Year 2 $71,070 Year 3 $73,202 Year 4 Ψϳϱ͕ϯϵϴ Year 5 $77,660 Year 6 Ψϳϵ͕ϵϵϬ Total $446,320

70 Έd,/^W'/EdEd/KE>>z>&d>E<Ή

71 ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES