Monon Trail Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana

2017 Indiana Trails Study Monon Trail Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana

Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands 501 N. Morton St., Suite 101, Bloomington IN 47404 www.eppley.org

2017 Indiana Trails Study Monon Trail

Sponsors Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington Greenways Foundation of Indiana

George and Frances Ball Foundation

Completed by Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Stephen A. W olter Co-Principal Investigator William D. Ramos Co-Principal Investigator

Project Associates/ Research Team Layne Elliott, Project Manager Abbas Smiley, Statistical Consultant Sara Suhaibani

May 31, 2018

This report is the property of the Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of the Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands. It may not be duplicated or used in any way without written permission of Indiana University.

Cite as: Wolter, S., Elliott, L., Ramos, W., Smiley, A., Suhaibani, S. (2018). Summary report: 2017 Indiana trails study. Bloomington, IN. Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Indiana University. Monon Trail iii Table of Contents

Acknowledgements vii Background 1 Monon Trail 2 Description of the Trail 2 Trail Map 3 Study Methods 5 Selection of Participant Trails 5 Trail Use Counts 6 Survey Recruitment 7 Findings 8 Trail Use Factors 8 Trail Activity 8 Access 11 Social Factors 14 Reasons for Trail Usage 16 Concerns and Problems 20 Physical Activity Factors 27 Economic Factors 30 Demographic Factors 31 Trail Counters 35 Summary and Conclusions 37 References 39

iv 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table of Figures

Table 1: Study Timeline 7 Table 2: What Type of Activity do You Mostly Do on the Trail? 8 Table 3: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Primary Activity 9 Table 4: Is There a Second Activity that You Do on the Trail? 10 Table 5: What is the Second Activity You Do on the Trail? 10 Table 6: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Secondary Activity 11 Table 7: On Most Days, Where Do You Usually Come from to Get to the Trail? 11 Table 8: On Most Days How do You Get to the Trail? 12 Table 9: How Far do You Travel to Use the Trail? 12 Table 10: If You Were to Walk to the Trail, How Long Would It Take You? 13 Table 11: How Long Have You Been Using the Trail? 13 Table 12: While On the Trail do You Usually Use it… 14 Table 13: Who do You Usually Use the Trail With? 15 Table 14: What Time of the Day do You Usually Use the Trail? 15 Table 15: What is the Primary Reason You Use This Trail Instead of Other Facilities? 16 Table 16: Scenery (Beauty of Environment) 17 Table 17: Terrain (Flat, Paved, etc.) 18 Table 18: Access (No Cost Associated With Use) 18 Table 19: Convenience (Location) 18 Table 20: Friendly Atmosphere (Social Environment) 19 Table 21: Accessible Features (Ease of Entry/exit, Seating, Surface, etc.) 19 Table 22: Outdoor (Environment/Access to Nature) 19 Table 23: Safety 21 Table 24: Parking (Lack of, or Cost) 21 Table 25: Accessibility of the Trail 22 Table 26: Location 22 Table 27: Facilities (Restrooms, Water Fountains) 22 Table 28: Maintenance 23 Table 29: Space/Congestion on the Trail 23 Table 30: Fear of Injury 23 Table 31: Bikers/Skaters Going Too Fast 24 Table 32: Police Presence 24 Table 33: Adequate Signage 24 Table 34: Visibility of Distance / Mile Markers 25 Table 35: Unleashed Pets 25 Monon Trail v Table 36: Wild Animals 25 Table 37: What Concerns You Most About the Trail? 26 Table 38: Did You Exercise Regularly (Three or More Times per Week for 20 Minutes per Session) Before Using a Trail? 27 Table 39: Since Beginning to Use a Trail, Has the Amount of Exercise that You Do... 27 Table 40: Since Using the Trail, Approximately how Much has Your Exercise Level Increased? 27 Table 41: Physical Activities in the Past Month, Apart from Your Trail Activities 28 Table 42: Time Spent Doing Physical Activities Altogether 29 Table 43: For the Items Listed Below, Please Indicate Your Amount Spent on the Day You Used the Trail and also Your Estimated Annual Spending 30 Table 44: Age 31 Table 45: Gender 31 Table 46: Race/Ethnic Origin 32 Table 47: Marital Status 32 Table 48: Employment Status 33 Table 49: Employment Satisfaction 33 Table 50: Educational Attainment 34 Table 51: Household Income Level 34 Table 52: Monthly counts on the Monon Trail 36

Figure 1: Location of Indiana Trails Study participating trails 5 Figure 2: Monon Trail at the Monon Community Center in Carmel 6 Figure 3: Bikers on the Monon Trail in Carmel 9 Figure 4: Biking and walking on the Monon Trail 14 Figure 5: Bridge over the White River 16 Figure 6: Scenery on the Monon Trail in Carmel 17 Figure 7: Monon Trail Crossing in Indianapolis 21 Figure 8: Comfort Station at Rohrer Road on the Monon Trail 22 Figure 9: Biking on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis 28 Figure 10: Trail users on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis 33 Figure 11: Bridge over Fall Creek in Indianapolis 36

vi 2017 Indiana Trail Study Acknowledgements

Indianapolis Don Colvin, Deputy Director of Parks Planning, Department of Public Works Andre Denman, Principal Park Planner & Greenways Manager, Department of Public Works – Ron L. Taylor, Chair, Indianapolis Greenways Development Committee Ben Jackson, Senior Park Planner, Engineering Department of Public Works Julee A. Jacob, Sr. Project Manager, Indy Parks David Surina, GIS Analyst, City of Indianapolis and Marion County Drew Klacik, Senior Policy Analyst, IU Public Policy Institute

Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation Mark Westermeier, Director/CEO Michael Klitzing, Chief Operating Officer Michael Allen, Director of Park Maintenance Rachel Fleck, Volunteer Coordinator

Trails Study Advisory Group Mitch Barloga- Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission Karen Bohn- Greenways Foundation of Indiana Bob Bronson- Indiana Department of Natural Resources Angie Pool- Cardinal Greenways, Inc. Dawn Ritchie- Fort Wayne Public Works Division Rory Robinson- National Park Service Yvette Rollins- Greenways Foundation of Indiana

Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Hana Cleveland Gina Depper Layne Elliott Derek Herrmann Crystal Howell Matthew Johnson Kevin Naaman Katy Patrick Elizabeth Sherrill Abbas Smiley Sara Suhaibani Stephen Wolter Stefanie Wong Monon Trail vii

2017 Indiana Trails Study Background

Multi-use trails are becoming a popular initiative across the country, as they provide recreational and health opportunities for users. In Indiana, a Trails Advisory Board was established by the Director of the Indiana Depart- ment of Natural Resources (“Indiana Trails Advisory Board” n.d.) in June 1994. An Advisory Board was formed to make recommendations regarding planning for and implementing multi-use trails and to allow Indiana to apply for funding from the federal Recreational Trails Program. The majority of Indiana trails are built with a mix of state and federal funding. This funding has resulted in more than 3,500 miles of public multipurpose trails, all of which contribute to Indiana’s State Trails Plan goal of provid- ing a trail within five miles of every Indiana resident. The state’s commitment to reaching this goal has led to an increase in the level of trail access from 70% of residents in 2006 to 94.4% of residents in 2017 (“Indiana State Trails Plan” 2017). Due to the rapid increase of trails in the state, a thorough investigation of trail use, trends, benefits, and attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors became necessary. The Indiana Trails Study was developed to gather and better understand information on trail use and its benefits. The first Indiana Trails Study, published in 2001, described findings from a six-trail study utilizing trail traffic data, surveys of trail users, surveys of trail neighbors, and a review of other relevant studies. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study, which included three of the trails from the original study, uses the same methods, along with surveys of a control group of non-trail users, and includes information on the following: trail use levels; trail management practices; the opinions of trail users, non-users, and neighbors; and data related to trails’ impact on public health and state and local economies.

Monon Trail 1 Monon Trail

Description of the Trail The Monon Trail, built along the bed of the former Monon Railroad, begins at 10th Street, just east of downtown Indianapolis, traverses the capital city, Carmel, and Westfield, and ends in the town of Sheridan in northern Ham- ilton County. Some sections in Hamilton County have yet to be completed but, once they are, they will bring the trail’s complete length to almost thirty miles. Construction of the Monon began in Indianapolis in 1993, taking place in several phases. The trail links residential neighborhoods with schools, parks, commercial districts, and the State Fairgrounds in Indianapolis as it travels north, then through the village of Broad Ripple and into Hamilton County and the City of Carmel. Once in Carmel, the trail passes through downtown near the growing Arts and Design District and on to Westfield and Sheridan. Along this route, the trail crosses urban and suburban areas, small towns, and open farmland. Such a long and complex trail requires several local agencies each managing its own section. These agencies include: • Indy Parks and Recreation • Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation • City of Westfield & Washington Township Parks • Hamilton County Parks • Town of Sheridan Voted into the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s Rail-Trail Hall of Fame in 2009, the Monon Trail is often cited as an unparalleled example of a trail that improves health and wellness as well as bringing tremendous economic benefits to the communities through which it passes.

2 2017 Indiana Trail Study Trail Map- Indianapolis

Monon Trail 3 Trail Map- Carmel

4 2017 Indiana Trail Study Study Methods

The Indiana state government and local communities have made a significant commitment to build, operate, and maintain trails. The benefits of the policy and implementation of a state-wide trail system are often stated based on evaluation, comments, and research on a national level. Indiana is unique in that it began a state-wide study in 2000, the first Indiana Trails Study, which described findings from a six-trail study utilizing trail traffic data, surveys of trail users, surveys of trail neighbors, and a review of other relevant studies. The first Indiana Trails Study provided significant value and benefits to trails in Indiana and was cited frequently in the state and nationally. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study, suggested in part to replicate the 2000-2001 study by Indiana trail advocates, uses these methods along with surveys of a control group of non-trail users in order to gather updated data on the trails, including the following: trail use levels; trail management practices; the opinions of trail users, non-users, and neighbors; and data related to trails’ impact on public health and state and local economies. Specifically, the 2017 study’s methods include: • Traffic (user) counts collected via trail counters at select trail segments • Online surveys (or paper-mail surveys upon request) of both trail users and a control group of non-users • Online surveys of trail-adjacent property owners (that is, “trail neighbors”) • Review of recent research and trail-related studies Collection of data on non-trail users and trail neighbors was not trail specific and is not included in this report. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study Summary Report contains an analysis of trail neighbor data, while the Summary Report and further published reports will reference non-trail user, or control group, data. Selection of Participant Trails

Figure 1: Location of Indiana Trails Study Participating Trails

Monon Trail 5 One of the important components of the study was the selection of trails. The process used similar criteria to the study from 2001 and sought an equal mix of geographic locations and rural to urban settings. No single defini- tion of “urban”, “suburban”, or ”rural” fit the needs of this study, so a compilation of sources including the Indiana Department of Transportation, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other anecdotal sources were used to create the following definitions. Rural areas were defined as residential areas of at least one acre on average, as well as farmland, open range, or forest. Suburban areas were defined as areas of average density of single family homes and light commercial development. Urban areas were defined as areas of dense residential, commercial, or industrial development and included medium to larger city centers. This method provided a more accurate depiction of the trails in Indiana’s trail network. Other criteria for selecting study trails included: • The trail contributes to a statewide mix of trails • Participation in the 2001 Indiana Trails Study • The ability and willingness of the managing organization to fully participate based on: þþ Length of time the agency has been in existence þþ Functioning Board of Directors or agency support þþ Available paid staff or the ability to generate a volunteer staff for data collection þþ Number of volunteers available þþ Length of time volunteer network has been in existence • The agency’s access to trail counters • The agency’s ability to provide a list of neighboring properties visually abutting or within 150 feet of the trail for the trail neighbor survey

These criteria were not individually defined by a minimum standard. Each potential trail was evaluated based on its fit within the framework of the set of criteria as a whole. In addition to having the required support structure, the Monon Trail was selected by virtue of being a representative urban and Figure 2: Monon Trail at the Monon Community suburban trail in the Central section of Indiana. Center in Carmel

Trail Use Counts “Trail counts” refers to the number of users on a trail during a specific timeframe. For the 2017 Indiana Trails Study, each participating agency was asked to provide trail counters. Infrared counters were suggested because of their low cost, availability, and relative ease of use. Not all agencies had access to infrared counters, result- ing in variation in counter type. All but two participating agencies already had counters. The remaining two agencies used counters supplied by the research team. Trail counters were placed at various locations on each participating trail from April 10 through October 15. Trail counter locations were determined in consultation with the local agency responsible for the trail. Trail segments where counters were already deployed or soon to be deployed were used. For the Monon Trail, counters were placed were at the 10th Street and 91st Street trailheads in Indianapolis, and the 106th Street and Rhorer Road trailheads in Carmel. Monon Trail staff in Indianapo- lis and Carmel downloaded the data from the counters at the conclusion of the study, and sent it to the research team in mid-October.

6 2017 Indiana Trail Study Survey Recruitment In order to recruit survey participants for the study, trained volunteers from the trail management agency were stationed at specified trailheads at specified times and days to distribute study information including the link to the online trail survey. Note that the volunteers canvassed the survey location by giving survey information and participation request cards to all individuals at the location during the date and time specified and did not directly collect information from any survey participant. The researchers assumed that trail use levels vary by location, even for individual trails. In response, recruitments were completed during four one-week periods throughout the study in various locations and at various times of day on each trail between April and October. Popular trailheads were selected in order to intercept users when starting or ending trail use. When collecting data for the control group of non-users, sites such as grocery stores or libraries that were further away from the trail and used by a cross-section of community residents were chosen. The target number of trail user survey responses depends on the populations of the participating communities, but a 95% confidence interval was sought in this study. Table 1 shows the overall schedule for the 2017 Indiana Trails Study. The multi-method data collection process is complex, requiring active management of deliverables and process. Table 1: Study Timeline

Septem- October- May February March April May June July August April 2018 ber December 2018 Surveys Draft survey Finalize First survey Second Third survey Final survey instruments surveys period survey period period period Trail Meet with Create train- Complete agencies agencies; ing material training orient them for agencies on volunteer and volun- recruitment, teers survey protocol, and study details Trail Complete Finalize, Compile trail Mail trail Mail second neighbor draft trail validate trail neighbor neighbor round of trail surveys neighbor neighbor mailing lists survey neighbor survey survey invitations; surveys prelim data analysis Trail Confirm Confirm trail Collect trail counters trail counter counters in counter protocol place at all data from all with trail trails trails agencies Data Build data Complete Complete Complete Begin final Complete Issue analysis analysis prelim data prelim data data data analysis data final models and analysis analysis analysis on surveys, analysis reports protocol from first from second from third trail neigh- survey survey survey bor surveys, period period period counter data

Monon Trail 7 Findings

A total of 1393 trail users were surveyed throughout the eight trails in Indiana participating in the study. While the 2017 Indiana Trails Study did use a new survey instrument, many of the questions were similar to those of the 2001 survey. When possible, comparisons were made between both studies to examine changes in trail use patterns and attitudes in the intervening 16 years. The Monon Trail participated in the 2001 Indiana Trail Study, therefore comparisons between the studies in this report are specific to the Monon as well as study-wide. Of note when comparing the Monon to the prior study, the portion of the Monon that was studied in 2001 was in Indianapolis only, while in 2017 Indianapolis and Carmel sections of the trail were examined. Carmel is a suburban community and more affluent than many areas of Indianapolis where the Monon is routed. For this study, all sections of the Monon were included in a single data set and were not separated by community. Trail Use Factors Trail Activity Table 2 shows that the Monon’s most popular activity is biking at 45%. The second most popular primary activity is walking (31%), followed by jogging (24.5%). The percentage of bikers has more than doubled since 2001, when 21% of people on the Monon were biking. In 2001, 51% were walking.

Table 2: What Type of Activity do You Mostly do on the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Walk Count 86 45 % 31% 29% Run/Jog Count 67 30 % 24.5% 19% Bike Count 125 81 % 45% 52% Skate Count 1 0.25 % 0.5% 0.2% Horseback Riding Count 0 0.25 % 0% 0.2% Bird Count 0 0.15 Watching % 0% 0.1% People Watching Count 0 0.25 % 0% 0.2% Total 279

8 2017 Indiana Trail Study Figure 3: Bikers on the Monon Trail in Carmel

The Monon has a lower percentage of bikers (45%) than the state average, where biking was rated the top activity by 52% of respondents, followed by walking (29%) and jogging (19%). In contrast to 2017, the leading statewide activity in 2001 was walking, with 41% of trail users reporting it as their primary activity. In 2001, biking was the primary activity of 39% of trail users. This likely mirrors the increase in bicycling in the U.S., which has more than doubled since 2001 (“Bicycle Commuting Data” n.d.). Monon users are on the trail for an average of 9.5 miles each time they use the trail, spend 68 minutes per session, and use the trail 3.5 times per week. All of these numbers are increases from 2001. In 2001, Monon users traveled eight miles on average, spent 60 minutes on the trail (median was used for this measurement in 2001 instead of average, or mean), and used the trail just over twice per week. Monon users equaled the state averages of 9.5 miles and 3.5 days per week, but were on the trail for a slightly shorter period of time (68 minutes, vs. 72 minutes statewide). Trail users statewide are staying on trails longer in 2017: they travel 9.5 miles per session, compared with seven miles in 2001. Moreover, 17% of trail users are on the trail for more than 20 miles. This increase corresponds with the increase in the number of bikers. Table 3: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Primary Activity

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Average Miles Performed 9.5 9.5 Average Minutes/Session 68 72 Average Days/Week 3.5 3.5

Monon Trail 9 When asked if there is a second activity they use the trail for, 60% of Monon users said “yes,” compared with 55% of trail users statewide (Table 4). Table 4: Is There a Second Activity that You Do on the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Yes Count 167 87.5 % 60% 55.5% No Count 112 70 % 40% 44.5% Total 279

Table 5 shows that walking and biking are the top secondary activities for Monon users, at 39% (walking) and 38% (biking). Jogging was the third most popular secondary activity, with 20% of users partaking in it. Sec- ondary activities were not measured in 2001. Statewide, walking (40%), biking (37%), and jogging (17%) were predictably also the top three. Monon users were more inclined to jog, both as a primary as well as a secondary activity, than the study-wide average. Table 5: What is the Second Activity You Do on the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Walk Count 64 35 % 39% 40% Run/Jog Count 33 15 % 20% 17.5% Bike Count 62 32 % 38% 37% Skate Count 0 0.5 % 0% 0.5% Horseback Count 0 0.1 Riding % 0% 0.1% Bird Count 2 2 Watching % 1% 2% People Count 4 2.5 Watching % 2% 2.9% Total 165

10 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 6 shows that Monon users were on the trail for their secondary activity for the same distance (6.5 miles) as the statewide average, but spent a slightly shorter period of time (50 minutes vs. 52 minutes). The average number of days per week spent doing their secondary activity was very similar- 1.5 days per week for Monon users vs. two days per week statewide. Table 6: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Secondary Activity Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Average Miles Performed 6.5 6.5 Average Minutes/Session 50 52 Average Days/Week 1.5 2

Access Tables 7-8 display where trail users come from, how they get to trails, and how far they travel to use them. The vast majority of people (86%) come from home to use the Monon Trail, compared with 87% statewide. Com- ing from work to use the trail was a distant second at 12% (11% statewide). Table 7: On Most Days, Where Do You Usually Come from to Get to the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Work Count 34 17 % 12% 11% Home Count 238 135 % 86% 87% School Count 0 0.5 % 0% 0.5% After a meal Count 1 1 % 0.5% 1% Another setting Count 4 2 % 1.5% 1.5% Total 277

The primary way that Monon users get to the trail is by driving (51.5%). Biking ranks second (30%) as a method of traveling to the trail. Walking to the trail, at 18.5%, is the third most common way to get to the trail. This is surprising for a mostly urban trail, but it may be a factor of the trail route and of the locations where survey participants were recruited. Driving was also the most popular method of getting to the trail in 2001, and at the same percentage of 51.5%. Many more people, however, bike to the trail in 2017 than in 2001, when only 14% biked. Walking has dropped from 29% to 18.5%. Compared to the statewide averages, Monon users drive more than the 46% who drive statewide, bike slightly less than the statewide average of 31%, and walk less to use the trail than other trails in the study (22.5% statewide average).

Monon Trail 11 Table 8: On Most Days How do You Get to the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Walk Count 52 35 % 18.5% 22.5% Drive Count 143 72 % 51.5% 46% Bicycle Count 83 48 % 30% 31% Bus/public transportation Count 0 0.1 % 0% 0.1% Ride with family/friends Count 0 0.25 % 0% 0.2% Total 278

The number of people who drive to use the Monon bay be explained by the distance the users travel to use the trail. 30% travel less than a mile compared to the statewide average of 35%, and 19% travel from 3-5 miles, more than the average of 14%. Exactly the same percentage (22.5%) travel more than five miles to use the Monon as the study-wide average. In 2001, the question was phrased a bit differently and the answers were not segmented exactly as they were in 2017. In 2001, survey participants were asked how far they travelled from home, a distinction not made in 2017. While the 2017 question divided the shorter distances into less than 1 mile, 1-3 miles, and 3.1-5 miles, the 2001 survey grouped the distances together as 0-1 miles and 2-4 miles. 49% of 2001 respondents traveled less than one mile, while 30% travelled one mile or less in 2017. Over the longer distances, brackets increased in five-mile incre- ments, so a direct comparison of longer distances cannot be made. In 2001, 13% of trail users travelled more than five miles. In 2017, almost twice as many trail users (22.5%) travel more than five miles to use the Monon. Table 9: How Far do You Travel to Use the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response <1 mile Count 84 55 % 30% 35% 1-3 miles Count 79 45 % 28.5% 29% 3.1-5 miles Count 52 22 % 19% 14% 5.1-7 miles Count 29 12 % 10.5% 8% >7 miles Count 33 23 % 12% 14.5% Total 277

12 2017 Indiana Trail Study Trail users were also asked how long it would take them to get to the trail if they were to walk (Table 10). This question was asked to see how trails stack up to the goal set forth in the Indiana Trails Plan of having all Hoosiers within five miles of a trail. 22.5% of Monon users are within a 10-minute walk of the trail compared with 24.5% statewide, and 43.5% were within a 30-minute walk. 19.5% of Monon users would have to walk more than 90 minutes to use the trail. The statewide average for these long-distance users is 21%. The fact that many users are willing to travel a lengthy distance to reach the trail underlines the quality and popularity of the Monon Trail and other Indiana trails, and also indicates their potential for tourism. Table 10: If You Were to Walk to the Trail, How Long Would It Take You?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response 1-10 Count 60 37 % 22.5% 24.5% 11-20 Count 40 22 % 15% 14.5% 21-30 Count 16 14 % 6% 9.5% 31-40 Count 21 12 % 8% 8% 41-50 Count 22 8.5 % 8% 6% 51-60 Count 25 12 % 9.5% 8% 61-70 Count 14 6.5 % 5% 4.5% 71-80 Count 6 3 % 2% 2% 81-90 Count 12 4.5 % 4.5% 3% >90 Count 51 31 % 19.5% 21% Total 267

As seen in Table 11, Monon users have been using their trail an average of nine years, almost exactly matching the statewide average of 8.5 years. Table 11: How Long Have You Been Using the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Average Time, Years 9 8.5

Monon Trail 13 Social Factors In addition to trails’ value as exercise and recreation facilities, they are frequently used for social activities. Fami- lies and friends walk together, walking clubs are more common, and benches and plazas are being constructed on trails across the nation as gathering spots in order to facilitate social activity. Tables 12-15 illustrate how frequently people use their trail with other people and when they use it. Table 12 shows that 45% of Monon users are on the trail with someone else, just below the statewide average of 47%. Of those who are frequently on the trail with other people, 55% (Table 13) are with family members—Just above the state average—and 33.5% use the trail with friends, exercise partners, or co-workers. Table 12: While On the Trail do You Usually Use it…

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response With others Count 125 74 % 45% 47% Alone Count 152 82 % 55% 53% Total 277

Figure 4: Biking and walking on the Monon Trail

14 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 13: Who do You Usually Use the Trail With?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Spouse/Partner Count 55 33 % 45.5% 45% Exercise Partners Count 18 10 % 15% 14% Children Count 2 3 % 2% 4% Children Count 6 2 % 5% 3% Coworker Count 3 1.5 % 2.5% 2% Friend(s) Count 18 13 % 15% 17.5% Other family members/relatives Count 9 2.5 % 7.5% 3.5% Walk/Run club Count 1 1 % 1% 1% Mix of family & friends Count 9 7.5 % 7.5% 10% Total 121

Usage of the Monon Trail is spread fairly evenly throughout the day (Table 14). A slightly larger percentage of people are on the trail during the late afternoon (27.5%) than other times, followed by afternoon at 26%. This is not unexpected and is reflective of the study as a whole, where the morning is the most common time statewide (27.5%) followed by late afternoon (26%). This question was not asked in 2001, when trail usage times were gathered solely through trail counter data. Trail counter data was collected in 2017 as well, and a brief comparison can be made between this question and 2001 counter data, when late afternoons were the most popular time on the Monon with a secondary peak in the morning. Table 14: What Time of the Day do You Usually Use the Trail?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response 5-8 AM Count 20 16 % 7% 10.5% 8-11 AM Count 69 42 % 26% 27.5% 11 AM- 2 PM Count 56 30 % 21% 20% 2-6 PM Count 74 40 % 27.5% 26% After 6 PM Count 50 25 % 18.5% 16% Total 269

Monon Trail 15 Reasons for Trail Usage Table 15 illustrates trail users’ primary reason for using a trail. The majority of Monon users (61%) are on the trail for physical activity. This is slightly lower than the state average of 63.5%. The second most popular primary reason for using the trail was for recreation (14.5%), followed by transportation at 8.5% and stress reduction at 6%. Use for transportation among Monon users is the highest among all trails in the study, which is perhaps not surprising considering its location in the largest urban area in the state. A similar question with broader answers was asked in 2001. Health/exercise was the top answer among Monon users with 71%, whereas 22% stated recreation and 5% indicated they were commuting. The statewide averages in 2001 were 69% for health/exercise, 28% for recreation, and 3% for commuting. Adding 2017’s physical activity, stress reduction, and health issues answers into a single category shows that 72% of trail users Figure 5: Bridge over the White River statewide and 69% of Monon users answered similarly to 2001’s health/exercise response. Combining 2017’s recreation, walking the dog, and aesthetics answers to compare to the 2001 answer of recreation shows that trail use for recreation has decreased from 28% to 23.5% statewide, while it has increased from 22% to 23.5% on the Monon. Statewide, trail use for commuting is up from 3% in 2001 to 5% in 2017, consistent with the increase among survey participants on the Monon from 3% to over 8%. Table 15: What is the Primary Reason You Use This Trail Instead of Other Facilities?

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Physical Activity Count 165 97 % 61% 63.5% Recreation Count 39 20.5 % 14.5% 13.5% Transportation Count 23 7.5 % 8.5% 5% Walk Dog Count 13 7 % 5% 5% Stress Reduction Count 16 10 % 6% 6.5% Health Issues Count 5 3 % 2% 2% Aesthetics Count 11 7.5 % 4% 5% Total 272

16 2017 Indiana Trail Study Trail users were asked to rate the importance of certain characteristics of the trail they were using from least important to most important on a 5-point scale. This is helpful information for trail planners so they can understand the features and atmospheric amenities that should or should not be included when they are planning new trail routes or updating existing trails. Tables 16-22 show how trail users rate these characteristics. The feature of the Monon Trail that users appreciate the most is having access at no cost. (Table 22). 89.5% said that access was either most important or quite important, followed by access to the outdoors and nature at 88% (Table 22). Location ranked third at 82% (Table 19), followed by scenery at 77% (Table 16), having accessible features at 73.5% (Table 21), and terrain at 71.5% (Table 17). Far behind was the idea that the trail had a friendly atmosphere (Table 20), with only 55.5% rating this as most or quite important. The top answer statewide was access to the outdoors with 88%, followed by access at no cost at 84.5% and the convenience of the location at 79.5%. Table 16: Scenery (Beauty of Environment) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 0 1.5 % 0% 1% Somewhat Important Count 16 7.5 % 6% 5% Important Count 45 28 % 17% 18.5% Quite Important Count 92 51 % 34% 34% Most Important Count 115 64 % 43% 42% Total 268

Figure 6: Scenery on the Monon Trail in Carmel

Monon Trail 17 Table 17: Terrain (Flat, Paved, etc.) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 9 6 % 3.5% 4% Somewhat Important Count 14 13 % 5.5% 9% Important Count 49 27 % 19.5% 18.5% Quite Important Count 65 43.5 % 25.5% 30% Most Important Count 118 56 % 46% 38.5% Total 255

Table 18: Access (No Cost Associated With Use) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 2 3 % 1% 2% Somewhat Important Count 10 5 % 4% 3.5% Important Count 16 15 % 6% 10% Quite Important Count 56 32 % 21% 21.5% Most Important Count 183 95 % 68.5% 63% Total 267

Table 19: Convenience (Location) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 3 2.5 % 1% 2% Somewhat Important Count 11 7.5 % 4% 5% Important Count 35 20.5 % 13% 13.5% Quite Important Count 73 38 % 27.5% 25.5% Most Important Count 146 81 % 54.5% 54% Total 268

18 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 20: Friendly Atmosphere (Social Environment) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 14 8 % 5.5% 6% Somewhat Important Count 40 19.5 % 16% 14% Important Count 58 37.5 % 23% 26.5% Quite Important Count 71 37.5 % 28% 26.5% Most Important Count 69 38 % 27.5% 27% Total 252

Table 21: Accessible Features (Ease of Entry/exit, Seating, Surface, etc.) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 6 5.5 % 2% 4% Somewhat Important Count 18 10 % 7% 7% Important Count 46 28 % 17.5% 19% Quite Important Count 77 45 % 29.5% 31% Most Important Count 114 56.5 % 44% 39% Total 261

Table 22: Outdoor (Environment/Access to Nature) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 2 1.5 % 0.5% 1% Somewhat Important Count 5 4 % 2% 2.5% Important Count 25 13 % 9.5% 8.5% Quite Important Count 74 38 % 27.5% 25% Most Important Count 163 95 % 60.5% 63% Total 269

Monon Trail 19 Concerns and Problems Trail users were asked about their concerns about the trail and problems they may experience while on the trail (Tables 23-36). Just as with preferred trail characteristics, trail users were asked to rate their concerns from least important to most important. This data is useful for gauging physical and safety features of trail design, construction, and maintenance, and can be used to inform trail managers of particular issues that may exist on their trail. Ranking at the top for Monon users is the general accessibility of the trail (Table 25) with 64.5% of trail users rating the concern as quite important or most important. The issue garnering the second most concern is the location of the trail, with 61% of users rating it as quite or most important (Table 26). Ranking third among concerns is safety at 55.5%. The rating of safety as a concern contrasts with more specific concerns that generally factor into safety, but which receive ratings of low importance. In fact, 14.5% rated wild animals (Table 36), 19.5% rated fear of injury (Table 30), 24% rated a lack of police patrols (Table 32), and 29% rated bikers and skaters going too fast (Table 31) as their most important or quite important concerns. 36.5% did say that unleashed pets (Table 35) were their most important or quite important concern or problem—the highest of any trail in the study. Maintenance of the trail was the next highest ranked concern (Table 27), with 52% of respondents rating it as most important or quite important. Maintenance is consistently ranked among the top two concerns or problems across all other trails in the study, but ranks only 4th among Monon users. Congestion on the trail (Table 29) was rated higher than on all other trails, with 50% of users saying it was their most important or quite important concern. Facilities (drinking fountains, restrooms, etc.) was the only other concern, with more than 40% (45%) of users rating it as most or quite important. Other logistical and amenities issues (i.e., parking, visibility of mile markers, and adequate signage) do not appear to rate highly as concerns (Tables, 27, 33, and 34). Statewide, location of the trail was the highest rated concern, noted by 59% of survey respondents. The concern with the next highest level of users rating it as most or quite important was maintenance at 55.5%, higher than the Monon, followed by accessibility (52.5%) and safety (51.5%). Similar to the Monon, there is a bit of a disconnect between safety and concerns that feed into safety, and a relatively low level of concern about logistical and amenities problems. A similar question was asked in 2001 with mostly similar but somewhat different answers. The results were reported by mean and not by percentages as in 2017, so comparisons between the two studies have been made by rankings of the responses. In 2001, trail users across the state said that personal safety was their most important issue, followed by vandalism, safe intersections, and natural surroundings. On the Monon, personal safety also ranked as the top concern, followed by safe road/stream intersections (not an option in 2017), trail vandalism (also not an option in 2017), and natural surroundings. As in 2017, safety rated high as a concern, while individual components of safety, such as crowded conditions and adequate ranger/safety patrols, were ranked lower in 2001. Neither unleashed pets nor wild animals were options in 2001.

20 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 23: Safety Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 20 17 % 8.5% 12% Somewhat Important Count 35 21.5 % 15% 15.5% Important Count 50 28.5 % 21% 21% Quite Important Count 51 25 % 21.5% 18% Most Important Count 81 46 % 34% 33.5% Total 237

Table 24: Parking (Lack of, or Cost) Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 44 33 % 22% 29% Somewhat Important Count 43 26.5 % 22% 23% Important Count 46 21 % 23% 18.5% Quite Important Count 41 18 % 21% 15.5% Most Important Count 23 16 % 12% 14% Total 197

Figure 7: Monon Trail Crossing in Indianapolis Monon Trail 21 Table 25: Accessibility of the Trail Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 36 21.5 % 16% 17% Somewhat Important Count 29 16.5 % 13% 13% Important Count 37 22 % 16.5% 17.5% Quite Important Count 58 31.5 % 26% 25% Most Important Count 64 35 % 28.5% 27.5% Total 224

Table 26: Location Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 33 20 % 15% 15.5% Somewhat Important Count 16 12.5 % 7% 10% Important Count 38 20 % 17% 15.5% Quite Important Count 61 32.5 % 27% 25.5% Most Important Count 77 42.5 % 34% 33.5% Total 225

Table 27: Facilities (Restrooms, Water Fountains) Average Monon Trail Statewide Response Least Important Count 23 14.5 % 10% 11% Somewhat Important Count 38 24.5 % 16% 18.5% Important Count 67 39.5 % 29% 30.5% Quite Important Count 59 28 % 26% 21% Most Important Count 43 25 % 19% 19% Figure 8: Comfort Station at Rohrer Road on the Monon Trail Total 230

22 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 28: Maintenance Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 21 13.5 % 9% 10.5% Somewhat Important Count 27 15 % 12% 11.5% Important Count 63 30 % 27% 23% Quite Important Count 64 36.5 % 28% 27.5% Most Important Count 56 37 % 24% 28% Total 231

Table 29: Space/Congestion on the Trail Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 13 18 % 5.5% 14% Somewhat Important Count 45 24.5 % 19% 19.5% Important Count 59 34 % 25% 27% Quite Important Count 72 30 % 30.5% 23.5% Most Important Count 46 20.5 % 19.5% 16% Total 235

Table 30: Fear of Injury Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 54 33.5 % 27% 30% Somewhat Important Count 64 30.5 % 32% 27.5% Important Count 43 24 % 21.5% 22% Quite Important Count 28 13 % 14% 12% Most Important Count 11 10 % 5.5% 9% Total 200

Monon Trail 23 Table 31: Bikers/Skaters Going Too Fast Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 38 33 % 18.5% 30% Somewhat Important Count 57 30 % 27.5% 27% Important Count 52 24.5 % 25% 22.5% Quite Important Count 35 12.5 % 17% 11% Most Important Count 25 10.5 % 12% 10% Total 207

Table 32: Police Presence Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 34 30 % 17% 27% Somewhat Important Count 53 28.5 % 27% 25.5% Important Count 63 30 % 32% 27% Quite Important Count 29 12.5% % 15% 11.5% Most Important Count 18 10 % 9% 9% Total 197

Table 33: Adequate Signage Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 44 27.5 % 23% 25.5% Somewhat Important Count 50 27 % 26% 25% Important Count 57 32 % 30% 29.5% Quite Important Count 30 15.5 % 16% 14% Most Important Count 9 7 % 5% 6% Total 190

24 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 34: Visibility of Distance / Mile Markers Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 42 27 % 22% 24.5% Somewhat Important Count 42 28 % 22% 25% Important Count 53 28 % 28% 25% Quite Important Count 31 16.5 % 16% 15% Most Important Count 23 12 % 12% 10.5% Total 191

Table 35: Unleashed Pets Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 41 29 % 20% 25% Somewhat Important Count 47 25 % 23% 22% Important Count 43 24 % 21% 21% Quite Important Count 35 17 % 17% 14.5% Most Important Count 40 20 % 19.5% 17.5% Total 206

Table 36: Wild Animals Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Least Important Count 75 45 % 43% 45.5% Somewhat Important Count 46 27 % 26.5% 27.5% Important Count 28 16 % 16% 16.5% Quite Important Count 14 5 % 8% 5% Most Important Count 11 5.5 % 6.5% 5.5% Total 174

Monon Trail 25 When asked to rate their single most important concern (Table 37), more Monon users said that space and congestion on the trail (21%) was their biggest concern, which is consistent with its high ranking as an overall concern. This is much higher than the state average of 11%, and much higher than the next most significant concern of bikers/skaters going too fast (13%). Maintenance was the next highest ranked most important concern, followed by lack of safety with 12.5% and facilities with 12%. As seen in Table 35, many Monon users consider unleashed pets on the trail to be a problem, though not many (3%) see them as the most important problem. Statewide, maintenance topped the list of most important concerns (19%), followed by facilities (18.5%). Lack of safety also rated near the top of most important concerns with 11%. Unleashed pets (7%) and wild animals (2%) were among the lowest rated concerns statewide. In 2001, the corresponding questions asked about levels of satisfaction with specific concerns. As with the previ- ous question, results were reported as means rather than percentages, so comparisons are made here by ranking the responses. Drinking water/toilets (listed in 2017 as “Facilities”) was the area with the lowest level of satisfaction on the Monon and on every trail surveyed in 2001. Other concerns with the highest levels of dissatisfaction on the Monon were reckless behavior (similar to 2017’s “Bikers/Skaters Going Too Fast”), lack of adequate police patrols (parallel to 2017’s “No Police Patrols”), crowded conditions, and trail vandalism (not an option in 2017). Natural surroundings was the area with the greatest level of satisfaction among Monon users in 2001. Table 37: What Concerns You Most About the Trail? Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Lack of Safety Count 32 15.5 % 12.5% 11% Parking (Lack of, Cost) Count 4 3 % 1.5% 2% Accessibility of the Trail Count 15 7 % 6% 5% Location Count 15 8.5 % 6% 6% Facilities Count 30 26 % 12% 18.5% Maintenance Count 34 26.5 % 13% 19% Space/Congestion Count 54 15.5 % 21% 11% Fear of Injury Count 2 2 % 1% 1% Bikers/Skaters Going Fast Count 41 13 % 16% 9.5% No Police Patrols Count 13 7 % 5% 5% Adequate Signage Count 1 2 % 0.5% 1.5% Visibility of Distance Count 4 2 % 1.5% 1.5% Unleashed Pets Count 8 10 % 3% 7% Wild Animals Count 2 3 % 1% 2% Total 70

26 2017 Indiana Trail Study Physical Activity Factors Tables 38-40 show that access to a trail continues to have a positive impact on exercise levels. 65% of Monon users said that they exercised regularly before they started using the trail, compared to the statewide average of 59.9% (Table 38). 67% of Monon users said that their exercise level increased since they began using the trail (Table 39), with 38% saying that their exercise level had increased at least 50%. Comparatively, 67% of statewide users said they had increased their exercise level, with 36% saying that they increased it by more than 50% since they started using a trail. While impressive, this is actually a drop in the number of people who said they exercise more because of their trail use: in 2001, 78% of statewide trail users reported an increase in exercise levels. It is important to note, however, that many hundreds of miles of trails have been built in the state since the 2001 study and many more Hoosiers have had access to trails for a number of years. Table 38: Did You Exercise Regularly (Three or More Times per Week for 20 Minutes per Session) Before Using a Trail? Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Yes Count 178 93 % 65% 59.5% No Count 97 63 % 35% 40.5% Total 275 Table 39: Since Beginning to Use a Trail, Has the Amount of Exercise that You Do...

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Increased Count 186 105 % 67% 67% Decreased Count 4 2 % 1% 1% Why? Older Adults, Health Issues Do not Know Count 8 3 % 3% 2% Stayed the Same Count 80 48 % 29% 30% Total 278 Table 40: Since Using the Trail, Approximately how Much has Your Exercise Level Increased? Monon Trail Average Statewide Response <25% Count 46 27 % 26% 27% 26-50% Count 66 37 % 37% 37% 50-75% Count 29 16.5 % 16% 16% 76-100% Count 25 12 % 14% 12% >100% Count 14 8 % 8% 8% Total 180

Monon Trail 27 Figure 8: Biking on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis Trail users were also asked about other physical activities they did apart from trail activities (Table 41). Most common among Monon users were housework (18%), walking (16%), strength training (14%), and bicycling (13%). Statewide, housework and walking were the top activities reported, each by 24% of users, followed by bicycling (17.5%), strength training (16.5%), and gardening (15.5%). The most common amount of time spent doing these other activities (Table 42) was more than five hours per week on both the Monon Trail (36%) and statewide (34%). Table 41: Physical Activities in the Past Month, Apart from Your Trail Activities Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Aerobic Dance Count 19 7 % 2% 1.7% Bicycling Count 134 72 % 13% 17.5% Strength Training Count 143 66 % 14% 16.5% Golf Count 31 14 % 3% 3.5% Jogging/Running Count 84 45 % 8% 11% Walking Count 168 97 % 16% 24% Gardening Count 107 62 % 10% 15.5% Swimming/Water Exercises Count 41 23 % 4% 5.7% Organized team sport Count 18 8.5 % 2% 2% Housework Count 180 6 % 18% 1.5% Yoga Count 76 2 % 8% 0.5% Martial Arts Count 4 0.1 % 0.5% 0.02% Racquet Sports Count 14 0.5 % 1.5% 0.1% Total 1019 28 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 42: Time Spent Doing Physical Activities Altogether (per week)

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response <30 Minutes Count 9 5.5 % 3.5% 3.5% 30-60 Minutes Count 9 8.5 % 3.5% 5.5% 1-1.5 Hours Count 18 11.5 % 7% 7.5% 1.5-2 Hours Count 22 11 % 8% 7% 2-2.5 Hours Count 18 12 % 7% 8% 2.5-3 Hours Count 20 11.5 % 7.5% 7.5% 3-3.5 Hours Count 27 11 % 10% 7% 3.5-4 Hours Count 21 10 % 8% 6.5% 4-4.5 Hours Count 11 8.5 % 4% 6% 4.5-5 Hours Count 17 10.5 % 6% 7% >5 Hours Count 96 51 % 36% 34% Total 268

Monon Trail 29 Economic Factors To gauge the economic impact of trails, users were asked about their spending on certain items related to trail use, as well as their travel to and from the trail. Table 43 shows that trail users spent an average of $77.40 each on the day they were surveyed on trail use. While daily expenditure is interesting as a snapshot, it is not as reliable for measuring economic impact as annual spending, because daily spending may be skewed by the purchases of “big ticket” items by a relatively small number of people, or may be influenced by weather or local events that encour- age or discourage trail use on a given day. Annual spending is more useful as a picture of the economic impact of trails on their communities. Monon Trail users spent an average of $4,107 per year on trail-related expenditures, second highest among all trails in the study and far outpacing the state average of $3,564. Monon users spent $1,768 per year on food and $1,187 on transportation, including lodging. Monon user spent more than all other trail users in the study on transportation, bikes, shoes, maps, and parking, and second most on clothing. In 2001, Monon users only spent $889 per year on trail-related expenses, $120 of which was for transportation and lodging and $100 for food. As the Monon Trail has grown in popularity since the 2001 study, it has clearly been a boon to local merchants and has added a significant amount to the economies of the communities it serves. Table 43: For the Items Listed Below, Please Indicate Your Amount Spent on the Day You Used the Trail and also Your Estimated Annual Spending Average Dollars, Spent On Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Bikes $48.00 $18.00 Skates $0.10 $0.10 Clothing $5.00 $4.50 Shoes $11.00 $7.50 Food $9.00 $12.00

DAILY Maps $0.30 $0.50 Transportation $4.00 $4.50 Parking $0.00 $0.20 Total (by Trail) $77.40 $47.30

Bikes $388 $307 Skates $9 $5 Clothing $408 $331 Shoes $233 $191 Food $1768 $1678 Maps $69 $42 ANNUAL Transportation $1187 $970 Parking $49 $40 Total (by Trail) $4107 $3,564

30 2017 Indiana Trail Study Demographic Factors Tables 44-51 display the demographic characteristics of trail users completing surveys. It should be noted that the Monon is a complex trail that passes through urban, suburban, and rural zones, though rural portions of the trail were not studied. The Indiana Trails Study focused on the urban and suburban sections and the demographic data collected is reflective of that. Further studies on the rural sections of the trail may show different results. Monon users in the studied sections are mostly male (51.5%) and almost exclusively white (92%). They have above- average education levels and household incomes. Approximately 89% of Monon users have more than a high school education, which is more than the 82.5% of trail users statewide. The Monon Trail also has a higher percentage of users at upper income levels (53% above $91,000) than the statewide average (46.5% above $91,000). Monon users are very similar to state averages in the ages of users. Slight differences exist in the 18-25 age bracket, with 9% of Monon users vs. 6% of study wide trail users, and in the above-65 age bracket, with 16% of users vs. 20% statewide. These differences indicate that Monon users are slightly but not significantly younger than the average trail user across the state. In 2001, Monon users were younger (37% above 45) and more likely to be female (54%). 97% were Caucasian. Monon users in 2017 also have slightly lower (though still very high) average education levels than in 2001, when 92% had more than a high school education, but have a similar average spread of income levels as in 2017. Table 44: Age

Years Monon Trail Average Statewide Response 18-25 Count 24 9 % 9% 6% 26-35 Count 36 19.5 % 13.5% 13% 36-45 Count 41 24 % 15.5% 16% 46-65 Count 123 67 % 46% 45% ≥65 Count 43 31 % 16% 20% Total 267

Table 45: Gender

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Male Count 137 83 % 51.5% 56% Female Count 129 65 % 48.5% 43.5% Missing Count 0 1 % 0% 0.5% Total 266

Monon Trail 31 Table 46: Race/Ethnic Origin

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response White Count 244 137 % 92% 91.9% African American Count 8 2 % 3% 1% American Indian/ Alaska Native Count 1 0.25 % 0.5% 0.1% Asian Count 1 2 % 0.5% 1% Hispanic or Latino Count 6 4 % 2% 3% Declined to answer Count 6 4 % 2% 3% Total 66

Table 47: Marital Status

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Single Count 56 27 % 21% 18% Married, Domestic partnership Count 189 106 % 72% 72% Widowed Count 3 3 % 1% 2% Divorced Count 16 11 % 6% 7.5% Separated Count 0 1 % 0% 0.5% Total=1190 264

32 2017 Indiana Trail Study Table 48: Employment Status

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Homemaker Count 10 5 % 4% 3% Self-employed Count 22 14.5 % 8% 10% Student Count 15 5.5 % 6% 4% Employed for wages Count 159 84 % 60% 56.5% Retired Count 56 36.5 % 20% 24.5% Not employed Count 5 2 % 2% 1% Declined to answer Count 0 2 % 0% 1% Total=1190 267

Table 49: Employment Satisfaction

Average Monon Trail Statewide Response ≤30% Count 8 5 % 5% 2% 31-60% Count 13 10.5 % 7% 10.5% 61-100% Count 165 83.5 % 88% 87.5% Total 186

Figure 10: Trail users on the Monon Trail in Indianapolis

Monon Trail 33 Table 50: Educational Attainment

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response Eighth grade or less Count 0 1 % 0% 1% High school or GED Count 28 22 % 11% 14.5% Technical school Count 11 10 % 4% 6.5% College graduate Count 113 57.5 % 43% 39% Graduate school Count 81 39 % 30% 26% Professional degree Count 26 16.5 % 10% 11% Declined to answer Count 6 2.5 % 2% 2% Total 265

Table 51: Household Income Level

Monon Trail Average Statewide Response <$10,000 Count 2 3 % 1% 2% $10-38,000 Count 9 14 % 4% 10% $38,001- 91,000 Count 104 57 % 42% 41.5% $91,001-190,000 Count 93 49 % 38% 35.5% >$190,000 Count 39 15 % 15% 11% Total 247

34 2017 Indiana Trail Study Trail Counters All trails participating in the study were asked to place counters on their trails to collect data on trail usage. The preferred counter locations were at or near the trailheads or stations where study volunteers who were recruit- ing trail users to take the study survey were located in order to most closely correspond counter data with survey data. Most trails were able to place counters in these locations but some were not. Bloomington (B-Line Trail), for example, uses a type of counter that is embedded in the pavement of the trail and was not able to move it near volunteer stations. Trail partners were asked to supply counter data to the study team for the duration of survey recruitment- April 3 through October 8. Not all trails, for various reasons, were able to do that. Two trails, Pumpkinvine and Nickle Plate, did not have their own counters and were not able to acquire them, so the study team installed counters at those locations in early July. Some trails have counters installed year-round and supplied counts for the complete months of April and October and some were not able to place counters during the entire requested time frame. Other maintenance issues left gaps in the counts at various times. The data tables reflect the counter data that each trail partners was able to supply. Estimates of the number of unique users-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Mechanical trail counters are also known to consistently undercount due to various types of physical challenges. Errors include people with backpacks or swinging arms being counted multiple times (Shoji, et. al., 2008), walkers in groups or closely spaced in relation to other walkers being undercounted (Turner, et. al., 2007), fast moving bicycles not being detected (Turner, et. al., 2007), and counter breakdown or malfunc- tion. Trail counter data is being reported as shown on the counters and not adjusted for any users who may have passed multiple times or any potential counter variations. The highest counts on any trail in the study, by far, were at the 3rd Street location of the B-Line Trail in Blooming- ton at an average of 45,540 users from April through September. The next highest trail count comes from the 91st Street Trailhead of the Monon Trail with 17,542 from April through October. The trail with the lowest average monthly activity was the Nickel Plate with an average of 2,312 from July through October. Both the B-line and the Monon are urban trails while the Nickel Plate is a rural trail Both Indianapolis and Carmel supplied monthly counter data for the Monon Trail, shown in Table 52. Counters were placed at the 10th Street and 91st Street Trailheads in Indianapolis, as well as the 106th Street and Rhorer Road Trailheads in Carmel. July and August are the busiest months at every trailhead, consistent with most other trails in the study, followed by June, then September.

Monon Trail 35 Table 52: Monthly counts on the Monon Trail

Trailhead April May June July August Sept Oct Total 10th St. 11,083 12,512 13,940 15,462 15,467 14,197 11,383 94,044 91st St. 18,918 18,904 20,698 22,944 21,734 21,156 15,986 140,340 106th St 28,006 28,637 29,547 24,065 79,684 Rhorer Rd. 24,280 25,667 26,128 22,602 73,010

Figure 11: Bridge over Fall Creek in Indianapolis

36 2017 Indiana Trail Study Summary and Conclusions

The findings in the report summarize data collected on the Monon Trail throughout the duration of the 2017 Indiana Trails Study and analyzed by the research team. The study was intended to take a broad look at trail use patterns, physical activity on trails, and attitudes of trail users about trail management issues, trail quality, and trails’ impacts on personal health and wellness. This study was a follow up to the acclaimed 2001 Indiana Trails Study, and documents changes in the behavior and attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors, while also adding critical data collection regarding health behaviors and a deeper look at economic impacts of trails. The Monon was examined in the 2001 Study, and its inclusion in 2017 contributes to a longitudinal body of knowledge about the significant impacts trails have on individual and public health, physical activity and exercise habits, as well as the many ways that trails add value to the communities that build them. While the trails in the study show many similarities across much of the data collected, there are also differences that illustrate the unique characteristics of each community and trail. As such, the conclusions drawn from this study should be viewed in a broad context. This study was constructed not only to build on the 2001 Indiana Trails Study but to facilitate further research that continues to track the changes and impacts made by the development of trail networks well into the future. This research was also conducted to continue to inform trail planners and managers about the most important issues that they should be considering. Based on the data analysis presented in this report, the following conclusions about the Monon Trail can be drawn: 1) Overall trail use peaks in the summer months of July and August at all trailheads, just as it does throughout most trails in the study. 2) Trail users are predominately male, white, college educated, and have an above average income. This pattern is common throughout the state and the nation, based on the data collected in many other studies. 3) The most popular activity on the trail is biking, with 45% of trail users reporting biking as their primary activity, among the highest rate of any trail in the study. Walking was the next most popular at 31%, followed by jogging/running at 24.5%. Walking was the most popular activity on the Monon in 2001, as it was with most trails in the study. Percentages of Monon users biking have more than doubled since 2001. Skating has all but disap- peared as an activity on every trail. Biking is also the most popular activity statewide, a significant shift from the 2001 study, when walking was the primary activity. 4) The vast majority of trail users (86%) come from home to use the trail. Most drive to get to the trail, and only 18.5% walk. Fewer Monon users than average travel less than a mile to use the trail and more travel from 3-5 miles to use it. 5) The Monon very closely matches study-wide averages for social factors. 45% of Monon users are on the trail with other people, mostly family members, followed by friends, coworkers, and exercise partners. 6) Having access to the trail increases the level of activity by trail users across the study. This effect was not as pronounced on the Monon, where 65% of users already exercised three or more times per week before they started using the trail. The trail has lead, however, to a sizable increase in the level of exercise, with 67% of Monon users saying that they exercise more because of the trail, and 38% of them indicating that they have increased their exercise level by at least 50%. 7) A sizeable number of trail users are on the trail to improve their health, with 69% of Monon users reporting that their primary reason for trail use is either physical activity, stress reduction, or health issues, an increase from 2001. Recreation-related use was the next most common reason at 23.5%, up slightly from 2001. 8.5% report using the trail for transportation, which constitutes the highest percentage among all trails in the study. This percentage has almost tripled since 2001. The number of people using the trail for transportation statewide is almost double the use for transportation in 2001. 8) Monon users appreciate having free access to the trail more than any other attribute. Access to the outdoors and nature was the highest rated feature of the trail, followed by the convenience of the location. 9) Congestion on the trail was the most prevalent answer when trail users were asked what issue or problem concerned them the most. This is very similar to 2001, when survey respondents rated it near the top as the issue they were least satisfied with. This is not surprising considering the mostly urban route and the high popu-

Monon Trail 37 larity level of the trail. The next most important concern is bikers and skaters going to fast, which is consistent with the problem of congestion on the trail. Maintenance was the next highest rated concern, though not as high among Monon users as on the other trails in the study. 10) While safety in a general sense is one of the issues that concerns Monon users the most, most individual components of trail safety—fear of injury, Police presence, unleashed pets, and wild animals—are not rated as high as other concerns. Exceptions to this are congestion and bikers and skaters going too fast. Other than over- crowding, whichis clearly an issue for trail users, the Monon seems to be a well-constructed, well maintained, and comfortable trail. 11) Trails have a growing and significant economic impact on their communities, and this is especially the case with the Monon. Trail users report spending an average of $4,107 per year on trail-related expenses—the second most of any trail in the study and more than quadruple the average in 2001. Monon users spend more on transportation to and from the trail, as well as on bikes, shoes, maps, and parking, than any other trail in the study, and second most on clothing. The trail is clearly a benefit to nearby merchants and the local economies.

38 2017 Indiana Trail Study References

American League of Bicyclists. (2015). Bicycle commuting data. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/commutingdata Indiana Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Indiana Trails Advisory Board. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/dnr/outdoor/4094.htm Indiana Department of Natural Resources. (2017). Indiana State Trails Plan Progress Report. Retrieved from https://www.in.gov/dnr/outdoor/files/or-TrailsProgress.pdf Shoji, Y., Yamaguchi, K, & Yamaki, K. (2008) Estimating annual visitors flow in Daisetsuzan National Park, Japan: combining self-registration books and infrared trail traffic counters. J For Res 13, 286–295. DOI 10.1007/s10310-008-0085-5 “Number of Participants in Skateboarding in the United States from 2006 to 2016 (in Millions).” Statista: The Statistics Portal. Accessed May 29, 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191308/participants-in-skateboarding-in-the-us-since-2006/ Turner, S., Middleton, D., Longmire, R., Brewer, M., & Eurek, R. (2007) Testing and evaluation of pedestrian sensors. College Station, TX. The Texas A&M University System. Retrieved from: http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/swutc.tamu.edu/publications/technicalreports/167762-1.pdf

Monon Trail 39 2017 Indiana Trails Study Summary Report Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana 2017 Indiana Trails Study Summary Report Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana

Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands 501 N. Morton St., Suite 101, Bloomington501 N. Morton St., Suite IN 101, 47404 Bloomington IN 47404 www.eppley.orgwww.eppley.org

Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands 501 N. Morton St., Suite 101, Bloomington IN 47404 www.eppley.org