Cutting Edge Research in Trails and Greenways – Michigan’s project
Dr. Christine Vogt, Dr. Chuck Nelson and Kristen Steger Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies Michigan State University Michigan Trails
The Michigan Trails Alliance was formed in 1986. Twenty-one years later Michigan is second only to Wisconsin in the nation with 131 established “rail-trails” covering 1,398 miles. There are currently 15 regional trailway initiatives working in Michigan to connect individual trailways to each other and to important destinations. (Source: Connecting Michigan: A statewide trailways vision and action plan.) Goals of the Almost 10 Year Investment in Community Trails Research Who uses the trails? Level of tourism demand? How many users? Are there notable differences in users by: Location Surface type How does a community benefit from trails? What type and level of support do adjacent residents and nearby businesses have for the trail? Michigan Trails Researched Types of Studies Performed
Shading denotes On-Site Off-Site research User – Resident and Adj. Nearby Comprehensive Trail Tourist Resident Businesses Events Recreation Study Pere Replicated in 2008 Marquette for Midland County TART Replicating in 2008 Paint Creek
Lansing River Trail Fred Meijer Recently completed White Pine for Kent County Kal Haven On-Site Methods
Observe/tally uses Provides data to extrapolate to overall use by type of user, activity Conduct on-site self-administered survey of a selected portion of those observed Unweighted provides data on characteristics of uses Weighted to account for frequency of use bias provides data on characteristics/opinions of distinct users Off-Site Methods – Mail Questionnaires
Adjacent residents and business Tax assessor’s office – plat maps and lists Chamber of Commerce Driving the area Event registrants Sample or census depending on population size Ability to ask in-depth economic questions Registered voters Likely to be sample as population significant at township, city or county level Provides estimate of proportion of households using trail system over set period Explore importance of trails (development, maintenance related to other potential recreation opportunities Done in context of comprehensive recreational planning Use and Users of Michigan Trails
All studied trails featured Total Number of Trail Uses
Leelanau Trail 29,318 uses between May and Sept. 2002
T.A.R.T Trail 154,803 uses between May and Sept. 2002 Pere Marquette Trail
Vasa Pathway 178,000 uses between April and Sept. 2001 11,406 uses between May and Sept. 2002
White Pine Trail Paint Creek Trail 54,096 uses 66,420 uses between July and Sept. 2005 between May and Sept. 2004
Lansing River Trail 72,040 uses between May and Sept. 2004 Uses by Day
Leelanau Trail 192 uses per day
T.A.R.T Trail 1,012 uses per day Pere Marquette Trail 973 uses per day
Vasa Pathway
92 uses per day Paint Creek Trail 434 uses per day
White Pine Trail 588 uses per day Lansing River Trail 471 uses per day Reasons for Using the Trail
Leelanau Trail Recreation 39% Exercise 56% Race training n/a T.A.R.T Trail Transportation 5% Recreation 38% Exercise 44% Pere Marquette Trail Race training n/a Recreation 35% Transportation 18% Exercise 61% Vasa Pathway Race Training n/a Transportation 3% Recreation 41% Exercise 58% Race training n/a Paint Creek Trail Transportation 1% Recreation 37% Exercise 48% White Pine Trail Race Training 11% Recreation 35% Transportation 4% Lansing River Trail Exercise 52% Recreation 59% Race training 10% Exercise 35% Transportation 3% Race training 3% Transportation 3% Types of Trail Use and Disabled Users
Leelanau Trail Bicycle 43% In-Line Skating 13% T.A.R.T Trail Run/Walk 42% Bicycle 49% Disabled 3% In-line Skating 11% Run/Walk 38% Pere Marquette Trail Disabled 3% Bicycle 54% In-line Skating 22% Vasa Pathway Run/Walk 23% Bicycle 43% Disabled 4% In-line Skating n/a Run/Walk 57% Paint Creek Trail Disabled 3% Bicycle 56% In-line Skating n/a White Pine Trail Run/Walk 44% Bicycle 77% Disabled 3% In-line Skating 6% Lansing River Trail Run/Walk 17% Bicycle 49% Disabled 4% In-line Skating 5% Run/Walk 46% Disabled 5% Origin of Uses
Leelanau Trail Resident 84% Live Elsewhere 16%
T.A.R.T Trail Pere Marquette Trail Resident 79% Resident 77% Live Elsewhere 21% Live Elsewhere 23%
Vasa Pathway Resident 78% Live Elsewhere 22% Paint Creek Trail Resident 90% White Pine Trail Live Elsewhere 10% Resident 92% Lansing River Trail Live Elsewhere 8% Resident* 56%
Live Elsewhere** 44%
*Resident considered resident of the city of Lansing ** 15% were E. Lansing residents and 29% elsewhere Getting to the Trail
Leelanau Trail *The Pere Marquette survey asked users if User did not drive to trail 45% they had used the parking lot. 54% of User drove to trail 55% users used the parking lot T.A.R.T Trail Pere Marquette Trail User did not drive to trail User did not drive to trail* 60% 46% User drove to trail 40% User drove to trail 54% Vasa Pathway User did not drive to trail Paint Creek Trail 20% User did not drive to trail 55% User drove to trail 80% User drove to trail 45%
White Pine Trail User did not drive to trail 41% Lansing River Trail User drove to trail 59% User did not drive to trail 54% User drove to trail 46% Trail Uses by Adults and Children
Leelanau Trail
Trail use by adults 76%
Trail use by children 24% T.A.R.T Trail Trail use by adults 79% Pere Marquette Trail Trail use by children 21% Trail use by adults 76% Trail use by children 24% Vasa Pathway Trail use by adults 88% Trail use by children 12% Paint Creek Trail Trail use by adults 86%
White Pine Trail Trail use by children 14% Trail use by adults 81%
Trail use by children 19% Lansing River Trail Trail use by adults 86% Trail use by children 14% Gender Profile (All ages)
Leelanau Trail Male users 55% Female users 45%
T.A.R.T Trail Pere Marquette Trail Male users 59% Male users 39% Female users 41% Female users 61%
Vasa Pathway Male users 54% Paint Creek Trail Female users 46% Male users 53% Female users 47%
White Pine Trail Male users 56% Lansing River Trail Female users 44% Male users 57% Female users 43% Adjacent Residents
Pere Marquette Rail-Trail and Fred Meijer White Pine Trail featured Property Relation and Distance from Trail
Property in relation to the trail Pere Marquette-Midland County Pere Marquette-Isabella County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County 5.1% 16.7% 4.0%
Adjacent or right Adjacent or right Adjacent or right next to trail next to trail next to trail Trail intersects Trail intersects Trail intersects property property property
94.9% 83.3% 96.0%
Approximate Distance from Trail Pere Marquette-Midland Pere Marquette-Isabella Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County County County Range 1-3,520 yards 50-1,760 yards 1-1,760 yards Mean 100 yards 394 yards 60 yards Type of Residential Ownership
100 93.2%
90 83.2% 80 70 Pere-Marquette- 60 53.8% 53.8% Midland County 50 Pere-Marquette- Isabella County 40 Fred Meijer White 30 Pine-Kent County 20 9.0% 7.7% 3.8% 7.7% 7.7% 6.8% 3.8% 10 2.6% 5.8% 4.0% 3.9% 3.4% 2.3% 1.7%
0 Residential Apartment Business Agricultural Undeveloped Something Home Operations Use Lands else Resident Respondents’ Demographics
Gender Age (years) 54 54 70 62.0% 54 60 54.0% Pere Marquette- Pere Marquette- 50.3% 49.7% Midland County 50 46.0% 53 Midland County 38.0% 40 Pere Marquette- 52 51.3 Pere Marquette- 30 Isabella County Isabella County 51 20 Fred Meijer Fred Meijer 10 White Pine-Kent 50 White Pine-Kent County 0 County Male Female 49 Length of Residency (years)
38.7 40 Pere 32 Marquette- 35 Midland 30 County Pere 25 20 Marquette- 20 Isabella County 15 10 Fred Meijer 5 Whi te Pi ne- Kent County 0 Resident Respondents’ Employment Status
Pere Marquette-Midland County Pere Marquette-Isabella County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County
60 55.0% 50.0% 50
37.1% 40 34.4%
30 21.1% 19.2% 19.2% 20 16.5% 11.6% 0.0% 6.7% 10 6.1% 5.3% 5.6% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 3.3% 0.7% 1.1% 0 Full-time Part-time Retired Self Unemployed Homemaker Student Resident Respondents’ Educational Attainment
60 52.6% 50 44.0% 41.9% 41.3% 40.0% 40
28.8% Pere Marquette-Midland 30 County Pere Marquette-Isabella 20 16.3% 12.0% 12.6% Fred Meijer White Pine- 10 Kent County 4.2% 2.3% 4.0% 0 Less than High College Graduate high school School Diploma or School Diploma some college Resident Respondents’ Attendance at Planning Meetings
10.0% 10 9 8.5% 8 7 Pere Marquette- Midland County 6 Pere Marquette- 5 Isabella County 3.8% 4 Fred Meijer White 3 Pine-Kent County 2 1 It is important to note PMRT – Midland Cty and White 0 Pine were studied after trails’ existence (10 or so years). PMRT-Isabella Cty was studied before trail construction. Adjacent Residents’ Use of Trail
65.0% of Pere Marquette-Midland 90 83.0%84.7% County residents used 80 Pere Marquette- the trail for exercise and 70 Midland County improving their health. 60 100.0% of Pere Pere Marquette- 50 46.0% Isabella County Marquette-Isabella 40 33.3% County residents used 30 Fred Meijer the trail to exercise and 19.2% White Pine-Kent to spend their free time. 20 14.2%16.7% County 10 3.8% 3.8% 63.6% of Fred Meijer 0 White Pine-Kent County Used Daily Weekly residents used the trail for exercise and fun and enjoyment Residents’ Perceived Social Impact of Trail
4.5 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9 4 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.5 Pere Marquette- Midland County 2.9 3.0 3 2.7 2.7 2.8 Pere Marquette- 2.5 Isabella County Fred Meijer White 2 Pine-Kent County 1.5 Rating scale with mean 1 presented: 1=Very Negative Influence 0.5 2=Moderate Negative Influence 3=Neutral 4=Moderate Positive Influence 0 Own Life Household Neighborhood Community County Members 5=Very Positive Influence Residents’ Perceived Economic Impact of Trail
Speed at which property would sell Amount at which property would sell 68.9% 76.9% 80 80 56.0% 71.3%
60 60 39.5% 27.7% 40 40 18.4% 24.1% 20 20 4.8% 3.4% 4.5% 4.6% 0 0 Less Money More Money No Difference Fast Slower No Difference Pere Marquette-Midland County Pere Marquette-Midland County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County
Pere Marquette-Isabella County residents were not asked this question Residents’ Rating of Trail Conditions
4.5 4.2 4.0 Pere Marquette-Midland 4 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.7 County 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County
3 Rating scale with
2.5 mean featured: 1=Very Poor 2 2=Poor 3=OK 1.5 4=Good 5=Very Good 1
0.5 Pere Marquette-Isabella County residents were 0 not asked this question Overall Presence of Removal of Sense of Safety Privacy Maintenance litter trash Trail Influence on Depreciative Behaviors Pere Marquette- Isabella County Percent of respondents reporting no residents were not change in depreciative behaviors. asked this question. 80 73.2% 72.7% 71.3% 72.6% 70 68.1% 69.1% 67.4% 62.7% 63.9% 63.6% 63.3% 59.9% 63.0% 60.1% 59.3% 60 57.3% 55.2% 55.6% 54.3% 52.9% 52.9% 50.7% 50 44.7% 42.9% 40
30
20
10
0 Noise Unleashed Pets Discourteous Trespassing Illegal M otor Loitering Illegal Parking Thefts Vandalism Drainage Damage to Farm Actual liability users Vehicle Use Problems Crops/Livestock suits Pere Marquette-Midland County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County Trail Influence on Quality of Life Conditions Pere Marquette- Isabella County Percent of respondents reporting increase residents were not of quality of life conditions. asked this question. 80 73.2% 72.0% 69.5% 70 68.1% 67.9% 67.1% 68.1% 65.2% 59.5% 58.3% 60 57.1% 58.5% 57.9% 54.7% 53.6% 50.0% 50 46.9% 42.6% 40 38.7% 35.4% 32.5%32.6% 30
20
10
0 Recreation Community Pride Personal Community Health and Neighborhood Perservat ion of Non-Motorized Positive Social Aesthet ic Value Nat ural and Opportunities Enjoyment Revitalization Fitness Enhancement Open Space Trans. Interactions Cultural Ed. Pere Marquette-Midland County Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County Nearby Businesses
Pere Marquette Rail-Trail and Fred Meijer White Pine Trail featured Employees’ Use of Trail
100 If ee’s used 100.0% % of businesses 90 the trail 80.7% using trail 80 when… Pere Marquette- 70 Midland County 96% of nearby Midland 60 57.0% County business employees used the Pere 50 42.2% Pere Marquette- Marquette Trail 40 33.3% 33.3% Isabella County 26.9% 100% of nearby Isabella 30 26.0% 22.0% County business 20 Fred Meijer employees used the Pere 10 White Pine-Kent Marquette Trail 0 County Before During After 54% of nearby Kent County business Work Work Work employees used the Fred Meijer White Pine Trail Businesses’ Attendance at Planning Meetings
50.0% 50 45 40 Pere Marquette- Midland County 35 30 Pere Marquette- 25 Isabella County 20 14.0% 13.0% 15 Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent 10 County 5 0 Businesses’ Support for Trail
4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.0 Pere Marquette- 4 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8 Midland County 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 Pere Marquette- Isabella County 3 Fred Meijer White 2.5 Pine-Kent County Rating Scale with mean featured: 2 1=Very Opposed 2=Moderately Opposed 1.5 3=Neutral 4=Moderately Supportive 1 5=Very Supportive 0.5 Pere Marquette-Isabella County 0.0 0.0 businesses were not asked their 0 opinion about the trail shortly after and Trail today Before Built Shortly after Planning and Construction during the construction process. Design Businesses’ Perceived Social Impacts of Trail
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.24.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 Pere Marquette- 3.5 Midland County 3 Pere Marquette- Isabella County 2.5 Fred Meijer White 2 Pine-Kent County 1.5 Rating scale with mean 1 featured: 1=Very Negative Influence 0.5 2=Moderate Negative 0 Influence Employees Neighborhood Community County 3=Neutral 4=Moderate Positive Influence 5=Very Positive Influence Final Comparison of How Neighborhoods of Residents and Businesses View the Trail
Pere Marquette Rail-Trail and Fred Meijer White Pine Trail featured Comparison of Trail to Abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way
Adjacent Residents
60 54.6% 50 46.3% Pere Marquette-Midland County 40 30.8% 30.%8 30 23.1% Pere Marquette-Isabella County 20.6% 17.8% 20.6% 20 15.8% 3.9% 11.5% Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent 6.6% 8.6% 10 4.0%5.3% County 0 Much Worse Moderately Neutral Moderately Much Better Worse Better
Nearby Businesses 60 54.8% 50 47.8% 37.0% Pere Marquette-Midland County 40 33.3% 30 26.2% 16.7% Pere Marquette-Isabella County 20 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% Fred Meijer White Pine-Kent County 10 4.3% 6.5% 4.3% 0.0% 2.4% 0 Much Worse Moderately Neutral Moderately Much Better Worse Better Overview of Findings
Methods Volunteers, students or summer interns are appropriate workforces for on-site surveying Observations or counting PLUS short user survey are easy to implement with a random sampling frame Event surveys with a registration list are relatively easy to do and yield high response rates. An on-site event survey is more challenging Overview of Findings
“In” community trail (sidewalk and trail system) yielded the highest use levels and greatest proportion of transportation use (Traverse City and TART trails)
Trail and sidewalk system in Traverse City Overview of Findings
Longer trails are more heavily used by cyclists (White Pine Trail, Pere Marquette – both trails are paved)
White Pine Trail Pere Marquette Trail Overview of Findings
Trail neighbors are generally supportive of the nearby trail as shown by their own high level of use and opinion of the trail as better than rail or an abandoned corridor. Studies of residents before a trail is built and/or agricultural areas show some skepticism.
Pere Marquette in Isabella Pere Marquette in Midland County County Website with results and instruments located at www.carrs.msu.edu/trails Or e-mail [email protected]