Sussex Branch Trail 2011 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis Contents

Executive Summary...... 2.

Historical Perspective...... 4

Locational Analysis...... 5

Sussex Branch Trail Map...... 6

Demographics...... 8

Qualitative Values of the Sussex Branch Trail...... 9

2.011 Survey Results...... 10

Methodology and Analysis...... 14

Comparative Analysis...... 16

Sussex Branch Trail User Estimate...... 2.0

Economic Impact...... 2.1

Trail Maintenance, Surface and Safety...... 2.4

Appendix A—Trail Counter Data...... 2.6

Funding provided by the F. M. Kirby Foundation

Our thanks to Boyd Loving for photos on pages: 3 (middle and right), 7, 17, 19 (top), 2.0, 2.2., and 2.5; and Teresa Rose for the photos on pages 10, 14 and 2.1. Sussex Branch Trail 2011 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis

Carl Knoch, Manager of Trail Development Northeast Regional Office Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

January 2012

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Northeast Regional Office 2.133 Market Street, Suite 2.2.2. Camp Hill, PA 17011 tel 717.2.38.1717 / fax 717.2.38.7566

National Headquarters 2.12.1 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 2.0037 tel 2.02..331.9696 / fax 2.02..2.2.3.92.57 www.railstotrails.org www.TrailLink.com Executive Summary

An analysis of the economic data and The Sussex Branch Tail is a multi-use pathway that the trail user counts leads to an estimate runs for 18 miles in from Waterloo of the annual economic impact of Road in Byram Township to Mill Street in Branch- the trail on the communities through ville, Sussex County. which it passes. During 2011, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) conducted this study of the users of the Sussex From data collected in 2011, we Branch Trail under a grant from the F. M. Kirby estimate the annual economic Foundation. This study utilized a survey methodol- impact of the Sussex Branch Trail ogy previously tested on , New Jersey to be $239,000. and trails and documented in RTC’s Trail User Survey Workbook (www.railstotrails.org/ resources/documents/resource_docs/UserSurvey- Methodology.pdf).

This survey was designed to monitor trail user characteristics and economic impact. Survey forms were available at eight locations along the Sussex Branch Trail from mid-May through October 2011. Completed responses were mailed back to RTC. In all, 304 completed survey forms are included in this analysis.

The survey included seven questions about expen- ditures in order to develop a profile of trail user spending habits. Nearly 84 percent of respondents indicated they had purchased some form of durable good, also known as a “hard good,” for use while on the trail (shoes, bike supplies, etc.), with users spending an average of $294.32 per person in the previous 12 months. Consumable goods, or “soft goods” such as snacks and drinks, were purchased by 51.2 percent, for an average expenditure of $9.88 per person, per trip. Lodging was the third factor examined for economic analysis. Just 2.5 percent of the Sussex Branch Trail survey respondents indi- cated they paid for lodging at a hotel or motel for an average of $52.75 per night.

2. / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey For this study, we placed two infrared counters on respondents; nearly 80 percent rated safety and the trail. Based on the collected data, we estimate security along the trail as good to excellent; and there are more than 13,000 annual user visits to the 78.5 percent felt the trail surface was good to Sussex Branch Trail. excellent.

ZIP codes indicate a large majority of trail users on The respondents’ willingness to donate a voluntary the Sussex Branch Trail are from the local commu- annual fee to help maintain the trail was substantial, nities in Sussex County (67.2 percent). Trail users with 63.3 percent in support and 36.7 percent op- from other New Jersey counties represented 29.8 posed. percent of the sample. The remaining trail users came from other states (3.0 percent). The segment of trail used most often by respondents was Kittatinny Valley State Park to U.S. Route 206 The age profile of users is similar to that seen in (22.1 percent). The next most heavily used section other trail surveys, with the majority of users (53.8 was Cranberry Lake to Waterloo Road, mostly percent) in the range of 46 to 65 years old. through Allamuchy Mountain State Park (18.7 per- cent). Lowest usage was at the far northern segment The Sussex Branch Trail is used primarily for walking of the Sussex Branch Trail between Mill Street in and bicycling, with walking/hiking slightly more Branchville to Augusta Hill Road (6.7 percent). In common (39.6 percent) than cycling (37.1 percent). the comments, this section was singled out as having Another 11.4 percent of respondents indicated pet poor trail surface conditions. walking as a primary activity. The Sussex Branch is part of an evolving trail Most survey respondents (53.8 percent) spent one network across the state of New Jersey. The Liberty– to two hours on the trail. Only 18.7 percent of Water Gap Trail, when completed, will stretch from respondents spent more than two hours on their Liberty Park on the Hudson River in Jersey City, to visit. With the trail being used more for walks, this Columbia on the . Liberty–Water breakdown is fairly typical. Gap Trail signage appears along the Sussex Branch Trail at trailheads and road crossings. However, only Only a little more than a quarter (26.5 percent) of 47.4 percent of survey respondents acknowledged survey respondents indicated they considered their awareness of the Liberty–Water Gap Trail. use of the trail recreational, while more than half (67.4 percent) indicated they considered their use of the trail to be for health and exercise. This pattern further validates the high percentage of respondents who use the trail more than twice a week.

Overall, maintenance on the Sussex Branch Trail was rated good to excellent by 78.1 percent of

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 3 Historical Perspective

The Sussex Branch Trail began in the late 1840s as In 1966, train service was discontinued between the narrow-gauge, mule-drawn Sussex Mine Rail- Andover and Branchville. The depot in Newton was road, whose primary purpose was hauling iron ore torn down in 1970. The abandonment of the line from the mines in Andover to Waterloo Village was finalized by the mid-1970s. on the . The Sussex Mine Railroad changed its name to Sussex Railroad Company in In 1979 the New Jersey Department of Environ- the mid-1850s and embarked on expansion of the mental Protection (DEP) purchased the southern railroad to Newton. In 1864 the controlling interest end of the Sussex Branch Railroad corridor from in the Sussex Railroad Company was purchased by Netcong to Andover Junction. The northern seg- owners of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western ment, Andover Junction to Branchville, was pur- Railroad. By 1869, the Sussex Railroad had expand- chased by DEP in 1982. ed to reach Branchville. The trail is managed by the New Jersey Department The Sussex Railroad prospered until the early 1900s of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and when competition from automobiles and trucks Forestry. It runs through portions of two state parks, began to eat into passenger and freight business. By Allamuchy Mountain State Park and Kittatinny the early 1940s, the railroad was looking at reducing Valley State Park. service to Newton.

4 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Locational Analysis

The Sussex Branch Trail is located in Sussex County City. Phase one construction between Port Morris in northwestern New Jersey. The trail begins in Junction and Andover started in 2011. The Sussex Allamuchy Mountain State Park right off Waterloo Branch passes through Andover, where a number of Road (County Road 604), just north of Stanhope, establishments provide meals and refreshments just N.J., and extends 18 miles roughly north to Mill a few feet from the trail. Leaving Andover, the trail Street in Branchville, N.J. At Warbasse Junction crosses U.S. Route 206 and enters Kittatinny Val- near Newton, the Paulinskill Valley Trail intersects ley State Park. After leaving the park and crossing with the Sussex Branch Trail. Sparta Road, the Sussex Branch Trail goes on-road along County Road 663, which begins as Hicks The Sussex Branch passes through a primarily rural Avenue but becomes Warbasse Junction Road. At landscape, including two state parks: Allamuchy Warbasse Junction, the Sussex Branch intersects the Mountain State Park, which is primarily a hard- Paulinskill Valley Trail, which follows the banks of wood forest, and Kittatinny Valley State Park. After the Paulinskill River, shaded by the river’s riparian leaving Allamuchy Mountain, the trail passes along barrier. Crossing U.S. Route 206 (Hampton House the banks of Cranberry Lake. The trail crosses the Road), the Sussex Branch Trail continues on to Mill Lackawanna Cut-Off railroad line, which is being Street in Branchville through more open agricul- reactivated to provide service between Scranton, Pa., tural lands. northern New Jersey communities and New York

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 5 Sussex Branch Trail Map

6 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Map courtesy of New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 7 Demographics

The Sussex Branch Trail is located in Sussex County in New Jersey.

Sussex Branch Trail Region Demographic Profile (by County)* Sussex County Morris County Warren County Population (2.010) 149,2.65 470,2.12. 108,692. Median Household Income (2.009) $80,155 $96,300 $70,092. Households (2.005-2.009) 55,079 174,940 42.,376 Persons per Household (2.005-2.009) 2..72 2 2..73 2..54 Persons per Square Mile (2.010) 2.87.6 1069.8 304.5

*Source: U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts, December 2.011.

Sussex Branch Trail Region Population Projections (Projected by County)** 2.010 (actual U.S. Census) 149,2.65 470,2.12. 108,692. 2.013 155,900 496,300 114,400 2.018 162.,000 508,400 119,300 2.02.3 165,000 519,800 12.2.,900 2.02.8 169,800 532.,400 131,800

** Source: New Jersey Department of Labor and Work Force Development—Population and Labor Force Projections, December 2.011.

8 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Qualitative Values of the Sussex Branch Trail

The best way to summarize the qualitative values of the Sussex Branch Trail is to let the trail users describe how they feel about their experience. The following are verbatim comments taken from the 2011 Sussex Branch Trail User Survey forms.

Thank you for making the trail possible.

Highly used trail when people are present minimal safety concerns. When no one on it higher safety concerns. Have never seen a park ranger.

Fun fact: My husband and I met on this trail. It will always have a special place in our hearts. We love it.

Because the trail is so close to me I feel a stewardship to it. It’s my trail.

I’d like to see better marked mileage signs.

I really enjoy the trails & tell others about them all the time. Most people respond with Do you see a lot of bears?

Please improve muddy sections. These trails are great resources that should be preserved & maintained.

I had a wonderful all day trip travelling the length of the Sussex Branch & back. Also love the nearby Paulinskill Valley Trail. Yeah Rail Trails! Kiosks could be refurbished with new un-faded maps w/markers of you are here.

I moved to Stanhope/Byram recently due to access to such a trail.

Great idea to get survey. Full map of Paulinskill & Sussex Branch are hard to find. Even a newspaper type pay box on trail would be great revenue for trail & convenience for users.

The NJ rail trails are my main source of recreation and exercise. Keep up the good work!

Portions of the trail were very narrow, however, scenery was nice & we would go back! Thank you!!!

Could put mile markers up so if someone calls for help you could indicate location.

Too Many unleashed dogs. Many large dogs. Some people don’t clean up after their dogs.

Have been using this trail for 15 yrs. Feel fortunate it is less than 2 mi from my home.

These rail lines are a small but great part of our history. It’s a fun ride.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 9 2011 Survey Results

10 / Morris County Trails 2.011 User Survey Question 1 Question 6 What is your ZIP Code? What is your gender? 67.2% Sussex County 60.7% Male 17.6% Morris County 39.3% Female 5.3% Warren County 2.6% Bergen County Questions 7 4.3% Other New Jersey counties What is your primary activity on the trail? 3.0% Other states 39.6% Walking/hiking 37.1% Biking Question 2 10.4% Jogging/running How did you get to the trail? 1.5% Horseback riding 66.0% Drive 11.4% Pet walking 18.5% Bike 6.1% Other 10.7% Walk 4.5% Run/jog Question 8 0.3% Horseback Generally, when do you use the trail? 17.8% Weekdays Question 3 21.7% Weekends How often, on average, do you use the trail? 60.5% Both 3.6% Daily 18.1% More than twice a week Question 9 31.6% Twice a week What time of day do you generally use the trail? 7.6% Once a week 33.9% Morning 17.8% A couple times a month 30.2% Afternoon 3.3% Once a month 7.2% Evening 11.2% Few times a year 28.6% Anytime 6.9% First time Question 10 Question 4 How much time do you generally spend on the Please identify your age group. trail on each visit? 1.3% 15 and under 0.7% Less than 30 minutes 3.3% 16–25 27.2% 30 minutes to 1 hour 8.2% 26–35 53.8% 1 to 2 hours 13.4% 36–45 18.4% More than 2 hours 24.6% 46–55 29.2% 56–65 Question 11 20.0% 66 or older Would you consider your main use of the trail to be for… Question 5 26.5% Recreation Were any children 15 years of age or younger with 67.4% Health and exercise you on your trail experience today? 3.4% Training 9.9% Yes 0.3% Commuting 90.1% No 2.4% Other

Question 5a Question 12 How many children in each age category? Have you used other rail-trails in New Jersey? 15.4% Under 5 82.1% Yes 17.3% 5–9 17.9% No 67.3% 10–15

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 11

Question 13 Question 17 How did you find out about the trail? Approximately how much did you spend per per- 32.4% Word of mouth son on the items above? 17.1% Roadside signage The average for those who indicated they had 29.7% Driving past made a purchase and provided a dollar amount 1.6% Newspaper was $9.88 (n=119) 2.6% NJ DEP Note: This is an average amount spent per person, 6.3% Rails-to-Trails Conservancy per trip. 2.6% www.traillink.com 5.0% Other website Question 18 1.1% Bike shop Did your visit to the trail involve an overnight stay 1.6% Tourist information in one of the following types of accommodations? (n=35) Question 14 22.2% Motel/Hotel Has your use of the trail influenced your purchase 0.0% Bed-and-Breakfast of? 22.2% Friend or relative’s home 17.5% Bike 33.3% Campground 17.3% Bike supplies 22.2% Other 10.6% Auto accessories (bike rack, etc.) 19.7% Footwear Question 19 17.0% Clothing How many nights did you stay in conjunction with 1.4% Fishing equipment your visit to the trail? 16.4% Nothing Average number of nights per stay: 2.9 Question 15 Question 20 Approximately how much did you spend on the Approximately how much did you spend on over- items above in the past year? night accommodations per night? The average for those who indicated they had Average expenditure per night for those who pro- made a purchase and provided a dollar amount vided an amount was $52.75 (n=4) was $294.32 (n=206) Question 21 Question 16 In your opinion, the maintenance of the trail is… In conjunction with your most recent trip to the trail, did you purchase any of the following? 27.9% Excellent 50.2% Good 24.8% Beverages 15.9% Fair 10.7% Candy/snack foods 6.0% Poor 4.5% Sandwiches 1.6% Ice cream Question 22 7.5% Meals at a restaurant along the trail In your opinion, the surface of the trail is… 0.0% Bike rental 21.6% Excellent 2.1% Other 56.9% Good 48.8% None of these 15.4% Fair 6.2% Poor

12. / SussexMorris CountyBranch TrailTrails 2. 2.011011 User User Survey Survey

Question 23 In your opinion, the safety and security along the trail is… 29.6% Excellent 50.2% Good 14.1% Fair 6.1% Poor

Question 24 Which section of the trail do you use most often? 6.7% Mill Street, Branchville to Augusta Hill Road 7.9% Augusta Hill Road to Morris Farm Road 11.1% Morris Farm Road to Warbasse Junction 15.8% Warbasse Junction to Goodale Road— Kittatinny Valley State Park 22.1% Goodale Road—Kittatinny Valley State Park to U.S. Route 206 9.8% U.S. Route 206 to Smith Street, Andover 7.8% Smith Street, Andover, to Cranberry Lake 18.7% Cranberry Lake to Waterloo Road— Allamuchy Mountain State Park

Question 25 Are you aware of the Liberty-Water Gap Trail? 47.4% Yes 52.6% No

Question 26 Would you be willing to pay a voluntary fee to help maintain the trail? 63.3% Yes 36.7% No

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 13 Methodology and Analysis

Utilizing Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s Trail User For the purpose of this analysis, 304 survey forms Survey Workbook template as a starting point, the were completed. survey form was refined with input from the super- intendents of Kittatinny Valley State Park and Alla- Because several questions called for multiple muchy Mountain State Park, managers of the Sussex responses, and some survey respondents did not an- Branch Trail. The sample was self-selecting, mean- swer all of the questions, the percentages presented ing trail users could pick up survey forms that were in this analysis are based on the total number of available at each of the trail’s primary trailheads be- responses to each individual question. tween Waterloo Road in Byram Township and Mill Street in Branchville. The survey forms themselves (Disclaimer: As a self-selecting survey, the findings were folded into a postage-paid self-mailer that was are not absolute, and no one can predict with any addressed to Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s national certainty how trail users will act in the future. That office in Washington, D.C. Survey collection was said, the findings track very closely with similar conducted from the end of May 2011 through early surveys and other published reports, as well as anec- November 2011. dotal evidence).

For the purpose of this analysis, the data from the Sussex Branch Trail User Survey will be compared with data collected in a 2010 survey of users on the Paulinskill Valley Trail, which intersects with the Sussex Branch Trail at Warbasse Junction, and a 2006 survey of Pennsylvania’s Pine Creek Rail Trail. The Sussex Branch and Paulinskill Valley trails are managed by New Jersey State Division of Parks and Forestry. The Pine Creek Rail Trail is managed by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. All three trails run through or near small towns and are primarily rural in nature. The data-collection methodology and survey questions from the Paulinskill Valley and Pine Creek Trail surveys are in most cases identical to those used in the Sussex Branch Trail survey.

14 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey ZIP CODE MAP for Sussex Branch Trail Survey Respondents

Distribution of the survey respondents based on ZIP code.

2011 Trail User Survey Respondents - Sussex Branch Trail

2011 Trail User Sruvey Respondents by Zip Code 1 - 3

4 - 7 NY 8 - 19

20 - 33 See Map PA for Detail 34 - 66 NJ W MD Trail V State Zip Code 0 3 6 12 County Miles ´

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 15 Comparative Analysis

The age profile for the users of the Sussex Branch Trail is very similar to the age profile of users of the Paulinskill and Pine Creek trails. The highest percentage of users of the Sussex Branch Trail fall into the 56- to 65-year age range, which is a slightly older profile than on the comparative trails. The Sussex Branch Trail had the highest percentage of users over the age of 66. In all three of the studies, the majority of trail users are over the age of 45.

What is your age group? Comparison with other trails

30 35

25 30 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5

Percent 0 Percent 0 <15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >66 <15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >66 Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

As with most rail-trails, the predominant activities on the Sussex Branch Trail are walking and bicycling However, among respondents to the Sussex Branch survey, walking is the predominant activity. On both the Paulinskill Valley Trail and the Pine Creek Rail Trail, cycling was the most popular activity.

What is your primary activity? Comparison with other trails

40 80 35 70 30 60 25 50 20 40 15 30 10 20 5 10

Percent 0 Percent 0 Walk Bike Jog Equestrian Walk Pet Other Walk Bike Jog Other

Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

16 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey All three trails in this comparison pass through a combination of natural ‘wilderness’ areas as well as residential and retail areas. The Sussex Branch Trail has the most trail users out for less than two hours. This shorter average trail visit can be attributed to the greater frequency of walkers rather than cyclists, and that the trail has some “breaks” that require a trail user to travel on public roads. The 62-mile Pine Creek Rail Trail, which is the longest of the three, has the highest percentage of users out for more than two hours.

How much time did you spend on each trail visit? Comparison with other trails 60 80

50 70 60 40 50 30 40

20 30 20 10 10

Percent 0 Percent 0 <30 min 30-60 min 1-2 hr >2 hr <30 min 30-60 min 1-2 hrs >2 hrs Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

In conjunction with their trail visit, 51 percent of users of the Sussex Branch Trail purchased consumable items, which for the purpose of this survey included items such as snacks, water, ice cream and meals. This percentage is slightly smaller than what we see on the Paulinskill Valley Trail, and considerably lower than users of the Pine Creek Rail Trail. The percentage of trail users who make consumable purchases relates to the length of the trail and the environment through which the trail passes (feeling a need to be prepared by carrying some nourishment). The Sussex Branch Trail is isolated from services in many places, while the Paulinskill and Pine Creek trails pass through or very near community business districts.

Number of people who purchased “soft goods” Comparison with other trails 60 100

50 80 40 60 30 40 20

10 20

Percent 0 Percent 0 Yes No Yes No Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 17 Respondents to the Sussex Branch Trail User Survey reported spending an average of $9.88 while on the trail, just 5 cents less than users of the intersecting Paulinskill Valley Trail. Average expenditure for Pine Creek Rail Trail users is three times that of users of the Sussex and Paulinskill trails. Again, the distance traveled on the trail, the amount of time spent and the environment through which the trail passes all influence the amount of money spent on consumable goods; longer trips, as on the Pine Creek, are likely to incur more expenses along the way. Other factors corresponding to the amount of spending while on the trail can be the economy in general and the type of trailside retail (full-service restaurants versus quick-stop snack shops).

Average $ spent per person on “soft goods” Comparison with other trails

10 35 $9.88 30 8 $30.30 25 6 20

4 15 10 2 $9.88 $9.93 5

Average Dollars 0 Average Dollars 0 $ $ Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

In the case of all three of these studies, use of the rail-trail has influenced purchase of durable goods by nearly 80 percent of respondents. For the purpose of these three studies, durable or “hard goods” included bikes, bike supplies, auto accessories (bike racks, etc.), footwear and clothing. The percentage of respondents to the Sussex Branch Trail User Survey purchasing “hard goods” is comparable to other user surveys conducted by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

Number of people who purchased “hard goods” Comparison with other trails

80 100 70 80 60 50 60

40 40 30 20

20 cent cent Per Per 10 0 Yes No Yes No Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

18 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey The amount of spending reported by respondents to the Sussex Branch survey on durable goods such as bicycles and clothing averaged $294.32 per person in the previous 12 months. The difference in the amount spent by survey respondents on these trails is less than $80, with Sussex Branch Trail users spending the least. Considering there were a lot more walkers using the Sussex Branch Trail—an activity that generally requires fewer specialized gear items—the lower “hard good” expenditure rate is to be expected.

Average $ spent on “hard goods” per person? Comparison with other trails 300 400 $294.32 350 $371.91 250 $354.97 300 $294.32 200 250 150 200 150 100 100 50 50 verage Dollars verage Dollars

A 0 A 0 $ Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 19 Sussex Branch Trail User Estimate

Trail Counter Actual Estimated Adjusted for Adjusted for Adjusted for Location Count 12-Month Passing Multiple Missing Out-&-Back Count Counters* Counter** Trips

Route 206 2,115 19,934 19,934 23,921 12,558

Warbasse Junction 114 1,074 1,074 1,289 677

*Adjusted for Passing Multiple Counters: This adjustment is the percentage of trail users who would pass multiple counters. If 6 percent of users would pass multiple counters, then take .94 X Estimated 12.-Month Count. This adjustment is determined from survey data based on the distance counters are apart from each other, the amount of time users are on the trail, and their mode of transportation. For example, if counters are 7 miles apart, and a cyclist is on the trail for more than 2. hours traveling at 10 mph, he/she would pass two counters.

**Adjusted for Missing Counts: From experience with TrafX and RTC observations, the IR counters miss about 2.0 per- cent of trail users. Thus, multiply Adjusted for Passing Multiple Counters by 1.2..

Adjusted for Out-and-Back Trips: Experience from TrafX estimates that 95 percent of rail-trail trips are out and back. Therefore a vast majority of trail users pass an individual counter twice. Thus, divide Adjusted for Missing Counts by 2. and then multiply by 1.05.

2.0 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Economic Impact

The economic impact of the Sussex Branch Hard Goods Trail is comprised of a number of elements. Has your use of the trail influenced your purchase of? From the survey, the percentage of respon- (check all that apply) dents who have purchased “hard goods” (bikes, bike equipment, running/walking Bike 17.5% shoes, etc.) was determined. Many of these Bike supplies 17.3% respondents also revealed how much they spent on these types of purchases during the Auto accessories 10.6% past 12 months. Running/walking/hiking shoes 19.7%

Also from the survey, it was determined how Clothing 17.0% much trail users spent on “soft goods” (water, Fishing equipment 1.4% soda, snacks, ice cream, lunches, etc.) while using the trail. Again, the percentage of respon- Nothing 16.4% dents who made these types of purchases is another important aspect for determining the Approximately how much did you spend on the items economic impact. above in the past year? (enter dollar amount)

Very few of the respondents to the Sussex Average “hard goods” purchase $294.32 Branch Trail User Survey indicated that an (n=2.06) overnight stay was part of their trail experi- ence. Of the 304 completed survey forms, Soft Goods only nine indicated an overnight stay. Of those indicating an overnight stay, 22 percent In conjunction with your most recent trip to the trail, did were with family or friends and did not result you purchase any of the following? (check all that apply) in an out-of-pocket expenditure.

Beverages 2.4.8% Estimates of the economic impact of the Sus- sex Branch Trail are presented in the follow- Candy/snack foods 10.7% ing tables. These estimates are based on the Sandwiches 4.5% potential spending of trail users who passed the Route 206 and Warbasse Junction Road Ice cream 1.6% trail counters. They do not represent what the Meals at a restaurant along the trail 7.5% total economic impact for the total length of the Sussex Branch Trail may be. Bike rental 0.0% Other 2..1% None of these 48.8%

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.1 Approximately how much did you spend per person on the items above? (enter dollar amount)

Average “soft goods” purchase $9.88 (n=119)

Note that this is an average amount spent per person, per trip.

Did your visit to the trail involve an overnight stay in one of the following types of accommodations? (circle one response) Motel/hotel 2.2..2.% Bed-and-Breakfast 0.0% Friend or relative’s home 2.2..2.% Private campground 33.3% Other 2.2..2.%

How many nights did you stay in conjunction with you visit to the trail?

Average number of nights per stay 2..9

Approximately how much did you spend on over- night accommodations per night?

Average expenditure per night for those provid- ing an amount was $52..75 (n=4)

2.2. / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey The following chart takes the data collected in this survey and extrapolates the purchases for the trail users who passed the Route 206 and Warbasse Junction Road counters. While “hard good” purchases may not be made on an annual basis, they represent a significant expenditure figure. The purchase of “soft goods” does represent an annual expenditure because these purchases are made on a per-trip basis by users. The percentage of trail users paying for an overnight stay may vary significantly from year to year.

Economic Impact Analysis

Route Warbasse 206 Junction Rd. Average Annual Number of User Visits (19,934) (1,074)

Category % Usage Avg. $ Avg. Life Avg. # of trips Avg. # of nights Total Est. Expenditure Hard Goods* 83.6% $2.94.32. 6 years 10.6 $77,119 $4,155 Soft Goods 51.2.% $9.88 $100,837 $5,433 Accommodations 1.6% $52..75 2..9 $48.790 $2.,62.9

Hard Goods = (% Usage X (Avg. $ ÷ Avg. Life) X (# Users ÷ Avg. Number of Trips)* In the above example, the calculation for Route 2.06 would look like this: ((.836 X ($2.94.32.÷6)) X (19,934÷10.6) = $77,119

Soft Goods = (% Usage X Users Avg. $ X # Users) In the above example, the calculation for Route 2.06 would look like this: (.512. X $9.88 X 19,934) = $100.837

Accommodations= (% Usage X Users Avg. $ X # Users x Avg. # Nights) In the above example, the calculation for Spring Valley Road would look like this: (.115 X $52..75 X 19,934 X2..9) = $48,790

*Major “hard good” purchases such as a bike may be replaced every 5 to 10 years. Running shoes may be replaced every couple of months. For the purpose of this analysis, we assume an average life of 6 years for a “hard good.” To get a figure that is usable on an annual user basis, the “hard goods” need to be broken down to a per-trip figure. What this amounts to is working the average spending on a “hard good” down to a per-use depreciation amount.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.3 Trail Maintenance, Surface and Safety

One of the most important aspects of the trail user survey is that it allows the trail’s management organization to receive feedback, both positive and negative, from trail users. The 2011 Sussex Branch Trail User Survey can serve as a benchmark against which future maintenance, trail surface and cleanliness issues can be compared.

The questions on maintenance, trail surface and cleanliness were asked on the 2010 Paulinskill Valley Trail Study. Trail surface was not addressed in the 2006 Pine Creek Rail Trail study. To provide a basis of comparison for the management of the Sussex Branch Trail, the responses from those studies have been included in this section of the analysis.

According to respondents to this survey, the Sussex Branch Trail is fairly well maintained. The high standard set by the Pine Creek Rail Trail represents a significant amount of work on the part of the staff of the Penn- sylvania Bureau of Forestry. With the Sussex Branch and Paulinskill Valley trails being managed by the same New Jersey state park staff, their maintenance scores are virtually identical.

Opinion of trail maintenance Comparison with other trails

60 80

50 70 60 40 50 30 40

20 30 20 10

cent cent 10

Per 0 Per 0 Excellent Good Fair Poor ExcellentFGood air Poor Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

2.4 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Nearly 80 percent of respondents rated the Sussex Branch Trail surface Excellent or Good. In the comments, there were references to specific sections of the trail where surface repairs were needed. These responses may have come from surveys completed after rainstorms or other natural occurrences that impacted the trail surface. Again, both the Sussex Branch and Paulinskill trails are managed and maintained by the same organization, so their comparative scores are virtually identical.

Opinion of surface of the trail Comparison with other trails

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 cent cent

Per 0 Per 0 ExcellentGood Fair Poor ExcellentGood Fair Poor Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail

A trail user’s perception of the safety and security of the trail environment is influenced by the presence of other trail users (the more people you see on the trail, the safer you feel), the visual observation of park rangers, trail ambassadors or local police, and familiarity with the trail. From the chart, users of the Sussex Branch and Paulinskill Valley trails feel somewhat less safe than users of the Pine Creek Rail Trail. It should be noted that sections of the two New Jersey trails run through woodlands, while much of the lower half of the Pine Creek trail parallels an active road.

Opinion of safety and security of the trail Comparison with other trails

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 cent cent

Per 0 Per 0 ExcellentGood Fair Poor ExcellentGood Fair Poor Sussex Trail Sussex Trail Paulinskill Trail Pine Creek Trail

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.5 Appendix A—Trail Counter Data

2.6 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 / / 0. 0. 0 34. 3200 100. 115 applied. 2

by : : ) ) de (1 (2 : : ) ) Di vi

: : : : (1 (2 ) ) age age ) ) (1 (2 in in (1 (2 l l M M : x/ x/ rc ent rc ent ta ta : ean ean Pe To To Pe M M Ma Ma ion t Co mm ent Lo ca ( 92) 13 11- 31 .1 23 .3 63 .2 26 .0 17 .7 16 .9 24 .9 56 .3 69 .9 2011- , ( 92) 08 18 18 10-

: 11- 08- day end: 2011- , 2011- 2011- day eek eek ay W W day sd r day

( 104) tu h: ednes iday t: onday ues hur ean ean 18 M T W T Fr Sa S unday ar M M inis y y 09- F St ean ean ean ean ean ean ean M Dail Dail M M M M M M 2011-

14 ), (1 16 10- y 011233 0 4 0 0 1 2 1 2 8 2011- / 93 12 , da / 115 34. 34. 26. 26. 320 164 155 1 60 15) 115 (1 010101- 09 e 10- On er

2011- :

Nu mb da y: end:

ion: IO DS eek eek :

: ss ex at W W : h: RT : vi n n Su PER day end : ts

De

PO ngt Mi Mi

K x/ x/ m:

: m: eek eek oun er iods RE t: n: er : : W W Ma Ma x PEA mu

l C l P

0 jec nd ard de dia al al 80 60 40 20 t t ni mu 140 120 100 RAF To ta To ta P er iod Le M ean T Pro Count Mo Me Sta M axi Daily Daily FI VE Mi To To

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 / / 0. 2. 0. 212 0 24 100. applied. 2

by : : ) ) de (1 (2 : : ) ) Di vi

: : : : (1 (2 ) ) age age ) ) (1 (2 in in (1 (2 /M /M c ent c ent al al :

ean ean ax ax er er ot ot ion: at Loc Co mm ent ) (9 26 08- 6T 1T 0P 5P 2M 6M 2M 7M 5 1. 4. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 4. 3. 2011- , 0) (1 24

nd: 08- 18 18 e da y: day 08- 11- 011- eek eek ay day W W , 2 day nes s rd 3) d tu day 2011- 2011- i onday (1 ues hur ean ean M T We T Fr Sa S unday M M 22 y y ean ean ean ean ean ean ean

08- Dail M M M M Dail M M M h: t: ar nis 2011- St Fi , ( 15) 21 08- 2011- y 0 0 0 0 7 0 .3 , / / 93 24 0. 1. 3. da 212 106 106 4) 1 24 13 (2 20 011210 08-

10101- 2011- 0 :

2 end: da y:

ion: IO DS eek eek :

: at ss ex W W : h: RT : vi n n Su PER day end : ts

De

PO ngt Mi Mi

K x/ x/ m:

: m: eek eek er iods RE oun t: n: er : :2 W W Ma Ma x PEA mu

l P

l C 5 0 jec nd ard de al dia al 30 25 20 15 10 t t ni mu RAF To ta P er iod Le T Pro M ean Mo Me Sta Count M axi To ta FI VE Daily To Mi Daily To

2.8 / Sussex Branch Trail 2.011 User Survey Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.9 Northeast Regional Office 2.133 Market Street, Suite 2.2.2. Camp Hill, PA 17011 tel 717.2.38.1717 fax 717.2.38.7566

National Headquarters 2.12.1 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 2.0037 tel 2.02..331.9696 fax 2.02..2.2.3.92.57 www.railstotrails.org