;,__._,,:_§_Egg m

 

H_,::,_,.

 

f UBRARY
g h'fiichigan State
{ University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

 

G reenways:
Improving The Quality of Life
In Oakland County, Michigan

 

Prepared By:

Robert Daniel Balmes
Michigan State University
Urban and Regional Flaming Program
December 1997

Greenways: Improving The Quality Of Life
In Oakland County, Michigan

Robert D. Balmes

A Plan B Paper

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Urban and Regional Planning Program

Copyright by Robert D. Balmes 1997

Acknowledgments

Jon Bryan Burley, Ph.D Landscape Architecture, Michigan State University
Paint Creek Trailways Commission

Bill Stark, Paint Creek Trailways Coordinator

Linda Gorecki, Parks Manager Oakland Township

F. James Clathworthy, Ph.D Oakland University

Mary Balmes Wiedyk, permission to use cover design

A special thanks is extended to the above individuals for their assistance.

ii

Table Of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................. v
List of Illustrations .......................................................................................... vi
Abstract ........................................................................................................ 1
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................... 3
Section 2: What Is A Greenway? ........................................................................ 6

2.1 Greenway Concept

2.2 History of Greenways

2.3 Greenways in Michigan
Section 3: Quality of Life ....... _ .......................................................................... 12
Section 4: Benefits of Greenways ........................................................................ 15

4.1 Recreational Benefits
4.2 Cultural and Educational Benefits
4.3 Transportation Benefits
4.4 Environmental Benefits
4.5 Economic Benefits
Property Values
Tourism
Business and Industry
4.6 Crime and Vandalism

Section 5: Paint Creek Trail Case Study .............................................................. 32
5.1 Paint Creek Trail Profile
5.2 Paint Creek Trail Survey Methodology
Household Determination

Questionnaire Determination
Analysis Methods '

Section 6: Paint Creek Trail Survey Results ......................................................... 39
6.1 Question One
6.2 Question Two
6.3 Question Three
6.4 Question Four
6.5 Question Five
6.6 Question Six

iii

6.7 Question Seven
6.8 Question Eight
6.9 Question Nine
6.10 Question Ten
6.11 Question Eleve’n
6.12 Question Twelve

Section 7: Conclusions .................................................................................... 56
7.1 Survey Discussion
7.2 Recommendations To Commission
7.3 Survey Results Summary
7.4 Paper Conclusion

Bibliography ................................................................................................. 62

Appendix ..................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A: Group B Random Sampling List
Appendix B: Paint Creek Trail Survey Instrument
Appendix C: Survey Results

iv

Table

\IONQJIA

10

11
12
13

14

15

16

Question 1A:
Question 1B:

Question 1C:

Question ID:

Question 2:
Question 3:
Question 4:
Question 5:

Question 6:

Question 7:

Question 8A:
Question 8B:

Question 9:

Question 10:

Question 11:

Question 12:

List of Tables

How long have you lived in this home?
How important is the trail to the area?

How much impact did the trail have on you moving
to the area?

How important is the addition of the trail to the area?
Do you use the Paint Creek Trail?
What activity do you engage in on the trail?

How much do you feel your social and recreational
opportunities are improved by your proximity to
the trail?

How much do you feel the property value of your home
has been impacted by the trail?

Do you feel there are any factors that lessen your
enjoyment of using the trail?

Do you feel there are any factors that lessen your
enjoyment from living near the trail?

Do you feel safe using the Paint Creek Trail?
If feel unsafe, check all reasons that apply.

Based on experience with the trail, do you think
communities proposing to build a trail should:

How much of an asset do you feel the trail is to
local residents?

How much of an impact has the trail had on
improving the quality of your life?

What changes should the Paint Creek Trail
Commission make?

Page
39
40
4 1

42
43
44
45
46
47

48

50
51
52

53

54

55

Figure

3A, 3B

5A, 5B

7A, 73

8A, 8B

9A, 9B
10

List Of Illustrations

Paint Creek Trail Map

Paint Creek Trail Survey Map

How Long Have You Lived In This Home?

How Important Is The Trail To The Area?

Do You Use The Paint Creek Trail?

What Activities Do You Engage In On The Trail?
Are There Factors That Lessen Your Enjoyment?
Are There Factors That Lessen Your Enjoyment?
Do You Feel Safe Using The Trail?

What Do You Think About The Paint Creek Trail?

vi

Page

34B
40
41
43
44
48
49
51
52

Abstract

This report provides a comprehensive literature review on greenways and how these type
of linear spaces enhance the quality of life for communities in which they are located. The Faint
Creek Trail in Oakland County, Michigan is used as a case study to demonstrate how the quality
of life is improved for residents near greenways. The perceptual based survey results from 64
households is presented as evidence supporting this premise.

The report discusses and defines the modern-day greenway concept and its historical
roots. Greenways are generally referred to as linear open spaces consisting of natural vegetation.
They come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and usually connect natural areas and parks to each
other. The State of Michigan is regarded as a major participant in the greenway movement.
Overall, greenways are becoming very popular and recognized around the nation and world.
Greenways are recognized as playing an important role in bringing nature and personal well-being
back into cities, thereby increasing the quality of life for communities across the nation.

By enhancing the quality of life, greenways bring various types of benefits to communities
in which they are located. These include recreational, cultural and educational, transportation,
environmental and economic benefits.

Recreational benefits from greenways include increased opportunities for walking, biking,
jogging and hiking. From a cultural and educational standpoint, greenways provide benefits by
helping to develop a sense of place for communities by preserving historic districts, parks, and by
providing wonderful places for learning about the earth’s ecological processes. Greenways
provide transportation benefits by creating alternative modes of travel, which helps curb pollution

l

from automobiles and eliminates the risks of biking or walking along dangerous roadways.
Greenways bring environmental benefits to communities because they support natural systems and
help people maintain contact with nature. Economically speaking, greenways provide numerous
benefits to communities. These include positive impacts on property values, the promotion of
tourism, and they help assist communities attract business and corporate relocation.

The Paint Creek Trail serves as an excellent example of a greenway that brings many
benefits to the residents it serves, thereby increasing the quality of life in the area. A survey of 64
residents living near the trail revealed that it is regarded as a great asset to the area, and is used by
many people for various recreational activities. The results of the survey demonstrate that the
quality of life for residents living in Oakland County are positively impacted by the Paint Creek

Trail.

Key words: landscape planning, environmental design, environmental psychology, urban

planning, landscape architecture.

[‘0

Section 1: Introduction

Today we live in a fast paced society dominated by highways, parking lots, strip malls and
fast food chains. It is an artificial realm often promoting a kind of mindless race to nowhere.
There is virtually no connection with the natural world. As a result, people have become
dissatisfied with urban life and seek ways to live away from cities. Those who stay in urban areas
experience this lack of connection to nature as well, yet have no choice but to remain there. Thus
their quality of life often suffers. It would seem that we need to find a way to provide this
reconnection with nature in urban and suburban areas--thereby increasing the quality of life in
cities. Instead of moving to nature away from cities, we need to find ways to bring nature back
into cities.

“It is time to stop thinking of our cities as one place and nature as someplace else. Our
urban centers and edges host the vibrant variety of our culture. We should not have to think of
them as places to escape.” (Vancouver City Council 199521)

By reconnecting people with nature, greenways have brought many benefits to areas in
which they are located. Communities with greenways have experienced increased recreational
opportunities, improvements in health, improvements in air and water quality and many economic
gains. The Paint Creek Trail in Oakland County, Michigan serves as an excellent example of a
greenway that has provided a multitude of benefits to residents living in its vicinity (Figure 1).

The purpose of this research paper is to illustrate perceived benefits by residents
concerning a nearby greenway. An in depth discussion on the benefits of greenways for
communities is presented as well as the results from a detailed perceptual-based survey of 64

households located within 1/2 mile of the Paint Creek Trail in Oakland County. By conducting a
3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Paint Creek Trail

of... “—- . on.-

\-n.\

  

‘ "I
.-

 

 

PAINT CREEK
TRAIL

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

 

       
    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

l I 1.-
fl \ \ - : '
o y : ~.' ‘ ‘1’“/°
71" R . I “:0“
1'“! at ‘ ' .- V‘ “to uounram
f': 0"}??? ; .1 "C..- u, S” N: nrcnrnnou an! 4
‘1 ’ . I __ . . . - - -
a v ' k , l. l'_\. I I
" - u. t- O 3:10»er cnrrn nr)
2 \ ‘
'— D
I _‘ -
E ‘2'”!
. i i cumsmu no stouey Cnern no
, 2 -.
’f‘ “I; \ W I i."
I”-.. _ 1 \ O U l T
,o : \\ ,, g mwnnn nn 1.-
" ' I . . ." . ' V'
a" I " F 7 ... .7. -t.‘\"n\¥s.2‘
. r '~ 1r \ 9) " s 0 viii“ '
.. . \‘ mjr ll nn 4 't ‘i
r — t - u
>—. cg; \ T 8 .
l ‘ . ‘k 0 fl
‘5‘ o ' ( 4 m
. s. \ ‘
'1'“ ‘ 0‘0;- " t
L—.»‘.‘-- 1"\oo i
°§ \ ~. 0
'- /‘ ') oaxuuo rwn.
mum an “ PM"
\\ 13;" O
. F...“ K
\ if" -.
o a ooomsou \ ‘ _.
1 “ ytE“ "1i" sum "
en , i ""4 —————-—"‘l'"" , *-
auo nouuum : 3 y o. i‘
surr necu’nnou Alta ff, 4 j 0 ii
( O 4 J :7:_ \.
“ 0 l0 [juxt-
SILVER DELL I (20.4
In
4 "~
‘ c '( o '
h-l ~ 1 9 sroucv CREEK .6.
E J l 6 utmonnx ',;-.
‘3 A ‘ - -
6 § 9 ‘3 '-' 1. ‘ ”it-.1
t l‘. O “r . " I.- ‘32-i5:,-;'-t'}'l
| ' '~'. "it-u.‘ Llo~;'
- 0,.“M1 1.._ DUI ION no _=. MEAD no 0 final-t. \ } dry-2‘8 IMLE
fiochoIUOI NH" =3 '5 '# k3..’b.‘v7
L .of_ . t
s ,u \
‘ A 3 e i " :1 ‘ ‘
‘ .q l 0 3‘ t.
3' 9
ROAD - TO - ROAD MILEAGES \1 "I 3‘ o
\0 v’ a
'\~l. 9 0
Newton lo Kererlarkslon 1.1 ""“W "0 1 "0'" -" ’5 "'LE "0'
‘ 0' w
r-J A Q t! >
Kern-Clarkslon to Adams 15 o o g 3
5 W
Adams lo Gunn l 4 g j.— e cg: 3 .5
‘ ‘ no"- nocnuren n '1
Gunn to Gallagher 0 8 .4 i t—L 7‘ Wu nn
wutnn an YE ‘
—I ’M .0... u -
Gallagher to Silver Bell 0 G o 1 LI , .1. ;~'
r: H: ff“. [1‘
Silver Bell to Oullon 1.0 '2 '1'
o I
. z o
Dullon lo Trenken ‘2 S -" a: moon: an
2 c l
. . r’ [0. ¢
' h. M m l IP rk ’, ‘ . \
Trcnken lo Roc u c on a 0.8 no” no it i; ' ‘
o _
Elizabeth lo Dequmdre 2.0 ( E a "h. L
L-
5
TOTAL = 10.4 MILES f” 2 " $2 '.
r"°° z o 3 t
I") r-’\" n U 3 ‘
r"- o 0
A ‘ OI \
L‘ \. n > r\_ 2 ‘
x —. 3 3
( r / ‘L. I :3
o I
\ ’ I ‘ A - DINOSAUR HILL NA runs Pnesenve '
/ "out" a - nocne's ran MUNICIPAL PARK
} t o t
f —:::-:-:1
/ DMLE

rssion

ilways Comm'

Paint Creek Tra

Source

complete review of the current research on the benefits of greenways and by surveying a sample
of residents living near the Paint Creek Trail, 1 can ascertain the perceived benefits of greenways

for residents living in their vicinity.

Section 2: What Is A Greenway?

2.1 Greenway Concept

To lay the foundation for a discussion on the quality of life issues and benefits associated
with greenways,1 will briefly describe the greenway concept.

The term greenway usually brings to mind an image of a beautiful natural setting, perhaps
a park or a preserve. The word green even insinuates trees and wildlife, while way implies some
type of path or trail. Greenways, however, come in many different colors, shapes and sizes.
From a natural trail along a blue waterway to a pathway in the heart of America’s gray urban
realm, greenways cross a multitude of landscapes, ranging from natural areas to altered
landscapes. The word greenway has become a common expression, yet it is somewhat obscure
and ambiguous. Thus, the most common question asked is: “What exactly is a greenway?”
(Florida Greenways: 1995)

As defined by the Northwest Michigan Greenways Initiative, “Greenways are corridors of
protected open space managed for conservation and recreation purposes. Greenways often
follow natural land or water features, and link nature reserves, parks, cultural features, and
historic sites with each other and with communities.” (Northwest Michigan1995: 1) Furthermore,
greenways connect paths, natural areas, cultural and historic centers and even cities with each
other. They also serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas and its wildlife, and enable
people to have access to outdoor recreation in a wonderful natural setting (Grove: 1990).

Many people have hikes along a wooded pathway through rolling farmland or a protected
strip of land alongside a mountain. Still others have ventured along a protected river corridor or

even a riverside park in a large city. Many peOple have in fact experienced walking or biking
6

through a greenway without even knowing they were in one. In its simplest terms, a greenway is
a linear open space consisting of natural vegetation (Smith and Hellmund: 1993).

One of the special features of greenways is in their systematic approach. A greenway
system consists of large nodes or focal points, which are linked to smaller sites made up of
natural, historical, cultural and recreational areas. The nodes act like anchors, providing an origin
and destination point for people and wildlife moving through it. Nodes range in size from large
protected reserves to small regional parks. Natural linear paths connecting the nodes range in size
from large landscape links to small conservation and recreational corridors. Overall, for a
greenway to properly function, connectivity must exist. Every green space must be connected to
some type of open space. Therefore, fragmentation and isolated spaces will cause the system to
malfunction (Florida Greenways: 1995). “Greenways are not meant to stand by themselves, but to
link a number of outdoor opportunities in a continuous corridor, a traversible string of pearls.”
(Grove 1994: 3)

Since greenways come in many shapes and sizes, Charles Little in “Greenways For
America” discusses five major categories to differentiate them.

l. Urban Riverside Greenways: These greenways are often created along run-
down city waterfronts and are usually a part of a redevelopment program for a
city.

2. Recreational Greenm They feature trails and paths of considerable distance.
They are usually natural corridors and also canals or abandoned railways. This
paper’s case study on the Paint Creek Trail is an excellent example of a

recreational greenway.

3. Natural Greenway: These are ecologically significant areas along rivers and even
ridgelines. Wildlife use these spaces for migration, while humans value them for
hiking and studying nature.

4. Historic Greenways: They are created for citizens to have walking access along
a road, highway or waterway of significant historic and scenic value.

5. Regional Greenways: This type of greenway is based on natural land forms,
such as ridges, valleys and other natural areas. This is a comprehensive type of
system to create large open spaces linked together with interconnecting green

trails (Little: 1990).

2.2 History of Greenways

The concept of creating green spaces in cities is an ancient phenomena with a rich and
diverse history. The word greenway, however, was actually brought into common usage only ten
years ago, attaining national prominence in 1987 by the President’s Commission on The American
Outdoors (Sacramento River: 1992).

The concept of creating linear open spaces, however, can be traced back to ancient times
dating back to the beginnings of human civilization. Newton’s “Design On The Land” provides a
detailed history on the evolution of using green spaces in human settlements (Newton: 1971).
There are two examples that had a great influence on today’s greenway movement. In the 1860’s,
Frederick Law Olmstead, the distinguished father of Landscape Architecture envisioned the need
and potential for creating open spaces and parkways in America’s cities. In his plans, he also

stressed the need to create and link parkways in cities to natural ecosystems. His linear park .

system for the city of Boston, called the Emerald Necklace (1887), essentially established the
concept of greenways in cities. If any single person deserves credit for inventing the idea of
greenways, it was Frederick Law Olmstead (Ahren: 1991). In the 1880’s, Horace Cleveland and
his “Proposal of A Network of Parks and Parkways for Minneapolis-St. Paul” represented an
effort to create a regional system of parks and open spaces throughout the Twin Cities area.
Cleveland’s ideas helped shape and mold today’s regional and metropolitan greenway concepts
(Newton: 1971).

The greenbelt phenomena of the late 19th Century also serves as an important influence to
the modern-day greenway movement. Ebeneezer Howard’s Garden City Concept (1878) focused
on creating greenbelts around cities to limit sprawl, while tying the countryside and city together.
Despite its extensive use in parts of Europe, the concept was only used sparingly in the 1920's
and 1930's in the United States. The n0tion of creating greenbelts around cities, however, played
a vital role in the evolution of today’s greenway concept (Kitsap County: 1996).

During the 1920's, Benton McKaye, a leader in the Regional Planning movement,
suggested that creating “a common public ground” was needed to limit or hold back urban
development. In essence, McKaye sought to create open spaces to guide development and
control growth. He also stressed the creation of recreational opportunities with natural corridors
in America’s cities. As a distinguished forester and regional planner, McKaye’s ideas played a
significant role in prefiguring the greenway movement (Little: 1990).

The evolution of the greenway concept was also shaped by the “Design With Nature”
ideology of Ian McHarg. In the 1960's, McHarg led a new approach, combining scientific

knowledge and design methods to create ecologically-based planning (Little: 1990). McHarg

stressed the need to systematically plan according to the relative ecological value and sensitivity
of each part of the landscape. Overall, McHarg wanted to distribute development in such a way
as to minimize the disruption of nature (Smith and Hellmund: 1993). Phil Lewis, a distinguished
Landscape Architect, is also worth noting as an important influence on today’s greenway
movement. His concerns for the rapid changes of the American landscape are reflected. in his
study of recreation and open spaces, and greenways systems (Lewis: 1961).

The innovative approaches of men such as Olmstead, Howard, McKaye, McHarg,
Cleveland, and Lewis all took an ecological approach in dealing with the design and function of
natural areas. Their ideologies stressed the linkage of city with nature. All of these past
movements have provided the necessary theoretical framework and “ingredients” for the creation
of the modem-day greenway concept (Smith and Hellmund: 1993).

Today the greenway movement is expanding rapidly across the nation and the world.
After the publication of the President’s Commission report on greenways, professionals from
many different fields, such as lawyers, politicians, community leaders, scientists, planners, and
landscape architects have all become advocates of the promotion of greenways for their
communities. The publication of “Greenways: The Beginning Of An International Movement”
represents the significant growth and interest in greenways all over the world (Fabos and Ahren:

1995).

2.3 Greenways in Michigan
Michigan is recognized around the nation as a major player in the greenway movement.

There are literally hundreds of greenways in various shaped and sizes. Most of the formalized

10

greenways in Michigan, however, are created from abandoned railways. Thanks to the great
industrial heritage of the state, Michigan ranks second to only Wisconsin with 62 miles of rail trail
greenways. Overall, there has been a growing enthusiasm for bringing greenways into urban
areas. As a result many individuals and organizations have led an effort to create a system of
interconnected greenways across the state (Vaughn: 1996).

For example, in southeastern Michigan, there is a highly organized effort which aims to
create a multitude of greenways for the Detroit metropolitan area. This effort is called the
Southeast Michigan Greenway Project. It is an effort to create an “interconnected” greenway
network throughout the seven county region of Detroit. Located in Livingston, Macomb,
Monroe, Oakland, St.Clair, Washentaw, and Wayne counties, this network will link every
community to existing parks, green spaces, and trails enabling all citizens to have great access to
outdoor recreation (Southeast Michigan: 1995).

Examples of other major agencies in Michigan working to promote greenways include:
The Grand River Advisory Group and the West Michigan Greenway Council in West Michigan,
and the Northwest Michigan Greenways and Northern Trails Network of Northern Michigan.
The Michigan Trailways Program also exemplifies a statewide effort by the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) to promote the creation of large regional greenways across the state.
All of these efforts represent the growing recognition of greenways as being important factors in

the enhancement of the quality of life for communities (Michigan Trailways Program: 1995).

ll

Section 3: Qiality Of Life

The quality of life is a very complex subject. In its simplest form, quality of life is a
multifaceted concept, blending many social components together to create values which are used
to rate the character of a community (Myers: 1988).

According to the President’s Commission on the Quality of American Life, “Quality of life
is both a perennial concern...and a rather recent preoccupation. It is a t0pic that permits many
different definitions, and for which there is no widely agreed-upon index which allows us to
monitor changes in that quality.” (Cutter: 1985)

When citizens are asked to define the quality of life for their communities, there are
usually several important factors that will determine their response. Among some of the most
common features that they feel contribute to the quality of life are job opportunities, lack of
crime, affordable and quality housing, safety, traffic, cultural events, shopping, schools,
recreation, and most importantly, a healthy environment. In essence, the quality of life is a
perceptual based analysis on how peOple value the community in which they live (Myers: 1988).

Protecting and enhancing the quality of life is a goal that citizens and community leaders
have shared for many years. It has especially become a top priority in urban and suburban areas.
Despite the fact that the American economy experiences a constant growth, the overall
development and well-being of most urban areas continues to decline.

Most metropolitan areas have a wealth of cultural activities, high quality jobs, and a
lifestyle which seems superior to the life of a rural area. Many urban dwellers may even earn as
much as five to ten times more money than a rural dweller and have a so-called exciting lifestyle,

yet their overall quality of life is significantly less (D’Antonio: 1994).

1")

1...

Why?--Few cities in America are actually planned to incorporate the natural environment
(Lowe: 1992). Their landscapes offer very few glimpses of nature and little relief from the world
of concrete and asphalt. Most urban neighborhoods in fact have very few places for adults and
children to meet and play. To walk along most urban and suburban streets is to venture out into a
plethora of smog and congestion, while risking the danger of being struck by a speeding car
(Lowe: 1992).

As stated by James Howard Kuntsler in Geography From Nowhere, America is “now like
television, violent and tawdry. The landscape it runs through is littered with cartoon buildings and
commercial messages...they do not celebrate anything beyond their mechanistic ability to sell
merchandise. We don’t want to remember them. We did not savor the approach and we were
not rewarded upon reaching the destination, and it will be the same the next time, and every time
there is little sense of having arrived anywhere, because every place looks like no place in
particular.” (Kunstler: 1993)

Urban and suburban America is now at the point where the quality of life that once
seemed so high has begun to decline. The difference in the quality of life between city and
countryside is becoming very easy to recognize. As a result, more and more urban dwellers have
begun to search for ways to bring nature and a more peaceful setting back to their communities as
a means to improve the quality of their lives (Lowe: 1992).

One of the emerging trends in livability and quality of life studies is the issue of “sense of
place”. The combination of sprawl, urban decay, traffic, and community dis-investment has
played a significant role in the lack of natural areas and community spaces (Role of Transit:

1997). Many studies in fact demonstrate that recreational activities are strongly linked to

13

improving the quality of life and in creating a sense of place in urban and suburban areas (Jeffres:
1993). More specifically, it has been the re-connection of urbanized areas. to nature that has
greatly added to the quality of life in cites. Urban citizens and leaders have begun to realize that if
they wish to combat the ills of urban life, they will need to bring back the element of nature back
to their cities.

As United States Senator Jim Sasser from Tennessee stated, “There is so much congestion
in the urban crunch, and it is important to get out of it and get to a great place...goin g there
(greenways) one can experience a spiritual awakening. It is important for your total outlook...it is
a chance to get out of the asphalt jungle.” (Greenways Tennesse: 1995)

The great aspect of greenways is that they bring nature right to our doorsteps. So to
improve the quality of life in urban America, while reconnecting its citizens to their natural
heritage, greenways play an important role in bringing nature and personal well being back to our

cities (Florida Greenways: 1995).

14

Section 4: Benefits Of Greenways

Greenways bring various types of benefits to the communities in which they are located.
As stated by the Hudson River Valley Authority, “In an age when communities everywhere are
fighting to retain their unique sense of place, greenways are an exciting way to preserve a high
quality of life, increase access to nearby recreational opportunities and fragile resources.
Greenways also help to build awareness of an area’s historic and cultural legacy and to promote
economic activity that is directly tied to a pleasing and healthy environment.” (Scenic 2: 1989)

This section will discuss the recreational, cultural, transportation, environmental, and
economic benefits associated with greenways. Each part will provide a review of current research

on the benefits of greenways.

4.1 Recreational Benefits

One of the most common and visible benefits associated with greenways is recreation.
Greenways provide great places for joggers, walkers, bicyclists, and hikers to experience the
opportunity of being in a natural setting, while staying close to home. Greenways are an excellent
fitness and health resource. Any citizen who has spent hours upon hours jogging around a track,
or has biked through congested and busy city streets usually finds greenways to be wonderful
areas for recreation. Greenways that are located along rivers and streams can even provide urban
dwellers access to activities, such as canoeing, kayaking or fishing. They also provide a place for
the traditional picnic, and serve as a location to relax and enjoy watching local animal life

(Greenways Tennessee: 1995).

15

Most Americans feel like they are rushed and have very little time for recreation.
However, there is a large and growing segment of the American population that greatly values
recreation as being a vital component to a healthy and pleasant lifestyle. Many of these people
even place more value and interest on recreation and leisure than on their own jobs.

A survey of over 1300 Americans across the nation on the value of recreation revealed
that over 60% of the respondents felt that their community as a whole greatly benefits from local
parks and open spaces. These benefits include recreational aspects such as exercise, places for
children to play, families to meet, and peaceful areas to relax and enjoy the outdoors. Overall, the
survey indicated that people feel that the benefits of recreation from open spaces and parks (such
as greenways) are worth more than what they pay for through taxes and other funding
requirements (Godbey and Graefe: 1992).

Back in 1987, the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) conducted a
survey of the American public on the issue of recreation. The commission found that most
Americans cherish and admire the natural beauty of forests and state parks, but cannot visit them
on a regular basis. A greenway, however, can bring nature and its variety of recreational benefits
and opportunities to urban society (Livingston County: 1995).

In Denver, Colorado for example, recreational greenways have become so popular that in
a survey, 48% of its citizens rated them as one of the most popular recreational activities in the
city. Greenways were in fact listed as being more popular than swimming pools. The citizens in
the survey even reported that they would pay extra taxes to support more greenways in their

neighborhoods (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

16

A consumer-based survey reported on by the Washington Post in 1995 also revealed
significant findings in support of greenways as being beneficial to communities. In the survey,
two of the top three demands by citizens dealt with a desire to have more recreation and natural
open spaces, and to have more walking and biking paths near neighborhoods and subdivisions.
Over 50% of the citizens even said that there should be a place in each neighborhood for exercise,
fitness and community interaction. Overall, most Americans continue to become more aware of
the benefits of greenways and parks, and have begun to demand that these type of recreational
features become a focal point of their communities (Harney: 1995).

By enabling citizens to have a variety of recreational opportunities close to home,
greenways also play a role in keeping people physically fit and healthy, thereby reducing the costs
of health care and insurance. In 1992, Men’s Fitness Magazine stated that for every mile a person
walks or runs, 24 cents are saved in medical and other health care costs. Likewise, the Corporate
Wellness Study in San Jose, California in 1988 discovered that people who exercise on a regular
basis have 14% lower medical insurance claims and spend 30% fewer days in the hospital
(Greenways: A Prescription: 1996).

The fast-paced and growing health conscious lifestyle of urban America would clearly be
improved by the addition of greenways to their communities. As Americans spend more of their
time engaging in leisure-based activities, the demand for greenways and their recreational

attributes should continue to grow (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

17

4.2 Cultural and Educational Benefits

Greenways are also recognized as important factors in the enhancement and protection of
culture in communities. Successful greenway projects have provided a cultural “main street” in
cities where neighbors and their children can meet, and where community groups can have
gatherings and festivals. Some community groups are known to even sponsor a “Greenway Day”
to celebrate nature and the outdoors experience. A multitude of walking and running events take
place every year on greenways to support local charities and fund-raisers (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

The Paint Creek Trail provides an excellent example of a greenway which hosts a variety
of social events. Every weekend, the trail is filled with people from all over the county. “The
Paint Creek Trail becomes a gathering place and more a sanctuary of nature’s best sounds and
solitude. Walkers share the trail with birds and bikers, fishermen and fitness seekers. It’s a great
place to be.” (Walden 1995: 3)

From a social and cultural standpoint, greenways are also an important tool in helping to
develop a sense of community by connecting neighborhoods and shopping centers to parks and
open spaces with each other. Today, more and more greenways are also being incorporated into
neo-traditional neighborhood designs, which link communities and neighborhoods through a
system of parks and open space (Apalachee: 1995).

The 31st Street Greenway just outside of Chicago represents a fine example of a historic
and cultural greenway. The trail begins ten miles south of the Loop at Riverside and runs for
eight miles through a prairie heritage historic trail, which consists of many distinct residencies and
parkways. The 31” Street Greenway is largely responsible for preserving the history and culture

in this part of Chicago (Little: 1990).

From an educational standpoint, greenways are a means to provide citizens a wonderful
place for learning about the earth’s ecological processes. Since most urban residents have
become disconnected to nature, they are often ignorant of its importance to their overall well-
being. Thus greenways serve as important areas to teach children and adults the wealth and
beauty of our natural heritage. Urban areas with greenways have indeed become an important
cultural and educational asset and have brought many additional benefits to cities (Tennessee
Greenways: 1995). Overall, greenways can promote family unity and help strengthen friendship
and neighborhood relations. They are places where communities can come together and interact

in a safe and natural environment (Indiana Trails: 1996).

4.3 Transportation Benefits

The Bicycle Institute of America estimates that 3.2 million pe0ple commute to work by
bike—800,000 on any given day (Jones: 1993). Since America has abandoned much of the
traditional forms of transportation, while making very little effort to create an efficient mass
transit system, traffic volumes on the nation’s freeways and highways will only continue to
escalate with no relief in sight. Therefore, there will be a great need for new and alternative forms
of transportation. If properly designed and planned, greenways can serve as a significant
extension of America’s roadway network, thereby offering the same benefits as the automobile;
efficiency, reliability, comfort and safety (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

A national survey by the Federal Highway Administration even showed that Americans are
willing to bike as far as five miles to their destination and walk as far as two miles (Greenways

Incorporated: 1995). But despite this fact, most Americans feel that their safety and well-being is

19

compromised by the congested roadways that they must share with automobiles. Hence, there is
a dilemma (Livingston County: 1995).

In 1994, the US. Department of Transportation set forth two goals for the nation’s
transportation system. The first goal is to “double the percentage of total trips made by bicycling
and walking in the United States from 7.9 to 15.8 percent of all travel trips.” The second goal is
“to simultaneously reduce by 10 percent the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured
in traffic crashes.” (Jones: 1993) The creation of greenways can actually work towards the
achievement of these two goals. Greenway trails serve as great alternatives to driving to work,
while eliminating the risks of traveling along a dangerous roadway. With a greenway, a person
could literally leave their home and walk or bike to work or school along a beautiful, safe, and car
free trail (Greenways Tennessee: 1995).

In the State of Illinois, a survey of users of the state’s major rail-trail greenways taken in
1993 in fact showed that many people have benefited by utilizing greenways as an alternative form
of transportation. The survey revealed that along three trails in the Chicago area, an average of
over 20% of the trail’s users actually used the trails to commute to and from work, school or
shopping centers. Chicago’s Delyte-Morris Bikeway even showed a commuter rate of over 30%.
Furthermore, this survey exemplifies the significant benefits that greenways could bring to
communities across the nation (Illinois Department 1990).

Of course walking and biking will never replace the automobile as America’s choice of
transportation, but with the addition of greenways, more people will be able to utilize alternative
forms of transportation. As a result, pollution and congestion from automobiles could be

significantly diminished. Greenways, however, will not solve the gigantic problem of traffic safety

20

and congestion in America, but they are a great step in the right direction (Greenways Tennessee:

1995).

4.4 Environmental Benefits

From an environmental standpoint, greenways play a significant role in the improvement
of the quality of life in communities. Since the environmental quality of urban areas is often
characterized as being very stagnant and polluted, the addition of more greenways to the urban
and suburban environment can be a major step towards enhancing the air, water, and land quality
of these areas (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

Greenways bring benefits to communities because they support naturally productive
ecosystems. Greenway planning and design recognizes the delicate structure of natural systems,
as well as the importance of clean air, clean water and clean land. As part of a coordinated
approach to “environmentally plan” communities, greenways can help to ensure that an area’s
resources and unique natural features are protected, and that the natural system as a whole is
carefully considered in future urban development.

The addition of greenways can introduce animal life and vegetation to parts of urban and
suburban areas that have for the most part become treeless, degraded, and inhospitable to animals,
and displeasing to peOple (Land For Nature: 1996). Since most Americans live in cities,
greenways help maintain contact with nature. This benefit would never be possible if it were not
for the existence of a greenway. More and more urban residents are beginning to realize how

lucky they are to live near a greenway (Greenways Inc.: 1995).

21

Jonathan M. Labaree’s “How Greenways Work” provides an excellent example of how
greenways facilitate many different ecological functions, thereby bringing benefits to communities.
The following set of six ecological functions that greenways provide to communities are
summarized.

(1) Habitat: Greenways are known to function as wildlife habitats. However, this often
depends upon the size, location, and needs of the species in a particular region.
Generally, the larger the greenway, the more species it will support. “Edge Species”,
which are known to utilize narrow corridors of open space (i.e. deer and birds) thrive in
any type of greenway and are often the most common species observed. Greenways in
cities support a wealth of “Edge Species”, enabling people to observe wildlife up close
in the urban environment.

(2) Conduits: Conduits are areas in the landscape where animals, water and people move.
As linear corridors of open space, greenways provide for animal and plant diffusion
across the landscape. By providing protected and natural passages between parks and
conservation areas, greenways help to eliminate fragmented habitats caused by
urbanization. Greenways, therefore, help to increase or maintain the size of an area’s
habitat, enabling animals to meet their migratory and range requirements. As urban
sprawl continues to consume more land, greenways will represent a way to preserve an
area’s natural wildlife.

(3) Barriers: Greenways can also function as natural barriers to noise from busy streets or
as a barrier to unpleasant views in a neighborhood. By protecting scenic sites and

landscapes, greenways improve the character for a community, such as providing tree-

22

lined roads or scenic urban river fronts.

(4) 51th Greenways serve an important purpose to rivers and streams by acting as
natural filters. Riverine greenways (along rivers) filter out nutrients, sediments, and
pollutants from stormwater runoff such as oil, gas and garbage. Vegetation in
greenways like woody plants and grasses also remove phosphorous and nitrogen from
runoff. Hence, greenways serving as filters are very beneficial to communities.

(5) S195; Riparian greenways can act as sinks by moderating the water flow in rivers and
by absorbing excess nutrients and pollutants. The vegetation and natural ground cover
in greenways absorbs massive amounts of floodwater and stormwater from inundating
cities. Residential developers are beginning to realize how great an asset a greenway
can be to homes along floodplains (Labaree: 1992).

(6) Sources: Lastly, greenways can benefit communities by functioning as biological
sources. If the environment surrounding a greenway is urban or agriculture, then the
greenway can function as a “linear seed bank”, helping to maintain a healthy stock of
plant and tree seeds. Greenways can also provide protected water sources for wildlife
and plants living along rivers or in the inhospitable urban environment (Apalachee:
1995).

From an environmental standpoint, greenways have been proven to improve the quality of

life of the communities which they are located. Urban America would clearly benefit from the

addition of greenways to its cities.

4.5 Economic Benefits

Economically speaking, greenways provide numerous benefits to the cites that they serve.
This section will review three types of economic benefits associated with greenways.

Property Values:

The effect on property values by greenways and open spaces has been the subject of many
studies across the nation. This section will provide several examples of how greenways have
positively impacted communities in America, thereby increasing the quality of their lives.

Greenways are recognized as providers of amenities, such as attractive views, open space
preservation and recreational opportunities. Americans value these amenities to a great extent.
This is reflected in the increased real property values and increased marketability for homes and
land located near greenways. Developers have also begun to recognize these values and even
incorporate greenways into design, planning, and marketing of new properties (Arendt: 1996).

Greenways have proven to be significant factors in the real estate industry of America.
Studies have shown that real property values increase by an average of 5 to 20 percent in areas
located next to greenways. In 1994, the National Home Builders Association even reported a 10
to 20 percent increase in residential property values within the vicinity of parks and open spaces
(National Park Service: 1995).

In a survey of Seattle real estate agents, 70 percent said that being adjacent to the
greenway (Burke-Gilman Trail) has a positive effect on selling a home. Homes within two blocks
of the trail were reported to sell for 6.2 percent more than homes away from the trail. Over 90
percent of Seattle area agents even reported that they actually use the greenway as a selling point

in their marketing strategies (National Park Service: 1995). A similar study of homeowners in

24

Maryland in 1992 indicated that 60 percent of the peOple interviewed felt that being located
adjacent to the trail would enable their home to sell for more money (Moore: 1994).

The Luce Line Trail in Minnesota at first was considered a controversial trail. However, a
survey of adjacent landowners along the trail showed that 61 percent of the residential owners in
its vicinity felt that there was an increase in their property value as a result of the greenway.
Appraisers and real estate agents confirmed that they use the trail as a positive selling point for
property, hobby farms and proposed development (Arendt: 1996).

An increase in property values usually results in an increase in property tax revenues.
Communities across America have learned from other cities that in the long run, greenways will
pay for themselves in a short period of time. For example, a study of the impacts of greenways on
property values in Boulder, Colorado showed that the aggregate property value for one
neighborhood was $5.4 million greater than if there had been no greenway. The result is:
$500,000 of additional property tax revenue each year. Since the purchase price of the greenway
was only $1.5 million, the trail system in the city was paid for in just three years and will last a
lifetime. As a result, Boulder will continue to not only reap the benefits of having a beautiful
greenway system through its city, but is will also accumulate additional property tax revenue for
years to come (National Park Service: 1995).

Overall, greenways have been viewed as significant amenities in the enhancement of
property values. More and more home buyers are starting to look for real estate that provides
direct access to a greenway system, while real estate agents and community leaders are
envisioning the addition of greenways as a selling point, and a way to generate more revenue

(National Park Service: 1995).

25

Tourism:

Greenways are visited by a diverse level of tourists and visitors. They can be exclusive
destinations for bikers and hikers, or act as points of interest for tourists to extend their stay in an
area. Therefore, the “level of tourist draw” will vary from greenway to greenway. This section
will discuss some examples of how the tourism industry has benefited from greenways (National
Park Service: 1995).

Tourism is ranked as the number one economic force in the world. Travel and tourism is
recognized as a leading employer in several states and has been predicted to be the leading
industry in America by the year 2000. Expenditures for tourism impact lodging, restaurants,
retail, transportation and other services, which support jobs, tax revenues and income.
Greenways have been recognized as major tourist attractions to local communities. Recent
studies show that weekend trips to areas with greenways are on the rise, while ecotourism and
travel to unique natural areas has become one of the fastest growing areas of the tourism industry
(National Park Service: 1995).

The Impact of River-Trails, by the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program in
1992 surveyed users of three greenways in the nation. The study found that users spend an
average of $3.97 to $11.02 a day, generating a yearly impact of $1.2 million or more on each
greenway. The survey also showed that greenways attracted spending by non-local residents
ranging from $294,000 to $630,000 each year. Hence, greenways can help generate substantial
revenue for the tourist industry of a community (Moore: 1994).

In the late 1980’s, the State of Missouri spent $6 million to create a 200 mile greenway

called the KATY Trail. Initially, many citizens were concerned about their tax dollars funding a

26

greenway, while property owners in its vicinity protested that their property values would be
devastated. However, in the trail’s first year of operation, it generated over $6 million in tourist
expenditures, surpassing everyone’s expectations (Greenways Inc.: 1995). Today the KATY
Trail continues to generate significant expenditures, while revitalizing the many small towns that
are located in its vicinity (Bank: 1987).

The Elroy-Sparta (from Elroy to Sparta) Trail in Wisconsin also represents a greenway
that has generated tourist expenditures, while revitalizing local communities. Users of the trail
averaged expenditures of $25 per day in 1989, while total yearly expenditures were over $1
million. Since over half of the users were estimated to come from outside Wisconsin, the state
and local areas have greatly benefited from the greenway. The Elroy Sparta Trail has become so
positive that many jobs and businesses have been created due to the trail’s existence (National
Park Service: 1995).

In San Antonio, Texas, the San Antonio Riverwalk is considered the “anchor” of the
tourism industry in the city. Tourism is rated as the second largest economic sector in the city,
constituting $1.2 billion annually. A survey of city residents even showed that the Riverwalk is
regarded as the second most important tourist attraction in the state of Texas (National Park
Service: 1995).

Business and Industry:

The National Park Service has reported that most of the interest in greenways in the
nation has actually come from business people and community leaders—not radical
environmentalists. Because there is a strong link between greenways and increased retail,

tourism, and property values, these citizens are continuously making the push for more and more

27

greenway projects.

Cities with a high quality of life make it very enticing for corporate relocation. Evidence
continues to show that the quality of life of a community is an important factor in relocation and
expansion of business and industry. Greenways have been proven to add to the quality of life in
cities and people are beginning to realize what an important tool they can be to their economies
(National Park Service: 1995). Greenways have helped make places like Denver, Colorado and
Raleigh, North Carolina popular cities to work and live, thereby bringing in new homeowners,
jobs, and tax revenues into these communities. These two cities have strove towards protecting
their natural and cultural resources through greenway planning and design. Consequently, they
are much more attractive places to new and existing businesses. Greenways have literally become
“magnets” for corporate relocation and new development (Greenways Tennessee: 1995). Hence,
the motto, “where there is a will there is a way” should be in this case reversed to where there is a

(green) way there is a will. Cities with greenways have definitely reaped many economic benefits.

4.6 Crime and Vandalism

One of the major concerns for communities and citizens living along a greenway is crime
and vandalism. When a greenway trail is being proposed, citizens such as farmers, developers,
and home owners near the trail often make accusations that a public trail would bring significant
amounts of gang-related activity, trespassing, and crime, thereby decreasing the quality of life for
their community (Coburn: 1996).

For example, in 1994 over 700 concerned property owners in the state of Washington

formed the Citizens Against Rails To Trails (CART) to oppose the further creation of greenways

28

across their state. This group of farmers and land owners led a grass roots effort against
greenways, because they felt their property rights would be infringed upon, while their
neighborhoods degraded as a result of the creation of new trails. At CART and community
meetings, group members sought ways to “reclaim” the abandoned rail beds planned for future
trails for their own use. They even helped elect politicians proven to have an anti-greenway
background (Coburn: 1996).

Overall, groups such as CART have become very common across America. As the
nation’s natural areas and farmland become developed and placed into public control (i.e. rail
trails or parks), there continues to be a growing segment of the population that resents greenway
projects. These groups of citizens consider greenways as negative influences on the quality of
their lives.

However, despite the various claims against greenways, little evidence has ever been
presented by anti-greenway groups that proves these types of trails actually degrade and decrease
the quality of life in the areas where they are located. As a matter of fact, a 1980 study by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources compared attitudes of land owners along a proposed
greenway trail to the attitudes of land owners on an established greenway. The study showed that
on the proposed trail, 75 percent of the landowners near it thought if the trail was constructed
there would be more'vandalism and other crimes in the neighborhoods. However, on two
established greenways, virtually no landowners (0% and 6%) felt that crime and vandalism was
even an issue for the neighborhoods near the trail (American Greenways: 1996).

A study by the National Park Service in 1992 further supports the evidence in favor of

greenways. The study was on the impact of rail trail greenways on nearby property owners. It

29

found that most of the landowners reported no increase in problems since the trails in the
communities opened. The majority of landowners in fact stated that living near the local trail is
better then living near an unused rail line or vacant area (American Greenways: 1996).

Overall, it seems as though people are initially concerned about greenways and the
misperceptions that these types of open spaces breed crime, vandalism, and chaos to their
communities. Evidence, however, continues to demonstrate that after the trail is created or
formalized, the concerns of crime usually totally diminish. People then actually begin to
appreciate greenways and feel lucky to have such a trail in their community (Coburn: 1996).

From this discussion on both the positive and negative aspects of greenways, it can be
concluded that the recreational, cultural, transportation, environmental, and economic benefits
that they bring to communities where they are located far outweigh any of the negative aspects
associated with them. Greenways are no less secure than any other areas of human use and cause
no crime. Thus, it is clearly evident that greenways are a great tool for the enhancement of a
community’s quality of life.

For my study, I was interested in quantitatively documenting the perceived benefits of
greenways. I based my decision upon the current knowledge base concerning greenways. I have
determined that there is a need for more citizen-based surveys and studies demonstrating the
benefits of greenways for communities. Citizen-based surveys and studies are a vital component
to the planning process. If more community leaders and planners realized the support that
greenways have from the citizenry, the common negative misperceptions of greenways would not

control decision outcome.

30

Therefore, my hypothesis states that greenways provide a contribution to the perceived
quality of life of urban and suburban areas. Specifically, the Paint Creek Trail has improved the
quality of life for the neighboring residents it serves in Oakland County since its formal

establishment in 1990.

31

Section 5: Paint Creek Trail'Case Study

5.1 Paint Creek Trail Profile

Known as one of America’s best rail—trails, the Paint Creek Trail is a 10.4 mile, 100 foot
wide greenway located 20 miles north of Detroit in a rapidly growing suburban area. The trail is
part of a regional effort by the Southeast Michigan Greenways Initiative to create an
“interconnected” greenway network throughout the Detroit metropolitan region. The Faint Creek
Trail is classified as a recreational greenway, because the purpose behind its creation was to
provide residents of Oakland County with a scenic natural area for biking, jogging, walking,
skiing and horse riding. The trail follows an old abandoned Penn Central railroad right of way
along Paint Creek and the Clinton River. It extends from the southern border of Lake Orion
through Orion Township, Oakland Township, Rochester, and Rochester Hills to the Oakland-
Macomb County line (see Figure 1) (Case Study: 1990).

The Paint Creek Trail’s surrounding landscape features residential areas, rolling fields,
woodlands, wetlands, and a variety of local wildlife. The trail links two major regional parks:
The Bald Mountain State Recreation Area at its northern end and the Rochester-Utica State
Recreation Area at its southern end. By connecting two parks to each other, the trail meets the
standards required for a viable greenway. Since it is part of the Southeast Michigan Greenway
Network, the trail is expected to expand and become connected to other trails, such as the Poly-
Ann Trail located north of the City of Lake Orion. Other large parks like the Stoney Creek
Metropark are also in close proximity to the trail, making it a highly accessible corridor for

residents to reach the area’s popular natural features (Livingston County: 1995).

32

The history of the Paint Creek Trail’s creation is very similar to typical rail to trail
greenways across the nation. In the 1970’s as the suburban sprawl of Detroit continued to alter
the landscape of this region, residents concerned about the quality of their lives began to demand
that more recreational Opportunities be created in their communities. Due to this support, along
with great community leadership from the Rochester Hills, Rochester, Oakland Township and
Orion Township units of government, the Paint Creek Trailways Commission was created in 1980
to acquire, develop, and then operate the trail. Through hard work, dedication, cooperation, and
financial support from many sources, 10.4 miles of the Penn Central right of way was purchased
in 1983 for $450,000. The trail then immediately became used infomrally by local residents.
After several years of planning and preparation, the construction and process of formalizin g the
trail soon followed. In 1990, Paint Creek was officially opened to the public as a rail-trail
recreational greenway (Case Study: 1990).

The Paint Creek Trail’s completion can be directly linked to the desire by local residents
and civic leaders to enhance the quality of life for their communities. Throughout the entire
planning process, local landowners, business leaders, and community representatives from all four
municipalities along the trail joined together and formed a single coordinating body to create the
Paint Creek Trail. It was through this cooperative effort from various groups of citizens that
enabled the Paint Creek Trail to become a reality (Maniko and Markham: 1988).

Today, the Paint Creek Trail is considered an enomrous benefit to the citizens of Oakland
County. In 1992, the Paint Creek Trailways Commission even received the “Enjoy Outdoors
America” award from the United States Department of the Interior. The award acknowledges the

commitment that the commission has made in their effort to improve recreational opportunities in

33

the nation. Since only six other awards were given to trails across the country during 1992, the
Paint Creek Trail has been considered as one of America’s best rail-trail greenways (Carlin:
1992).

Since the population surrounding the trail is expected to continue to grow, while vacant
land will continue to be developed, an even greater demand for public recreational areas will take
place. As a result, trails like Paint Creek will become a cherished and valuable asset to the people
of this area. Hence, the Paint Creek Trail and the Paint Creek Trailways Commission serves as a
model of success in the effort in this nation to enhance the quality of life through the creation of

greenways.

5.2 Paint Creek Trail Survey Methodology

A perceptual-based survey was taken for 64 households located approximately within 1/6
mile of both sides of the trail. The survey included an 8.5 mile stretch from the Rochester
Municipal Park to the northern boundary of the trail (see Figure 2). Since the Paint Creek Trail is
lined with homes and private properties, the 64 household survey was divided into two groups
(Group A and Group B). This approach was taken to help determine whether the attitudes of
residents living adjacent to the trail were different than those of the residents living a short
distance from the trail.
Household Determination:

Group A of the survey consists of 32 households that are directly adjacent to the trail. To
qualify, a household’s property line had to border the trail. The surveyed households were

selected based on their geographic distribution along the trail. Therefore, along the 8.5 mile

34

   

 

 

 

    
   
  

Sample Area
Sample Point

Road a
No Wu ,- .m-
'Census Block E ' ' a GIL

Trail .' i m-

. “is [In
:1 mil” jg “ 7 m
Robert Balmes . "E

Urban and Regional Planning Program

Michigan State University
1997 34B

 

     

Tienken Road.

       
   
 

  

        

 

dew hung :z arnfird

-1

 

 

 

segment of the trail, a household was surveyed approximately every .27 miles (8.5 miles/32
surveys). This was done so each segment of the trail had an equal representation of surveyed
households. Figure 2 displays a series of sample points along the trail which represent the
distribution of the households. Since some parts of the trail are rural with very few homes, there
was not a completely uniform distribution of sampled households. However, the map displays a
uniform distribution of sample points to preserve the anonymity of all 32 households.

Group B of the survey consists of a random sample of 32 households located within 1/2
mile of both sides of the trail. Census Block data provided by the US. Bureau of Census Tiger
Files was used to randomly sample the households. Every census block that is located within ‘6
mile of the trail was used in the survey. In some cases, such as the area south of census block 11,
the block was not used due to its size, and lack of households within the ‘6 mile distance of the
trail. Major roadways, such as M-150 (Main Street) and Walton Road in Rochester served as
buffers. Therefore, the census blocks located east and south of these roadways were also omitted
from the survey study area. Based on this methodology, a total of 88 census blocks were selected
for the random sampling process. In the survey area, blocks were then numbered in an arbitrary
fashion, beginning at the northern boundary in Lake Orion and extending southward in ascending
order.

In the household selection process, a table of random numbers was used to randomly
select the census blocks. When a block was selected, (i.e. block 38), it still remained in the
selection process. Therefore, a block could have been selected more than once, yielding several
surveys. In fact, blocks 18, 54, and 82 were selected twice, while block 4 was selected three

times.

Once all of the blocks were selected, each street within the block was then numbered. A
table of random numbers was used again to select a street from each selected block. For example,
Glanworth Street was one of three streets in block 8. It was randomly selected and chosen for the
survey questionnaire. The selection of the households was then performed on site. The homes
were again randomly selected using the random table. If no one was home or if residents chose
not to participate, then another household was selected. Overall, the random process was meant
to ensure that a scientific and unbiased methodology was used to survey the 32 households. This
process enabled all homes located within I/2 mile of the trail to have a “fair” chance of being
selected Appendix A provides a list of all 32 sampled census blocks, street names, and municipal
location for Group B of the survey.

Questionnaire Methods:

The survey instrument used for the 64 households followed a questionnaire format with 12
multiple choice and yes/no type of questions. Residents were also asked to provide suggestions
or comments in the last two questions (13,14). The goal of the survey questionnaire was to
essentially ask citizens to rate the trail and to determine whether it has impacted the quality of
their lives. Since evaluating the quality of life is often a perceptual-based approach, this survey
was oriented towards asking residents how they think or feel about certain aspects of the trail.
Appendix B contains the survey instrument used for the Paint Creek Trail survey as well as the
official approval of the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS).

Question one was broken down into three parts to obtain a more detailed profile of how

long residents have lived near the trail. It was also meant to determine how many people have

36

lived in the area since the trail’s informal beginning in 1983, and since its formal establishment in
1990. Therefore, the purpose of question one was to determine whether citizens living near the
trail prior to its conversion to a greenway (over 14 years) have a more positive opinion than the
residents living in the area since its conversion and fomral establishment.

One important factor in determining the Paint Creek Trail’s value to area residents is to
determine how often people use the trail. Question two helped to ascertain how many surveyed
households use the trail, and how frequently they use it. Question three then provided an
opportunity for households that use the trail to report what activities they engage in. Many
people equate biking, running, and walking opportunities as important to a high quality of life.
Therefore, Question two and three were meant to address these factors.

To avoid the misinterpretation of a good, fair, and poor rating system, questions four and
five had a scale where residents could rank how they feel about the Paint Creek Trail’s impact on
their recreational opportunities and property values. Question four consisted of a 0 to 10 scale (0
least, 10 most), while Question five had a -10 to +10 scale. Since property values can be
negatively affected by a location to a public space, a negative scale was used.

Question six and seven were meant to determine whether residents feel that there are any
factors that diminish the quality of their lives due to the presence of the trail. A list of nine factors
was provided for residents to select from if they had any complaints or concerns about the trail.

Safety is a vital component to a successful greenway trail. Question eight enabled
residents to state whether they feel safe using the trail. If residents feel safe, then they had the
option of rating their safety using the 0 to 10 (0 least, 10 most) scale. Residents who felt unsafe

could select from a list of attributes, the reasons for their lack of safety.

37

Question nine, ten, and eleven were designed to determine how much value the surveyed
residents place on the Paint Creek Trail. By asking residents a set of three different questions on
the value of the trail, it could be more carefully determined how positively or negatively people
feel about the Paint Creek Trail.

Question twelve was included to provide residents with an opportunity to select any
changes or additions the Paint Creek Trailways Commission could make to bring more benefits to
area residents and users of the trail.

Analysis Methods:

The methods used to analyze the results from the survey involved a descriptive analysis,
whereby the information from each question for both groups was discussed. This includes a
description of differences in opinions between both groups as well as a set of figures and tables
displaying the results from each question.

A Chi-square Test for Independence was also used to calculate whether there was a
statistically significant difference in opinions between Group A and Group B. From the Chi-test,
a p-value (or significance probability value) was derived from comparing a set of two responses
from both groups. For example, in question two, respondents were asked whether they use the
Paint Creek Trail. Group A had 29 yes and two no answers, while Group B had 27 yes and five
no answers. A Chi-test compares the answers from Group A with Group B. If the p-value is
greater than .01 (p > .01), then there is no significant difference between the two groups.
However, if the p—value is less than .01 (p < .01), then there is a significant difference between the
opinions of Group A with those of Group B. The Chi-test was used in questions one, two, six,

eight, and nine to assess the difference for the two groups.

38

Section 6: Paint Creek Trail Survey Results

 

To present the results of the survey, I will report the findings in the order of the survey
questionnaire contained in Appendix B.

6.1 Question One

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

755155:th .... Q®§fiéfir...:.,.... ...........................................................
trayaawrsn'g have you lived m thus home? . .;2;2
Group A Percent Group 8 Percent Chi
A. O to 7 years 3 9.38 13 40.63 .000127
fMore than 7, less than 14 years 14 43.75 7 21.88
A & B Combined 17 20 27332.?
C. More than 14 years 15 46.88 12 37.50
Totals: 32 100.0 32 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results from part one of question one indicate that there is a significant difference between
Group A and Group B for the respondents who have lived in the area for less than 14 years
(Figure 3A,3B). There were only three respondents from Group A for the 07 group, while there
were 13 respondents in this group for Group B. The 1-14 year age group, however, indicates
almost the opposite. There were 14 respondents in Group A, while only seven in group B. The
p-value for the Chi-test was .000127, which means that the two groups have a significant
difference in responses. The over 14 year bracket did not show a difference between the two
groups. When compared to the 0-7 and 1-14 age groups, there was no difference (p-

value=.273322) between either group.

39

Figure 3A, BB: How Long Have You Lived In This Home?

 

 

3A: Group A Profile 38: Group B Profile

A. (3)
9%

44%

c. (15)
47%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gm U A percent ... Grou B. , percent .., .. . 6th . . . _ ..
1.Ve i 3 16.7 6 31.5 0.22067

2. Im rtant 10 55.6 10 52.7
.Somewhati 4 22.2 2 10.5 0.1573
. Noti rtant 1 5.5 1 5.2
otals: 18 100.0 19 100.0

 

Part two of question one indicates that both groups have similar opinions over the importance of
the trail. Groups A and B had the most frequent responses in selection 2 (important). The Chi-
test indicates that neither group had a significant difference in opinions. Group B did have a
larger percentage of respondents (31.5%) state that the trail is very important than Group A.

Overall, both groups had positive responses to this question (Figure 4).

4O

Figure 4: How Important Is The Trail To The Area?

 

Figure 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Very important
I2. Important

E13. Somewhat important
E4. Not important

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 Question 10

 

(1C) How much impact did the trail have on you movrnLo this area

 

Group B I

“percent“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group A Percent
1. It was the main reason for moving here. 2 15.4 0 O
2. It was a factor in my decision to move here. 4 30.8 6 37.5
3. The trail did not impact my decision 7 54.8 10 62.5
Totals: 13 100.0 16 100.0

 

Most of the respondents in part three of question one stated that the trail did not impact their

decision to move to the area. In fact, only two respondents from Group A stated that the trail was

the main reason why they relocated to this area. However, both groups (30.8%-A, 37.5%-B) had

a significant percentage of respondents who stated that the trail was a factor in their decision to

move to the area.

41

 

“the! to} area? .V , ; ¢ .2
A Percent Grou B Percent Chi

i 40 6 46 .0833

20 4 31
O 0 O
otals: 15 100.0 13 100.0

.Noti

6

rtant 6 4O 3 23
3
O

 

Respondents living in the area for over 14 years in both groups had somewhat similar responses
(p-value=.0833) to part four of question one. The chart demonstrates that 40% of the
respondents from Group A consider it to be very important, while 40% state it is important.
Likewise, 46% of the respondents from Group B stated that the trail is very important and 23%
stated it is important. The p-value from the chi-test indicates that there is no significant difference

between either group. None of the surveyed residents stated that the trail was not important.

42

6.2 Question Two

, .. ' eercenr 6.66 f‘ a ham Chi
93.50 27 84.37 .1628
6.45 5 15.63

or month 35.7 12 44.3
ce r week 25.0 4 15.0
wo to as week 28.6 9 33.3
our to times week 19.7 2 7.4
. O O O
otals: 100.0 27 100.0

 

Over 90 percent of the respondents is Group A stated that they use the trail, while almost 85
percent of the respondents in Group B use the trail (Figure 5A,5B). The p-value (.1628) from the
Chi-test also indicates that there is no significance between either group. Only seven respondents
reported that they do not use the trail. Both groups reported the most frequent usage responses
from the once or twice per week selection. There were no respondents who claimed to use the
trail on a daily basis.

Figure 5A, SB: Do You Use The Paint Creek Trail?

 

5A: Group A 58: Group B
B. No B. No

6% 1 6%

 

A. Yes
84%

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

6.3 Question Three

a
Watactiv Lido?”7715777" . riin-eonliitheitrai1??1-. is
A Percent Grou Percent
26 38.8 15 34.9

6 13 3 7.0
24 .8 21 48.8

1 1.5 0 0
10 15 4 9.3
O O O 0
. r O 0 0 0
otals: 67 100.0 43 100.0

 

The results from question three indicate that respondents in Group A use the trail for a more
variety of activities than the respondents in Group B. Both groups reported to use the trail mainly
for walking and biking. Skiing was rated as the third most popular activity. Neither group

reported to use the trail for transportation purposes (Figure 6).

Figure 6: What Activity Do You Engage In On The Trail?

 

Figure 6

 

 

Group A
I Group B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44

6.4 Question Four

. andrec
J 1;; i“‘ir;-.lo¢atfii'c'nigto.ia.theig ‘_ , .15;-
Grou B
0 Least
1

9
10 Most
A =

 

bemmomo-to-tm

O
0
1
1
1
3
1
9
8
3
.1

on
\I

Respondents in Group A had an average response to question four of 8.14, while Group B had an
average of 7.34. Both groups had the most frequent responses to this question in the eightand
nine ranking. Group A had only three responses with a rating of less than five, while Group B

had four responses below this level. Overall, question four was responded to in a positive fashion.

45

6.5 Question Five

+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9

OO-‘ODU'lN-‘U'l-‘O
dOdNOUIOOUINA

 

0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
0
1

0
.7

LOAOOOOOOOOO

II
b
II
A

Question five had a less positive response than question four. Group A had an average response
of 4.75 with the most frequent rating occurring at +5. Group B had a slightly lower average
response of 4.45 and had the most frequent responses at +5 and +3. Overall, there was only one

negative response (-1) from all surveyed residents in both groups.

46

6.6 Question Six

46.8 13 46.4 .3074
53.2 15 53.6

7.7
0

0 2

3.4 0

0 0 0
3.4 0 O
on 6.9 2 7.7
00 much 1
7. bikers 9
8. resenceo 1
9. orse 20.7 4
10. 24.1 7

otals: 29 100.0 26

0 3 8
27.6

13.8 3 8

O
1
0
1
2
0
8
4
6
7

 

There was a combination of yes and no responses to question six from both groups (Figure 7A,
7B). In Group A, almost 47% of the respondents stated there are factors that lessen their
enjoyment of using the trail, while about 53% stated they have no problems using the trail.
Respondents from Group B had an almost identical profile (46.4% yes, 53.7% no). The p-value
for the Chi-test indicates that both groups did not significantly differ from one another. However
both groups did report factors that diminish the enjoyment of using the trail. Overall, speeding
bikers was the most common concern of both groups, while horse droppings was also a major
concern for the residents. These concerns are reflected more as minor annoyances rather than as

major disturbances. Vandalism, gangs, and theft were not significant factors reported by either

group.

47

Figure 7A, 7B: Do You Feel There Are Any Factors That Lesson Your Enjoyment?

 

7A: Group A

A Yes
.Wx 47%

B. No
53%

 

 

 

 

73: Group B

 

 

6.7 Question Seven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Group A Percent Group B Percent Chi
A. Yes 8 25.0 2 6.0 .0183
B. No 24 75.0 30 94.0
If yes, then check all that apply.
1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs 0 0 2 28.6
2. Vandalism 0 0 0 0
3. Gangs present 0 0 0 0
4. Theft 0 0 O O
5. Littering on trail 2 15.4 0 0
6. Too much noise 3 23.1 1 14.3
7. Speeding bikers 1 7.7 2 28.6
8. Presence of horses 1 7.7 0 0
9. Horse droppings 1 7.7 1 14.3
10. Others 5 38.5 1 14.3
Totals: 13 100.0 7 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results from question seven indicate that the majority of respondents in both groups do not
feel that there are any factors that negatively effect living near the trail (Figure 8A, 8B). However,
there was a significant difference in Opinions between Group A and Group B. 25 percent of the
respondents in Group A felt that there are factors that lessen their enjoyment of living near the

trail, while only six percent of the respondents in Group B had the same opinion. The p-value for

48

the Chi-test between Groups A and B in fact indicate a significant difference in opinions.
Residents living along the trail had more negative responses. But most of these responses were
related to noise, littering and others (trespassing, illegal parking), which are not major concerns.
Theft, vandalism, and gangs were not reported by either group as negative factors associated with
living near the trail. Since residents living along the trail are more influenced by its presence, the
difference in opinions between both groups is expected.

Figure 8A, SB: Are There Any Factors That Lessen Your Enjoyment?

 

   

8A: Group A BB: Group B
25% 5%
B. No B No

 

 

 

75% 94%

 

 

49

6.8 Question Eight

, 1: nt .1. '11: .. . - 5.53335:{7712122.};11:2;1:;:;::€:i;.::?:.,.j'1'...'.:¥i.-:'€2i;?;.5“;..i,izt..1:1...i;.w2.»;."-;._.tg.
rou ercent rou ercent
30 93.75 29 90.6 0.54419
2 6.25 3 9.4
Grou B

bOODOOOOO

(DmVODm-kQN-tc
.3
N

0
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
7
8
7

A
O
(JO-b

 

.“
{O
‘1
_L

Both groups in question eight responded in a very positive fashion (Figure 9A, 98). Only five
respondents from both groups felt unsafe on the trail. Since both groups had almost identical
results, the p-value in the Chi-test (.54419) revealed no significant difference between the two
groups. The respondents who did feel unsafe on the trail stated that speeding bikes was the main
reason (see Table 12). Respondents in Group A gave the trail an average safety rating of 7.9, with
rating nine being the most frequent rank. Meanwhile, Group B respondents gave the trail an

average rating of 7.1, and rating eight received the most selections.

50

Figure 9A, 98: Do You Feel Safe Using The Trail?

 

9A: Group A
e. No
6%

 

 

 

 

QB: Group B

B. No
9%

 

91%

 

' If ’ . " ‘7 ‘ " 7

If 'n'o.r‘h'e‘n “ch... .n"......‘g.a.r' " ” ,_... 'A’ i 6......" “'6....6

1. Lack of
2. Crime

.Lack of n
i bikes
6. Unleashed
7. Horses
8. Other
otals:

51

0

h-‘O-‘NOOO

page": '4

 

 

6.9 Question Nine

 

Table 13. Questions"

 

to build a trail should. fffff : _. 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group A Percent Group B Percent Chi
A. Support it and make it a top priority 12 37.5 11 34.4 .3636
TSupport it, but place it in a lower priority 15 46.9 17 53.1
C. Not support it 1 3.1 0 0 NA
D. Have no opinion 4 12.5 4 12.5
Totals: 32 100.0 32 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

The responses from both groups in question nine were positive. In Group A, 37.5 percent of the

respondents would strongly support a new trail and 46.9 percent would support it, but place it in

a lower priority. Group B had a similar result with 34.4% of the respondents strongly supporting

the trail, and 53.1% supporting it. Overall, only one respondent stated that communities should

not propose building new trails (Figure 10). The p-value for the Chi-test indicates that both

groups have very similar opinions about proposing new trails.

Figure 10: What Do You Think About The Paint Creek Trail?

 

Figure 10

 

 

x' .
A. B.
Should Should
strongly support

 

 

Should
not

 

0. Have
no
opinion

 

 

Group A
I Group B

 

 

 

 

52

 

6.10 Question Ten

A
+1
+2
+3
+4

' +6
+7
+8
+9

0 O
0 1
O 2
O 2
0 9
O 3
O 2
O 9
O O
O 3
2

= 5.8

9’
..i.

 

There was a fairly positive response to question ten. Both groups had very similar positive
ratings, coupled with no negative responses. The most frequent rating for both groups was +8,
but since there were many respondents who gave lower ratings, the overall average rating values
declined. It should be noted that question ten was often difficult for people to answer. Rating the
asset value of the trail was often an ambiguous and intricate process. As a result answers were.

more diverse than the previous rating questions.

53

6.11 Question Eleven

1
1
0
3
7
7
3
5
1
1

\JOOOOOOOOOO

 

9°
01

Question eleven was also a difficult question to answer for the surveyed residents. Consequently,
many people gave a 0 rating, which reflected a no comment type of response. But the responses
were more positive from people in Group A as compared with Group B. Group A had an average
response of 5.4, with the most frequent ratings occurring at +5 and +6. Group B had a smaller
average of 3.5, with the most frequent rating occurring at +5. Neither group felt that the trail has

a negative effect on their quality of life.

54

6.12 Question Twelve

.13. .g , 1,523} ..

ncrease
access
. more ic access nts
.ncrease Is horse
ncrease ' cle

.Incr le law
. nal
. nstitute rn

. r

otals:

r bikers

1 1.9
4 7.7
6 11.5
1 1.9
14 26.9
0 0
5 9.6
4 7.7
8 15.4
9 17.3
52 100.0

 

' L'a“ .fifLQfm'SS'O" 779?].TQZ l;

' upA‘tsaegat’ " e ‘ pagan: '

4.3
2.2
15.2
2.2
30.4
0
13.0
0
19.6
13.0
100.0

Both groups had a variety of suggestions for the Paint Creek Trailways Commission. The most

common suggestions made to the commission by both groups was to increase police patrols by

bike for the trail. Other significant suggestions include instituting speed limits for bikers, creating

more access points, and increasing the leash law effort. The Other category refers to suggestions,

such as prohibiting smoking, improving the maintenance of the trail, and adding more trash

receptacles.

55

Section 7: Conclusions

7.1 Survey Discussion

The results from this survey appear to reflect a very positive response to the Paint Creek
Trail by the 64 participants. The trail was regarded by most of the respondents as being a very
important feature to the area. Despite the fact that most of the respondents claimed the trail did
not directly impact their choice to move to the area, almost every person interviewed uses the trail
for more than one type of activity at least once or twice per month. The survey results also
indicate that most respondents feel that the trail improves the recreational and other social
opportunities for the area, and has a positive impact on the property value of their home.

There were some respondents who did feel that there are negative influences associated
with the trail. A small percentage of the respondents claimed that the trail is often dangerous,
especially on weekends. Speeding bikers, horses, and horse droppings were regarded as the
dangers, which lessened the overall enjoyment of using the trail. There were also some
respondents who felt that there are negative factors that diminish the enjoyment of living adjacent
to or within ‘xé mile of the trail. Noise, littering, and trespassing were reported to be major
concerns by these residents. However, these concerns were only addressed by about 15 percent
of the respondents. Crime, vandalism, and gangs were not mentioned as being negative influences
associated with the trail. Overall, there was no significant difference in opinions between Group
A and Group B. However, there was a difference in opinions between Group A and Group B
regarding question seven. Group A had more respondents who felt there are some negative

influences that diminish their enjoyment of living near the trail. This difference can probably be

56

related to the adjacent location of Group A respondents.

The survey results also reveal that almost every user of the trail considers it to be a safe
trail. The respondents from both groups in fact rated the trail’s safety very high. Respondents
who felt unsafe mainly attributed it to speeding bikers, especially on busy weekends.

The majority of respondents further support the Paint Creek Trail by suggesting to other
communities proposing new trails to support them, and consider them as being an important part
of the county. Respondents also felt that the trail increases the quality of their lives, thereby
making it a valuable asset to the area. To make the trail an even greater asset to local residents,
the respondents also suggested that the Paint Creek Trailways Commission increase police
patrols by bicycles, increase a leash law effort for dogs, institute speed limits for bikers and
provide more public access points. Overall, the results indicate that the respondents of this survey
appreciate and support the Paint Creek Trail, and the effort that the Paint Creek Trailways
Commission is making to maintain and improve the trail’s condition. Appendix C contains the
survey results from both groups as well as the total combined results for all 64 households.

The results from this survey not only further support the Paint Creek Trail, but they also
provide planners and designers with a positive example of how greenways enhance the quality of
life for the areas they serve. Since planning and designing greenways often involves opposition
and controversy, studies such as this survey can help support the overall greenway movement.
This survey by no means represents the first ever study on the benefits on greenways for local
residents, but it does provide a contribution to the current body of research on greenways.
Therefore, this study has helped to build and support the current research on the perceived

benefits of greenways, as well as providing valuable infomiation to the Paint Creek Trailways

57

Commission. This report can be used as an example in future research by planners, designers, and
students to demonstrate the positive impacts that greenways can have on the areas they serve.
7.2 Recommendations To Commission

There are future areas of research that are needed for the Paint Creek Trail. This list
provides a few examples. These suggestions would enable the Paint Creek Trailways Commission
to better serve users and area residents living near the trail. They would also help the trail become
an even greater asset to the people of Oakland County.

(1) User Survey: Some of the respondents noted how there are many people from outside
the community that use the Paint Creek Trail on weekends. A user survey should be
performed to obtain an estimate of where users come from. This would help the
commission to determine how large an area the trail serves. It would also help to
determine where there is a potential need for other greenways across the region.

(2) Study Safem The most significant negative factor indicated in this survey was the
issue of speeding bikers and safety. As the trail grows in popularity, there will be a
greater potential for more accidents. The commission should consider either creating
a biking of walking lane, or increasing the width of ‘the trail. The installation of a
traffic light at the Tienken Road intersection should also be studied. Coordination
with the Oakland County Roads Commission would be required for this endeavor.

(3) Quantify Property Values: Many respondents felt their property values were positively
impacted by the trail. However, there is currently no quantified percentage or amount
defined. The commission should work with local realtors to perform a study of homes

located near the trail to determine its economic benefits.

58

7.3 Survey Results Summary

The survey indicated that respondents living along the trail have been in the area longer than
respondents living within 1/2 mile.

The majority of respondents from both groups feel the trail is very important to the area.

The majority of respondents from both groups feel the trail did not impact their decision to
move to the area. However, a significant number of respondents did feel the trail was a factor
in moving to the area.

Almost all of the respondents (89%) in both groups use the Paint Creek Trail.
The trail is primarily used once or twice per month or once per week.
The most popular activities on the trail are biking and walking.

Respondents rated the trail very positively with regards to its ability to provide recreational
and other social opportunities.

Most of the respondents feel the trail moderately impacts the property values of their homes.

Both groups have a significant amount of respondents who feel there are some negative
factors that lessen the enjoyment of using the trail. The most common factors were speeding
bikers and horse dr0ppings.

Group A had several respondents that felt there are factors that lessen the enjoyment of living
near the trail. Group B only had two respondents. The most common negative factors were
littering, noise and trespassing.

The majority of respondents (86%) in both groups would urge other communities to build
trails like the Paint Creek Trail.

The respondents in both groups consider the Paint Creek Trail to be a good asset to the area.

The respondents from both groups felt that the Paint Creek Trail has a positive effect on the
quality of their lives.

The Paint Creek Trailways Commission should create more benefits to residents by increasing
police patrols by bicycle, creating more access points, and by increasing the leash law effort
for dogs.

59

7.4 Paper Conclusions

This paper has explored the multitude of benefits that greenways bring to communities.
As populations continue to grow and as cities spread throughout the countryside, consuming
wetlands, farms, fields, and forests, a great effort is needed to preserve the remainder of our
natural heritage. Our society is in dire need to reconnect ourselves to the natural environment.
Thus, a process of connecting the city to the countryside by means of greenways is an ideal
solution in the enhancement and improvement of our quality of life. Greenways are by no means
the only solution the problems facing urban and suburban America. They are, however, a major
step in the right direction.

The results from the 64 household survey of residents living near the Paint Creek Trail
represents a very positive and successful greenway in Oakland County, Michigan. The participants
in the survey overwhelmingly support the trail and stated that it was a significant asset to the
area’s residents. The common misperceptions of crime, vandalism, and gangs often associated
with greenways was reported by the respondents as being almost nonexistent. As a result, the
respondents of this survey regard the Paint Creek Trail as a significant factor in the overall
positive impact of the quality of their lives.

Based on the results of the survey, the Paint Creek Trail should be regarded as a great
benefit to the citizens of Oakland County. Since the population surrounding the trail is expected
to grow, while vacant land will continue to be developed, an even greater demand for public
recreational areas will take place. As a result, trails like Paint Creek will become cherished and
valuable assets to the people across the nation. Therefore, the Paint Creek Trail and the Paint

Creek Trailways Commission serves as a model of success of the effort in this nation to enhance

60

the quality of life for communities through the creation of greenways.

“By preserving the land in its natural state. . .you allow the natural system as God designed
it to function. If you think of greenways as means to provide a place for biological communities
in their natural state to be maintained, and if at the same time you provide human access to the
greenway corridor, you have given people a means to look at our world in a different way.”
(Little 1990: 212)

This statement in “Greenways for America” epitomizes the need for reconnecting
ourselves to nature. Once urban and suburban society begins to look at nature as being a part of
our heritage and a necessity for our health and vitality as the people of Oakland County have
done, more communities in America will then truly become pleasant places to live. As our nation
develops and expands into the 21Sl Century, planners and citizens will need to find a way to
achieve a balanced quality of life while remaining connected to nature. Hence, adding greenways

to our cities will ensure that all Americans have an ecological link to the future.

61

Bibliography
Ahren, Jack. Proceedings From Selected Educational Sessions of The I 991 ASLA.
Annual Meeting, Kansas City Missouri: ASLA Council of Open Committees. American Society
of Landscape Architects, 1991.

Apalachee Regional Resource Assessment and Greenways Vision. The Florida
Greenways Program of 100 Friends of Florida and The Conservation Fund. February, 1995.

Arendt, Randall G. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. A Practical Guide To
Creating Open Space Networks. Island Press, 1996.

Bank, Uel. The Economic Impact on The Proposed Missouri River Trail. February 1987.

Calvin, Jim. Trailway Is Local Treasure. Rochester Clarion. October 15, 1992, p. 6A.

Case Study: The Paint Creek Trail. Planning and Zoning News. August 1990, p. 18-19.
Coburn, Karen Ann. Trails On Trial. Governing. August 1996. p. 43-44.
County of Sacramento. Sacramento River Greenway Plan. December 1992.

Cutter, Susan L. Rating Places: A Geographer’s View On Quality Of Life. Association
of American Geographers, 1985.

D’Antonio, William, Masamhi, Sasaki, and Yonebayashi, Yoshio. Ecology, Society and
The Quality of Social Life. Transaction Publishers, 1994.

Deck, Larry. Regional Goal: Connecting Greenways. Michigan Planner. Fall 1996, p.
6-7, 12.

Fabos, Julius G.Y. and Ahren, Jack. “Greenways: The Beginning OfAn International
Movement” Elsevier,1995.

Florida Greenway Commission Report To The Governor. Creating A Statewide
Greenways System: For People. . for wildlife. . .for Florida. Florida Greenways Commission,
Summer 1995.

Godbey, Geoffrey, Graefe, Alan and James, Stephen. The Benefits of Local Recreation
and Park Services. A National Study of The Perceptions of The American Public. The National

Recreation Foundation, 1992.

Greenways Incorporated. Conceptual Greenway Plan: Roanoke Valley, Virginia, 1995.

62

Grove, Noel. Greenways: Paths To The Future. National Geographic. June 1990, p.
77-98.

Those Long, Skinny, Green Parks: Greenways. Land and People. Fall 1994,
p. 3-8.

Hamey, Kenneth R. Community Living: Look For Bike Paths, Not Golf Courses.
Washington Post, 1995.

Illinois Department of Conservation. Economic and tax implications of rail—trail systems:
a report prepared as part of the Illinois Railbanking Study, 1990.

Indiana Trails 2000. Benefits of Trails. Internet Publication, p. 1-2.
(http://www.ai.org/dnr/0utdoor/introduc.htm)

Jeffres, Leo W. and Dobos, Jean. Perceptions of Leisure Opportunities and The Quality
of Life in a Metropolitan Area. Journal of Leisure Research. July 1993, p. 203-217.

Jones, Micael G. Building Bikeways. Planning. October 1993, p. 30-33.

Kitsap County Greenways. Department of Public Works, Kitsap County, Washington.
June 1996.

Kuntsler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere .' The Rise and Decline of
America’s Man-Made Landscape. Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Labaree, Jonathon M. How Greenways Work: A Handbook on Ecology. Rivers, Trails
and Conservation Program, 1992.

Land For Nature. Benefits of A Greenways Network, Internet Publication.
(http://www.mot.cprost.stucafjacsen/landnature.html)

Lewis, Philip H. Study of Recreation and Open Space In Illinois. The Division of
Landscape Architecture and The Bureau of Community Planning, 1961.

Little, Charles. Greenways For America. The John Hopkins University Press, 1990.

Livingston County Department of Planning. Livingston County Greenways Initiative. A
Greenway Preservation Guidebook for Local Communities: Why, Where, When and How?
1995.

63

Lowe, Marcia D. Alternatives To Sprawl: Shaping Tomorrow’s Cities. Futurist.
July/August 1992, p. 28-34.

Maniko, Royce R. and Markham, Lee. Joining Forces Solves Problems. Michigan
Planner. Fall 1988, p. 9-10.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan Trailways Program. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Forest Management Division, 1995.

Moore, Teresa Analysis of Economic Impacts on The Northern Central Rail Trail.
Maryland Greenways Commission, June 1994.

Myers, Dowell. Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. American
Planning Association Journal. Summer 1988, p. 347-358.

National Park Service. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway
Corridors: a resource book, 1995.

Newton, Norman T. Design on The Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture.
Belnap Press of Harvard University, 1971.

Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation and Development Council. Northwest
Michigan Greenways, 1995.

Southeast Michigan Greenways: A Vision for an interconnected regional network of open
space and trails. Rails To Trails Conservancy, Michigan Chapter 1995.

Smith, Daniel and Hellmund, Paul. Ecology of Greenways: Design, and Function of
Linear Conservation Areas. University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Scenic Hudson and The National Park Service. Building Greenways in The Hudson River
Valley: A guide for action, 1989.

The American Greenways Program. Crime and Vandalism. Fact Sheet No. 4.

The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities, TCRP Report 22.
Transit Cooperative Research Program, National Academy Press 1997.

United States Census Bureau. Tiger Line Files, 1990.
Vancouver City Council. Greenways Plan: draft, Vancouver, BC, 1995.

Vaughn, Coy. Greenways Gain Public Support. Michigan Planner. Fall 1996.

64

Walden, Christine. Paint Creek Trail Renews The Spirit. Rochester Eccentric. Thursday,
May 4, 1995, p. 1A,1B.

65

APPENDIX A

GROUP B RANDOM SAMPLING LIST

66

Survey Group B: Randomly Sampled Households (32)

Block 4

Lake Orion

3 surveys

(1) Grampian Avenue
(2) Grampian Avenue
(3) Grampian Court

Block 6

Lake Orion

1 survey

( 1) Newton Street

Block 7

Lake Orion

1 survey

(1) River Valley

Block 8
Lake Orion

1 survey
(1) Glanworth

Block 9
Lake Orion
1 survey
(1) Summer

Block 15
Oakland Township
1 survey

(1) Orion Road

Block 18

Oakland Township
2 surveys

(1) Serenity

(2) Wains

Block 22
Oakland Township

1 survey
(1) Pear Tree

Block 27
Oakland Township
1 survey
(1) Shannon Drive

Block 32

Oakland Township
1 survey

(1) W. Gunn Rd.

Block 38
Oakland Township

1 survey
(1) Oak Bridge

Block 44

Oakland Township
1 survey

(1) Wood Bridge

Block 51
Rochester Hills

1 survey

(1) Fairview Court

Block 53
Rochester Hills

1 survey
(1) Peach Blossom

67

Block 58
Rochester Hills

1 survey
(1) Paddle Wheel

Block 61
Rochester Hills
1 survey
(1) Candlestick

Block 63
Rochester Hills

1 survey

(1) Tienken Road

Block 64
Rochester Hills
1 survey

(1) Greenview

Block 73
Rochester

1 survey

(1) Winry Drive

Block 76
Rochester
1 survey
(1) Wilcox

Block 82
Rochester

2 surveys

(1) Ferndale
(2) Oak Street

Block 19

Oakland Township
1 survey

(1) Serenity

Block 85
Rochester

1 survey

(1) Lysader St.

Block 87
Rochester
1 survey

(1) Griggs

Block 88
Oakland
1 survey
(1) Buell

Block 54

Rochester Hills

2 surveys

(1) Cherry Tree Lane
(2) Orion Road

68

Block 83
Rochester

1 survey

(1) Ferndale

APPENDIX B

PAINT CREEK TRAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

69

Paint Creek Trail Survey Questionnaire

Introduction/Consent Procedures

Hello, my name is Robert Balmes. I am a graduate student in the Urban and Regional
Planning Program at Michigan State University. With the assistance and support of the Paint
Creek Trailways Commission, I am conducting a survey of residents living near the Paint Creek
Trail as part of my graduate research project. In my survey, I am essentially asking citizens how
the Paint Creek Trail has affected their quality of life and whether they have received benefits
from living near the trail.

The survey takes about 5 to 10 minutes to answer. If you have time to take part in this
survey, I’d greatly appreciate your participation. Every household that I survey has been
randomly selected. Therefore, you will remain anonymous and your answers will be confidential
information. If you wish to receive a copy of the survey results, you have the option of leaving
your name and address at the beginning of the questionnaire. You can also contact the Paint

Creek Trailways Commission if there are any questions or concerns regarding my survey.

Optional Question: If you would like to receive a c0py of the survey results, please submit your

name, address and zip code. Thank you for your participation.

 

 

 

7O

Survey # Street Block # CT Y/TW P

 

1) How long have you lived in this home?

A. 0 to 7 years
If resident selected “A”, then how important is the trail to the area?
1. Very important
2. Important
3. Somewhat important
4. Not important

If resident selected “A”, then how much impact did the Paint Creek
Trail have on you moving to this area?

1. It was the main reason for moving here.
2. It was a factor in my decision to move here.
3. The trail did not impact my decision to move here.
B. More than 7 but less than 14 years ‘
If resident selected “”8, then how important is the trail to the area?
1. Very important
2. __ Important
3. Somewhat important
4. Not important

If resident selected “B”, then how much impact did the Paint Creek
Trail have on you moving to this area?

1. It was the main reason for moving here.

2. It was a factor in my decision to move here.

3. The trail did not impact my decision to move here.
C. More than 14 years

If resident selected “C”, then how important has the addition of the trail
been to the area?

1. Very important
2.__ _Important

3. ___Somewhat important
4_ _Not important

2) Do you use the Paint Creek Trail?
A. Yes
If yes, then how often?

 

1. __Once or twice per month

2. __Once per week

3. ___Two to Three times per week
4. __Four to Five times per week
5. ____Daily

B. No

71

3) If resident selected “A” on question 2, then:
What activity do you engage in on the trail? (select all that apply)
Biking
Running
Walking
Horse riding
Skiing
Transportation
Other

9111913095?

 

4) On a scale of 0 to 10, (0 least, 10 most), how much do you feel your social and recreational
opportunities (i.e. biking, walking, socializing) are improved by your proximity to the trail?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Least Most

5) On a scale of -10 to +10, how much do you feel the property value of your home has been
impacted by the presence of the trail?
-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Least Most

6) Do you feel that there are any factors that lessen your enjoyment of using the trail?
A. Yes
If yes, then check all that apply.
Too many dogs/unleashed dogs
Vandalism
__ Gangs present
Theft
Litterin g on trail
Too much noise
Speeding bikers
Presence of horses
Horse droppings
Others

p—l
ZQPWSP‘P‘PWN?‘

O

 

B.

7) Do you feel that there are any factors that lessen your enjoyment from living near the trail?
A. Yes
If yes, then check all that apply.
1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs
2. ___Vandalism
3._ _Gangs present
4. _Theft (Continued next page)

72

 

5. Littering on trail
6. Too much noise
7. Speeding bikers
8. Presence of horses
9. Horse droppings
10. Others
B. No

8) Do you feel safe using the Paint Creek Trail?
A. Yes
If yes, then on a scale of 0 to 10, rate how safe.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Least safe Most safe
B. No
If no, then check all reasons that apply.
1. Lack of police
2. Crime
3. Gang Activity
4. Lack of signage
5. Speeding bikes
6. Unleashed dogs
7. __ Horses
8. Other

 

9) Based on your experience with the trail, do you think communities proposing to build a trail:
A. Should strongly support it and make it a t0p priority

Should support it, but place it in a lower priority

Should not support it

Have no opinion

B.
C.
D.
10) On a scale of -10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an asset do you feel the trail
is to local residents?
-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Negative None Good Great

11) On a scale of -10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an impact has the trail had
on improving the quality of your life?
-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Negative None Good Great

73

12) What changes could the Paint Creek Trail Commission make that would result in greater
benefits to residents?
A. Increase signage
Limit access points along trail
Provide more public access points
Increase police patrols by horse
Increase police patrols by bicycle
Prohibit dogs
Increased effort of leash law
Construct additional fencing along private properties
Institute speed limits for bikers
Other

B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

I.

J.

 

13) Overall, what do you like the most about the Paint Creek Trail?

 

 

 

 

14) Would you like to make any comments not covered in this survey?

 

 

 

 

74

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee
Research lnvolvl 9
Human Sublects
(UCRIHS)

Michigan Stale University
246 Adminislration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
assume

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

Meummmsmnnmmn
urnsmwumwawmu
EmwmwMNMm

NGUBaummmmaMn
awmaummwmmmm

   
 
 
 
  
  

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIV

October 7,

ERSITY

1997

TO: Jon B. Burley .
101 UP&LA Building

RE: IRB#: 97-658
TITLE: GREENWAYS: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN
OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A .
CATEGORY: l-C -
APPROVAL DATE: 10/02/97

The university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'IUCRIHS)

review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to adVise that the

rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

herefore,
above.

RENEWAL:

REVISIONS :

PROBLEMS /
CHANGES :

the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a preject be and one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a.
project is renewed) to seek u date certification. There'is a
maXimum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a progect beyond that time need to submit it
again or complete reView.

UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving.human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal.form. To
revise an approved protocol at an 0 her time during the year,
send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting reVised
approval and referenCing the progect's IRB # and title. Include
in our request a description of the.change and any revised

ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems
(unexpected Slde effects, comp aints, e c.).involv1ng uman
subjects or (2).changes in the research enVironment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
eXisted when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517l4 2- 171.

Sincerel

DEW:bed

vid E. Wright, Ph.D.
CRIHS Chair

' 111’

  
  

cc: Robert Balmes /

APPENDIX C

SURVEY RESULTS

75

Group A 8: B Survey Totals

(1) How long have you lived in this home?

GroupA Percent GroupB Percent

A. 0 to 7 years 3 9.38 13 40.63
B. More than 7, less than 14 years 14 43.75 7 21.88
A & B Combined 17 20

C. More than 14 years 15 46.88 12 37.5
Totals: 32 100 32 100
How important is the trail to the area? Group A Percent Group B Percent
1. Very important 3 16.7 6 31.5
2. Important 10 55.6 10 52.7
3. Somewhat important 4 22.2 2 10.5
4. Not important 1 5.5 1 5.2
Totals: 18 100 19 100

How much impact did the trail have on you moving to this area?
Group A Percent Group B

1. It was the main reason for moving here. 2 15.4 0
2. It was a factor in my decision to move here. 4 30.8 6
3. The trail did not impact my decision 7 54.8 10
Totals: 13 100 16

How important is the addition of the trail to the area?

GroupA Percent GroupB Percent

1. Very important 6 40 6 46
2. Important 6 4O 3 23
3. Somewhat important 3 2O 4 31
4. Not important 0 0 0 0
Totals: 15 100 13 100
(2) Do you use the Paint Creek Trail? Group A Percent Group B_ Percent
A. Yes _ 29 93.5 27 84.37
B. No 2 6.45 5 15.63
If yes, then how often?

1. Once or twice per month 10 35.7 12 44.3
2. Once per week 8 25 4 15
3. Two to Three times per week 8 28.6 9 33.3
4. Four to Five times per week 3 19.7 2 7.4
5. Daily 0 O O 0
Totals: 29 100 27 100

76

Chi
0.000127

0.273322

Chi
0.220671

0.1573

Percent
O
37.5
62.5
100

Chi
0.0833

Chi
0.1628

(3) If resident selected "A" on question 2, then:

What activity do you engage in on the trail? (select all that apply)
Group A Percent
38.8

A. Biking

B. Running

C. Walking

0. Horse riding
E. Skiing

F. Transportation
G. Other

Totals:

26

6

24

1

10

0
0

67

13

35.8
1.5

15
0
0

100

Group B Percent

15
3
21
0
4
0
0
43

34.9

48.8

7

0

9.3

0
0

100

(4) On a scale of 0 to 10, (0 least, 10 most), how much do you feel your social

and recreational opportunities are improved by your location to the trail?
Group B
0 Least

Group A
0 Least

cooowouortswm-r

10 Most

0
O
1
1
1
3
1
9
8
3
Average = 8.1

4

(DQVODUTAOON—e

10 Most
Average =

thmomOAO-ito

7.

4

(5) On a scale of -10 to +10, how much do you feel the property value
of your home has been impacted by the trail?

Group A
-10 0 +1
-9 0 +2
-8 0 +3
'7 0 +4
-6 0 +5
-5 0 +6
-4 0 +7
-3 0 +8
-2 0 +9
-1 1 +1 0
0 0

Average = 4.75

OO-‘OJUIN-‘UI-lo

77

Group B

I
o—tNCJ-AU'ICDVCDLDS

Average:

4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
.4

5

+1

+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+1 0

dO-‘NOUIOJU'IM-h

(6) Do you feel that there are any factors that lesson your enjoyment of

using the trail? Group A Percent Group B Percent Chi
A. Yes 15 46.8 13 46.4 0.448532
B. No 17 53.2 15 53.6

If yes, then check all that apply.

 

1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs 0 O 2 7.7
2. Vandalism 1 3.4 0 O

3. Gangs present 0 O 0 0

4. Theft 1 3.4 O 0

5. Littering on trail 2 6.9 2 7.7
6. Too much noise 0 0 1 3.8
7. Speeding bikers 8 27.6 9 34.6
8. Presence of horses 4 13.8 1 3.8
9. Horse droppings 6 20.7 4 15.4
10. Others 7 24.1 7 26.9
Totals: 29 100 26 100

(7) Do you feel that there are any factors that lesson your enjoyment from living

near the trail? Group A Percent Group B Percent Chi
A. Yes 8 25 2 6 0.00183
B. No 24 75 30 94

If yes, then check all that apply.

1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs 0 0 2 28.6
2. Vandalism O O O 0
3. Gangs present 0 0 O O
4. Theft 0 O O O
5. Littering on trail 2 15.4 0 0
6. Too much noise 3 23.1 1 14.3
7. Speeding bikers 1 7.7 2 28.6
8. Presence of horses 1 7.7 O O
9. Horse droppings 1 7.7 1 14.3
10. Others 5 38.5 1 14.3
Totals: 13 100 7 100

78

(8) Do you feel safe using the Paint Creek Trail?
Group A Percent Group B Percent Chi

A. Yes 30 93.75 29 90.6 0.5442
B. No 2 6.25 3 9.4
Group A Group B

0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0

2 0 2 O

3 O 3 O

4 2 4 0

5 2 5 3

6 0 6 0

7 3 7 4

8 7 8 12

9 8 9 4

10 7 10 3
Average = 7.9 Average = 7.1
If no, then check all reasons that apply. Group A Percent Group B Percent
1. Lack of police 0 O 0 0
2. Crime 0 0 O O
3. Gang Activity 0 O O O
4. Lack ofsignage 0 O O 0
5. Speeding bikes 2 100 2 50
6. Unleashed dogs 0 0 1 25
7. Horses 0 O 0 O
8. Other 0 0 1 25
Totals: 2 100 4 100

(9) Based on your experience with the trail, do you think communities proposing

to build a trail should: Group A Percent Group B Percent
A. Strongly support it and make it a top priority 12 37.5 11 34.4
B. Support it, but place it in a lower priority 15 46.9 17 53.1
C. Not support it 1 3.1 O O

D. Have no opinion 4 12.5 4 12.5
Totals: 32 100 32 100

79

(10) On a scale of -10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an asset
do you feel the trail is to local residents?

Group A Group B
-10 0 +1 0 -10 0 +1 0
-9 0 +2 1 -9 0 +2 1
-8 0 +3 1 -8 0 +3 2
-7 0 +4 2 -7 0 +4 2
-6 0 +5 6 -6 0 +5 9
-5 0 +6 4 -5 0 +6 3
-4 0 +7 3 -4 0 +7 2
-3 0 +8 9 -3 0 +8 9
-2 0 +9 2 -2 0 +9 0
-1 0 +10 1 -1 0 +10 3
0 3 0 2
Average = 5.8 Average = 6.1
(11) On a scale of -10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an
impact has the trail had on improving the quality of your life?
Group A Group B
-10 0 +1 1 -10 0 +1 0
-9 0 +2 1 -9 0 +2 3
-8 0 +3 0 -8 0 +3 5
-7 0 +4 3 -7 0 +4 3
-6 0 +5 7 -6 0 +5 8
-5 0 +6 7 -5 0 +6 1
-4 0 +7 3 -4 0 +7 1
-3 0 +8 5 -3 0 +8 2
-2 0 +9 1 -2 0 +9 0
-1 0 +10 1 -1 0 +1 0 1
0 4 O 7
Average = 5.4 Average = 3.5
(12) What changes could the Paint Creek Trail Commission make that would
result in greater benefits to residents? Group A Percent Group B Percent
A. Increase signage 1 1.9 2 4.3
B. Limit access points along trail 4 7.7 1 2.2
C. Provide more public access points 6 11.5 7 15.2
D. Increase police patrols by horse 1 1.9 1 2.2
E. Increase police patrols by bicycle 14 26.9 14 30.4
F. Prohibit dogs 0 O 0 0
G. Increased effort of leash law 5 9.6 6 13
H. Construct additional fencing along properties 4 7.7 O 0
l. Institute speed limits for bikers 8 15.4 9 19.6
J. Other 9 17.3 6 13
Totals: 52 100 46 100

80

Totals From 64 Households

(1) How long have you lived in this home?
Totals Percent

A. 0 to 7 years 16 25
B. More than 7, less than 14 years 21 33
A & B Combined 37

C. More than 14 years 27 42
Totals: 64 100
How important is the trail to the area? Totals Percent
1. Very important 9 24.3
2. Important 2O 54
3. Somewhat important 6 16.2
4. Not important 2 5.5
Totals: 37 100

How much impact did the trail have on you moving to this area?
Totals Percent

1. It was the main reason for moving here. 2 6.9
2. It was a factor in my decision to move here. 10 34.4
3. The trail did not impact my decision 17 58.6
Totals: 29 100

How important is the addition of the trail to the area?
Totals Percent

1. Very important 12 42.9
2. Important 9 32.1
3. Somewhat important 7 25
4. Not important 0 0
Totals: 28 100
(2) Do you use the Paint Creek Trail? Totals Percent
A. Yes 56 89
B. No 7 11
If yes, then how often?

1. Once or twice per month 22 39.2
2. Once per week 12 21.4
3. Two to Three times per week 17 30.4
4. Four to Five times per week 5 8.9
5. Daily 0 0
Totals: 56 100

81

 

(3) If resident selected "A" on question 2, then:
What activity do you engage in on the trail? (select all that apply)
Totals Percent

A. Biking 41 37.2
B. Running 9 8.1
C. Walking 45 41
D. Horse riding 1 0.9
E. Skiing 14 12.7
F. Transportation 0 0
G. Other 0 0
Totals: 110 100

(4) On a scale of O to 10, (0 least, 10 most), how much do you feel your social
and recreational opportunities are improved by your location to the trail?
Totals

0 Least 0
1 2
2 1
3 1
4 2
5 1
6 9
7 1
8 15
9 17

10 Most 7

Average = 7.6

(5) On a scale of -10 to +10, how much do you feel the property value
of your home has been impacted by the trail?

1.01818
-10 0 +1 1
-9 0 +2 3
-8 0 +3 10
-7 0 +4 4
-6 0 +5 12
-5 0 +6 5
-4 0 +7 5
-3 0 +8 2
-2 0 +9 0
-1 1 +1 0 1
0 0
Average = 4.64

(6) Do you feel that there are any factors that lesson your enjoyment of

using the trail? Totals Percent
A. Yes 28 46.7
B. No 32 53.3

If yes, then check all that apply.

1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs 2 .
2. Vandalism 1 1.8
3. Gangs present 0 O
4. Theft 1 1.8
5. Littering on trail 4 7.2
6. Too much noise 1 1.8
7. Speeding bikers 17 31
8. Presence of horses 5 9.1
9. Horse droppings 10 18.1
10. Others 14 25.4
Totals: 55 100

(7) Do you feel that there are any factors that lesson your enjoyment from living

near the trail? Totals Percent
A. Yes 10 15.6
B. No 54 84.4

If yes, then check all that apply.

1. Too many dogs/unleashed dogs 0 0
2. Vandalism 0 O
3. Gangs present 0 O
4. Theft 0 O
5. Littering on trail 2 8
6. Too much noise 4 16
7. Speeding bikers 3 12
8. Presence of horses 1 4
9. Horse droppings 2 8
10. Others 6 24
Totals: 25 100

83

(8) Do you feel safe using the Paint Creek Trail?
Totals Percent

A. Yes 59 92.2
B. No 5 7.8
Totals

0 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 2

5 5

6 0

7 7

8 19

9 12

1O 10

Average = 7.52

If no, then check all reasons that apply. Totals Percent

1. Lack of police 0 O
2. Crime 0 0
3. Gang Activity 0 0
4. Lack of signage O O
5. Speeding bikes 4 66.7
6. Unleashed dogs 1 16.7
7. Horses 0 O
8. Other 1 16.7
Totals: 6 100

(9) Based on your experience with the trail, do you think communities proposing

to build a trail should: Totals Percent
A. Strongly support it and make it a top priority 23 36

B. Support it, but place it in a lower priority 32 50
C. Not support it 1 1.5
D. Have no Opinion 8 12.5
Totals: 64 100

84

(10) On a scale of ~10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an asset
do you feel the trail is to local residents?

Totals
-10 0 +1 0
-9 0 +2 2
-8 0 +3 3
-7 0 +4 4
-6 0 +5 1 5
-5 0 +6 7
-4 0 +7 5
-3 0 +8 18
-2 0 +9 2
-1 0 +10 4
0 5
Average = 5.89

(11) On a scale of —10 to +10 (-10 lowest, +10 highest), How much of an
impact has the trail had on improving the quality of your life?
Totals

-10 0 +1 1
-9 0 +2 4
-8 0 +3 5
-7 0 +4 6
-6 0 +5 15
-5 0 +6 8
-4 0 +7 4
-3 0 +8 7
-2 0 +9 1
-1 0 +10 2
0 11

Average = 4.43
(12) What changes could the Paint Creek Trail Commission make that would

result in greater benefits to residents? Totals Percent
A. Increase signage 3 3.1
B. Limit access points along trail 5 5.1
C. Provide more public access points 13 13.3
D. Increase police patrols by horse 2 2
E. Increase police patrols by bicycle 28 28.6
F. Prohibit dogs 0 0
G. Increased effort of leash law 11 11.2
H. Construct additional fencing along properties 4 4.1
I. Institute speed limits for bikers 17 17.3
J. Other 15 15.3
Totals: 98 100

85

Question 13: What Do You Like Most About The Paint Creek Trail?

0 Enjoy natural setting (14)
o Trail has scenic value (10)
0 Convenient location (7)

0 Nice to walk on (6)

0 Free of cars (4)

0 Access to Cider Mill (4)

0 Well maintained trail (3)

0 Connection to other areas like Lake Orion and Rochester (3)
0 Great for getting fresh air (3)

0 Clean (3)

0 Beautiful trail (3)

0 Nice grade (2)
0 Good for children (2)
0 The Paint Creek (2)

0 Better than old railroad (2)

0 Serenity and peacefulness (2)
0 Nice to have in area (2)

0 Quietness (2)

0 Closeness to Dinosaur Hill

0 Nice to get away from city life

0 Great for biking

0 Great for running

0 Great for socializing

0 Seeing wildlife

0 Benefit and improvement to area

0 Closeness to nature, nice length, good for healthy activities, pleasing recreational area

86

 

Question 14: Would You Like To Make Any Comments Not Covered In This Survey?

 

0 Trail should interconnect with other trails

0 If knew about trail more would us it more often

0 Concern over sewer lines installed near wetlands

0 Don’t allow building to close to trail-enjoy nature too much for it to be disturbed

o Wonderful asset

0 Valuable asset to community ‘ r

0 Thank you to the trail commission for working to improve the trail l.

0 People on commission should bike trail on busy days to see how crowded it is and how L
difficult it is to ride horses. {In

0 A recent closing of a right of way on Peach Blossom makes it difficult to get to the trail

0 Love new path under Rochester Road

0 Put crossing light at Tienken Road (Heavy weekend traffic)

0 Keep trail growing

0 Switch from horse to bike patrols

0 Exemption to stable horses in Rochester Hills--should also apply to riding horses south of

Dutton Road

0 Should create lane for walkers

0 Make trail wider in Lake Orion

0 Trespassing and some vandalizing occurs on property

0 There should be signs explaining courtesy of trail

0 Should display more of their brochures to public

0 Newton Street maintenance is poor and neighborhood disturbance by people parking near
homes

0 Crowds are unmanageable at times-police them better

0 Would not support trail if means an increase in taxes

87

 

 

 

293 02638 2519