Paulinskill Valley Trail - Rails to Trails

Paulinskill Valley Trail 2010 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis

Executive Summary .......................................................................2.

Historical Perspective .....................................................................4

Location Analysis ..........................................................................5

Paulinskill Valley Trail Area Demographics ......................................7

Paulinskill Valley Trail Map .............................................................8

Qualitative Values of the Paulinskill Valley Trail...............................9

Survey Results .............................................................................10

Methodology and Analysis ..........................................................14

Comparative Analysis ..................................................................16

Paulinskill Valley Trail User Estimates ............................................2.0

Economic Impact ........................................................................2.1

Trail Maintenance, Surface and Security ......................................2.4

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

Contents

This report was developed with assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, Community and Conservation Partnerships Program.

We would like to thank the following photographers for sharing their photos with us for this report: Boyd Loving (front cover and pages 7, 15,17, 18, 19, 2.1, 2.2. top, and 2.5); Teresa Rose (page 6); Kim Darst (page 2.2. bottom); Susan Data-Smatak (page 2.3 top and bottom).

Carl Knoch, Manager of Trail Development

Northeast Regional Office

March 2011

Paulinskill Valley Trail 2010 User Survey and Economic Impact Analysis

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

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

www.railstotrails.org

2. / Paulinskill Valley Trail 2.010 User Survey

Executive Summary

The Paulinskill Valley Trail is a multi-use trail that runs 27 miles in New Jersey from Brugler Road in Knowlton Township, Warren County, to Sparta Junction in Sussex County.

During 2010, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) conducted this study of the users of the Paulinskill

Valley Trail under a grant from the F. M. Kirby Foundation. This study utilized a survey method-ology previously tested on Pennsylvania trails and documented in RTC’s Trail User Survey Workbook (www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/UserSurveyMethodology.pdf ).

This survey was designed to monitor trail user characteristics and economic impact.

Survey forms were available at six locations along the Paulinskill Valley Trail from the beginning of June through October 2010. Completed responses were mailed back to RTC. In all, 374 completed survey forms are included in this analysis.

ZIP codes indicate a large majority of trail users on the Paulinskill Valley Trail are from the local communities in Warren and Sussex counties (72.8 percent). Trail users from other New Jersey counties represented 16.5 percent of the sample. The remaining trail users came from other states (9.7 percent).

The majority of respondents (45.3 percent) reported using the trail more than twice a week. Nearly 10 percent were on the Paulinskill Valley Trail for the first time.

The age profile of users is similar to that seen in other trail surveys, with the majority of users (62.5 percent) in the range of 46 to 65 years old.

The male/female ratio is also typical of what we have surveyed on other rail-trails, with 50.3 percent male and 49.7 percent female.

The Paulinskill Valley Trail is used primarily for walking and bicycling, with biking slightly more

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 3

common (39.7 percent) than walking (33.3 percent). Another 6.2 percent of respondents indicated horseback riding as a primary activity.

Most survey respondents (41.2 percent) spent one to two hours on the trail. More than 35 percent of respondents spent more than two hours on the trail. This time-on-trail breakdown is fairly typical on trails that exceed 20 miles in length in rural areas.

More than half of survey respondents (55.4 percent) indicated they considered their use of the trail to be for health and exercise. Only a little more than a third (36.8 percent) indicated they considered their use of the trail recreational. These responses further validate the high percentage of respondents who use the trail more than twice a week.

Most respondents (63.5 percent) learned about the trail primarily through “word of mouth” or because they drove by the trail. Another 10.3 percent cited information from Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and their trail-finder website, www.traillink.com.

The survey included seven questions about expend-itures in order to develop a profile of trail user spending habits. Seventy percent of respondents indicated they had purchased some form of durable good, also known as a “hard good,” for use while on the trail (shoes, bike supplies, etc.), with users spending an average of $371.91 per person in the previous 12 months. Consumable goods, or “soft goods” such as snacks and drinks, were purchased by 36.5 percent, for an average of $9.93 per person, per trip. Lodging was the third factor examined for economic analysis. Slightly less than 3 percent of the Paulinskill Valley Trail survey respondents indicated they paid for lodging at a hotel or bed-and-breakfast for an average of $104.44 per night; the largest

percentage of respondents (59.3 percent) indicated they stayed with family or friends at no cost.

Overall maintenance on the Paulinskill Valley Trail was rated good to excellent by 80.3 percent of respondents, and safety and security along the trail was rated good to excellent by 80 percent.

Eighty percent of respondents felt the trail surface was good to excellent.

The respondents’ willingness to donate a voluntary annual fee to help maintain the trail was divided, with 59.4 percent in support and 40.2 percent opposed.

The segment of trail used most often by respondents was around Blairstown. The Airport Road, Footbridge Road and East Crisman Road access points accounted for nearly 40 percent of respondents (39.6 percent). Lowest usage was at the far western edge of the Paulinskill Valley Trail at Brugler Road. This access point may become more popular as knowledge of a connection to the pedestrian bridge across the Delaware River between Columbia, N.J., and Portland, Pa., becomes more widespread.

The Paulinskill Valley Trail is part of an evolving 130-mile trail network across the state of New Jersey. The Liberty-Water Gap Trail, when completed, will stretch from Liberty Park on the Hudson River in Jersey City to Columbia on the Delaware River. Liberty-Water Gap Trail signage appears all along the Paulinskill Valley Trail at trailheads and road crossings. However, only 41 percent of survey respondents acknowledged awareness of the Liberty-Water Gap Trail.

4 / Paulinskill Valley Trail 2.010 User Survey

The New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad right-of-way, the foundation for the Paulinskill Valley Trail, extends from near Columbia, N.J., on the Delaware River in Warren County, along the banks of the Paulinskill River to Sparta Junction in Sussex County.

The New York Susquehanna and Western Railroad abandoned the corridor in August 1962. The tracks and ties were removed, and in 1963 the city of Newark purchased the right-of-way. The city planned to use the right-of-way to lay a water pipe-line from the proposed Tocks Island Reservoir to their watershed area near West Milford. When the plans for the reservoir fell through, Newark put the right-of-way up for sale.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) held a public meeting in Blairstown on June 13, 1985, to announce their intention to purchase the site. Local community members came out in droves. The most outspoken voices were anti-trail. There were a fair number of

trail supporters present, but they were not prepared for anything like the storm of opposition they en-countered. Such strong opposition set proponents, including the NJ DEP, reeling. Landowners with property adjacent to the trail had organized, calling themselves the “Railroad Right-of-Way Repurchase Association.”

Trail opponents also had the backing of many other local landowners, some of them long-time citizens of Warren County, as well as the state senator, two state assemblymen, the three freeholders from Warren County, and all the politicians from the bordering towns—mayors, councilmen and planning board members.

The task for trail proponents was to prove that strong local backing, especially political backing, did exist in the trail’s home district. Under Len Frank’s leadership, an ad hoc committee began meeting. Frank was a long-time leader in the local Sierra Club chapter and was well-prepared to coordinate this effort.

Historical Perspective*


Proponents began leading hikes on the trail to show what a wonderful experience the trail could deliver. Information booths were manned at the county fairs in Sussex and Warren and at the Sussex Air Show. Roberta Bramhall created large displays with huge maps of the trail accented by many photographs.

Eventually, proponents became organized as the Paulinskill Valley Trail Committee (www.pvtc-kvsp.org), soliciting memberships at $10 a year. With this money, they printed a pamphlet to help promote the trail cause.

In the summer of 1986, the Sussex Voice issued a readers’ poll on the trail project.

The poll was printed just in time for the Sussex Fair in August 1986. The poll consisted of nine questions. Copies were printed and used at the Paulinskill Valley Trail Committee booth and the Voice booth at the fair. The poll was promoted vigorously, and as a result of the 650 responses, 90.6 percent were in favor of the trail. A second readers’ poll in 1987 delivered 968 responses with 92.5 percent in favor. In 1988, the trail committee printed their own poll under the sponsorship of the County Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. This poll resulted in 614 responses with 97 percent in favor of the trail.

Public backing for the trail had been amply dem-onstrated, but there was still insufficient political support. The trail committee wrote to and contacted elected officials without results. Wally Wirths of Wantage in Sussex County contacted the Sussex Freeholders, and told them about the trail and the

*History excerpted from articles written by Len Frank and Bill Weiler courtesy of The Paulinskill Valley Trail Committee.

results of the polls. The three freeholders drew up and signed a resolution that the state should buy the corridor. This political support helped persuade Governor Thomas Kean, and he authorized NJDEP to purchase the corridor.

Through the efforts of the Paulinskill Valley Trail Committee, the trail was purchased by New Jersey Green Acres and became a state park on October 3, 1992.


The Paulinskill Valley Trail is located in Warren and Sussex counties in northwestern New Jersey. The trail begins in Knowlton Township near Columbia and extends 27 miles roughly north and east to Sparta Junction in Sussex County, just outside of Newton. For most of its length, the trail follows the banks of the Paulinskill River. At Warbasse Junction near Lafayette, the Paulinskill Valley Trail intersects with the Sussex Branch Trail.

The Paulinskill Valley Trail passes through a primarily rural landscape. The state-owned portion of the trail begins just outside of Columbia in Knowlton Town-ship. In December 2010, Knowlton Township com-pleted an extension of the Paulinskill Valley Trail to the pedestrian bridge between Columbia and Portland, Pa., across the Delaware River just south of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. This extension utilizes a dirt road through the NJDEP Columbia Wildlife Management Area. From Columbia Lake, a pathway leads to NJ Route 46. Crossing the Paulinskill River on the highway bridge, a ramp takes the trail down to water level, where the path has been constructed in the river bottom to take users under the highway. A ramp up to street level leads to Washington Street and meets the pedestrian bridge at Green Street.

The only community the trail passes directly through is Blairstown (population 5,747) in Warren County. The trail passes through a large parking lot for Blairstown’s Footbridge Park. Heading north of the parking lot and across the footbridge over the

Locational Analysis

Paulinskill leads to the business district. The trail also passes by the Blairstown Airport, which is a renowned location for gliders.

The trail runs around the outskirts of Newton (population 8,244), the Sussex County seat. To reach the central business district requires a road ride of a couple of miles. The most direct route is County Route 622 to Mill Street.

The woodlands the trail passes through provide ample opportunity for the enjoyment of nature’s bounty. More than 100 different species of birds have been identified along the trail during the Paulinskill Valley Trail Committee’s annual bird census. These rich woodlands are also home to more than 100 different species of wildflowers that have also been identified by members of the trail committee.

With the Paulinskill River in such close proximity, the trail offers ample opportunities for fishing. The state stocks the Paulinskill with brown and rainbow trout. Some of the property along the river is private, so visitors should be aware of posted areas.

The trail also helps to highlight some of the history of Warren and Sussex counties. Foundations of creameries and ice houses that were served by the railroad can been seen along the length of the corridor. The trail utilizes eight of the original railroad bridges across the Paulinskill. Original whistle and mileage markers can also be seen along the route.

Paulinskill Valley


Paulinskill Valley Trail Area Demographics

The Paulinskill Valley Trail is located in Warren and Sussex counties in New Jersey.

Paulinskill Valley Trail Region Demographic Profile (by county)

Warren County Sussex County

Population (2.009 est.) 109,638 151,118

Median Household Income (2.008) $74,72.1 $79,393

Households (2.000) 38,660 50,831

Persons per Household (2.000) 2..61 2..80

Persons per Square Mile (2.000) 2.86.1 2.76.7

Paulinskill Valley Trail Region Population Projections (projected by County)

2000 (actual U.S. Census) 2010 2015 2020 2030

Warren County 102.,438 116,437 12.0,759 12.7,792. 132.,502.

Sussex County 144,166 161,881 N/A 178,635 N/A


Paulinskill Valley Trail Map


Qualitative Values of the Paulinskill Valley Trail

The best way to summarize the qualitative values of the Paulinskill Valley Trail is to let trail users describe how they feel about their experience. The following are verbatim comments taken from the 2010 Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey forms.

The trail is one to the greatest assets to my area & I treasure it!!!

Love this trail. Don’t know where I would run without it!

What a great idea converting these RR’s to rail trails! The P-skill is a beautiful bike ride from one end to the other! And a lot safer than riding on roads!

More benches or seating along the trail would be helpful.

We purchased our property 10+ yrs ago so we could live right on the trail. We hike & bike many times several times a day. We have purchased extra bikes to accommodate friends/family visitors.

Add markers to indicate mileage, also a bench or two would be nice.

Horse riders should clean up droppings!

Trail could use some maintenance.

Also enjoy horseback riding on trail.

I love walking my dog on the trail. My 7 yr. old son rides his bike along with us. We can’t wait to go on the trail again!

Totally enjoy the beauty and solitude of the trail.

Need mileage markers — Horse riders clean up after horses.

This trail was a major draw for me to move back to the area. Truly one of the finest parts of the state.

Need more signs as to yielding to bike, joggers, horses.

Needs a lot of work on the western end of the trail!

Too many horses on weekends!! They leave a mess too.

We love living in an area with easy access to the trail.

We have tried to walk the entire trail in segments. This is the greatest trail — finding the order of the trail from beginning to end with places to park cars — the map overlaps are confusing — one clear map with clearly marked segments showing parking and mileage between segments is needed very badly.

The trails are a community treasure.


2010 Survey Results


Question 1What is your ZIP code?

37.5% Warren County 35.3% Sussex County 5.9% Morris County 2.7% Essex County 2.2% Bergen County 5.7% Other New Jersey counties 9.7% Other states

Question 2How did you get to the trail?

65.8% Drive 12.3% Bike 10.7% Walk 6.1% Run/jog 5.1% Horseback

Question 3How often, on average, do you use the trail?

3.5% Daily 21.3% More than twice a week 20.5% Twice a week 7.2% Once a week 16.3% A couple times a month 5.3% Once a month 16.0% Few times a year 9.9% First time

Question 4Please identify your age group.

0.8% 15 and under 4.0% 16–25 7.0% 26–35 13.4% 36–45 34.3% 46–55 28.2% 56–65 12.1% 66 or older

Question 5Were any children 15 years of age or younger with you on your trail experience today?

12.5% Yes 87.5% No

Question 5aHow many children in each age category?

22.7% Under 5 34.9% 5 to 9 42.4% 10 to 15

Question 6What is your gender?

50.3% Male 49.7% Female

Questions 7What is your primary activity on the trail?

33.3% Walking/hiking 39.7% Biking 12.2% Jogging/running 6.2% Horseback riding 8.7% Pet walking 2.7% Other

Question 8Generally, when do you use the trail?

11.6% Weekdays 31.6% Weekends 56.8% Both

Question 9What time of day do you generally use the trail?

37.3% Morning 27.8% Afternoon 3.9% Evening 31.0% Anytime

Question 10How much time do you generally spend on the trail on each visit?

1.1% Less than 30 minutes 22.1% 30 minutes to 1 hour 41.2% 1 to 2 hours 35.6% More than 2 hours

12. / Paulinskill Valley Trail 2.010 User Survey

Question 11Would you consider your main use of the trail to be for…

36.8% Recreation 55.4% Health and exercise 6.6% Training 0.3% Commuting 1.0% Other 2.6% Walk the dog 16.5% Other: Socialize

Question 12Have you used other rail-trails in New Jersey? 67.8% Yes 32.2% No

Question 13How did you find out about the trail?

43.1% Word of mouth 12.0% Roadside signage 20.4% Driving past 2.1% Newspaper 3.1% NJDEP 7.0% Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 3.3% www.traillink.com 6.2% Other website 1.7% Bike shop 1.2% Tourist information

Question 14Has your use of the trail influenced your purchase of…?

17.2% Bike 15.9% Bike supplies 10.4% Auto accessories (bike rack, etc.) 16.9% Footwear 14.6% Clothing 1.6% Fishing equipment 23.9% Nothing

Question 15Approximately how much did you spend on the items above in the past year?

The average for those who indicated they had made a purchase and provided a dollar amount was $371.91 (n=219).

Question 16In conjunction with your most recent trip to the trail, did you purchase any of the following?

22.6% Beverages 11.1% Candy/snack foods 6.7% Sandwiches 2.6% Ice cream 11.7% Meals at a restaurant along the trail 0.0% Bike rental 3.5% Other 41.7% None of these

Question 17 Approximately how much did you spend per person on the items above?

The average for those who indicated they had made a purchase and provided a dollar amount was $9.93 (n=162).Note that this is an average amount spent per person, per trip.

Question 18Did your visit to the trail involve an overnight stay in one of the following types of accommodations (n=35)?

7.4% Motel/Hotel 7.4% Bed-and-Breakfast 59.3% Friend or relative’s home 22.2% Campground 3.7% Other

Question 19How many nights did you stay in conjunction with your visit to the trail?

Average number of nights per stay was 1.7.

Question 20Approximately how much did you spend on over-night accommodations per night?

Average expenditure per night for those who pro-vided an amount was $104.44 (n=9).

Question 21In your opinion, the maintenance of the trail is…

30.7% Excellent 49.6% Good 15.4% Fair 4.3% Poor

Question 22In your opinion, the surface of the trail is… 25.6% Excellent 55.0% Good 14.0% Fair 5.4% Poor

Question 23In your opinion, the safety and security along the trail is…

28.8% Excellent 51.8% Good 16.2% Fair 2.8% Poor

Question 24Which section of the trail do you use most often?

4.9% Brugler Road 8.3% Station Road 13.3% Airport Road 14.9% Footbridge Road 11.4% East Crisman Road 9.4% Spring Valley Road 7.8% Cedar Ridge Road 7.7% Newton Swartswood Road 7.0% Newton Halsey 8.7% Morris Farm 6.9% Warbasse Junction

Question 25Are you aware of the Liberty-Water Gap Trail?

41.0% Yes 59.0% No

Question 26Would you be willing to pay a voluntary fee to help maintain the trail?

59.8% Yes 40.2% No 8.7% Rosston 41.7% Ford City 32.5% Kittanning 6.0% Cowanshannock 1.3% Lock & Dam #8 4.2% Templeton 5.5% Other



Utilizing Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s Trail User Survey Workbook template as a starting point, this survey form was refined with input from the super-intendent of Kittatinny Valley State Park, which manages the Paulinskill Valley Trail. The sample was self-selecting, meaning trail users could pick up survey forms that were available at each of the trail’s primary trailheads between Brugler Road and Warbasse Junction. The survey forms themselves were folded into a postage-paid self-mailer that was addressed to Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s national office in Washington, D.C. Survey collection was conducted from the beginning of June 2010 through the beginning of November 2010.

For the purpose of this analysis, 374 survey forms were completed. Because several questions called for multiple responses, and some survey respondents did not answer all of the questions, the percentages presented in this analysis are based on the total number of responses to each individual question.

(Disclaimer: As a self-selecting survey, these findings are not absolute, and no one can predict with any certainty how trail users will act in the future. That said, the findings track very closely with similar surveys and other published reports, as well as anecdotal evidence).

For the purpose of this analysis, the data from the Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey will be compared with data collected in a 2008 survey of users on the Perkiomen Trail in Montgomery County, Pa., and a 2009 survey of users on the Ghost Town Trail in Indiana and Cambria counties in Pennsylvania. The data collection methodology and the survey questions from the Perkiomen and Ghost Town trail surveys are in most cases identical to those in the Paulinskill Valley Trail survey.

The Ghost Town Trail and the Perkiomen Trail were chosen for comparison because they share similar characteristics of length and type of surrounding. The Ghost Town Trail is a multi-use trail that runs 36 miles east to west between Ebensburg in Cambria County and Black Lick in Indiana County. The Ghost Town Trail is co-managed by Indiana County Parks and the Cambria County Conservation Authority. The trail is primarily rural, running parallel to Blacklick Creek and game lands and passing through the town of Ebensburg, as well as a few small residential communities.

The Perkiomen Trail is a 19-mile multi-use trail in the southeast section of Pennsylvania. The Perkio-men Trail is managed by the Montgomery County Parks Department. Surrounded by suburban com-munities and interstate highways, the trail passes through several small towns as well as rural areas, all within 30 miles of Philadelphia.

Like the Paulinskill Valley Trail, both the Ghost Town and Perkiomen trails demonstrate characteristics of a local community trail.

Methodology and Analysis


Distribution of survey respondents based on ZIP code.


Comparative Analysis

The age profile for the users of the Paulinskill Valley Trail is very similar to the age profile of users of the Ghost Town and Perkiomen trails. The highest percentage of users of the Paulinskill Valley Trail fall in the 46 to 55-year age range, which is slightly higher than the comparable trails in this analysis. The Paulinskill Valley Trail had the lowest percentage of users under the age of 35. In all three of the studies, the majority of trail users are over the age of 45.

What is your age group? Comparison with other trails

Perc

ent

Perkiomen Trail

Perc

ent

Paulinskill Valley Trail

<15 16-15 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >66

Paulinskill Valley Trail Ghost Town Trail

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

<15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 >66

As with most rail-trails, the primary activities on the Paulinskill Valley Trail are walking and bicycling, with cycling the most common; the length of the trail lends itself to all-day cycling adventures. Horseback riding is also a very popular activity on the Paulinskill Valley Trail. There are a number of stables close to the trail that provide easy access.

What is your primary activity? Comparison with other trails

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Walk Run PetWalk

Bike Equestrian Other Walk Bike Run Other

Perkiomen TrailPaulinskill Valley Trail Paulinskill Valley Trail Ghost Town Trail

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


All three trails in this comparison pass through a combination of natural ‘wilderness’ areas as well as residential and retail areas. The Paulinskill Valley Trail passes through the smallest percentage of populated areas and has the second-longest distance of unbroken trail. The most dramatic difference in time spent by users of all three trails can be seen in the number of people who are on the trail for more than two hours. The Paulinskill Valley Trail has the second-largest percentage of people on the trail for two hours or more. This result is typical for trails of this length, and where cycling is a primary activity.

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

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

<30 min 30-60 min 1-2 hrs >2 hrs <30 min 30-60 min 1-2 hrs >2 hrs


05

1015202530354045

0

10

20

30

40

50

Nearly 60 percent of users of the Paulinskill Valley Trail purchased consumable items in conjunction with their trail visit. For the purpose of this survey, these purchases included items such as snacks, water, ice cream and meals. This percentage is slightly lower than what we see on the Ghost Town Trail, yet higher than on the more populated Perkiomen Trail. The percentage of purchases relates to the length of the trail and the environment through which the trail passes (as in feeling a need to be prepared by carrying some nourishment on more remote or longer trails). The Ghost Town Trail is isolated from services in many places, while the Perkiomen is always within easy distance of food and water. The Paulinskill Valley Trail is somewhere in the middle with the amount of available retail establishments from which to purchase items.

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

Perc

ent

Perkiomen Trail

Perc

ent

Paulinskill Valley Trail Paulinskill Valley Trail Ghost Town Trail

Yes No Yes No0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


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

Perkiomen TrailPaulinskill Valley Trail Paulinskill ValleyTrail Ghost Town Trail

$0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

$

Ave

rage

Dol

lars

Ave

rage

Dol

lars

$9.93

0

2

4

6

8

10

$9.93$11.09

$13.62

Respondents to the Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey reported spending an average of $9.93 while on the trail, somewhat less than users on the Ghost Town and Perkiomen trails. Again, the distance traveled on the trail, the amount of time spent and the environment through which the trail passes all influence the amount of money spent on consumable goods. Other factors corresponding to the amount of spending while on the trail can be the economy in general and the type of trailside retail (full-service restaurants versus quick-stop snack shops).

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

Perc

ent


Perc

ent

Yes No Yes No0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

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


The amount respondents reported spending on durable goods such as bicycles and clothing is averaged at $371.91 per person on the Paulinskill Valley Trail. The difference in the amount spent by survey respondents on these trails is less than $40. The percentage of respondents who reported purchasing durable goods varies by only 12 percent between the three trails (Paulinskill, 76.1percent; Perkiomen, 81.5 percent; and Ghost Town, 88.4 percent).

Ave

rage

Dol

lars


$ $

Ave

rage

Dol

lars

$371.91

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

$371.91

$396.89

$357.63

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

2.0 / Paulinskill Valley Trail 2.010 User Survey

Paulinskill Valley Trail User Estimate

During the summer and fall of 2010, passive infrared counters were placed at two locations along the Paulin-skill Valley Trail. The first counter was placed on the trail at the Spring Valley Road trailhead on June 1. This counter was moved on August 10 because the trailhead was closed for construction. The counter was placed on the trail at the Warbasse Junction Road trailhead on August 10, where it remained until November 4. These counters collect data on the number of trail users passing the counter by detecting each user’s “heat signature.”

In order to develop an annual user estimate for these two locations, the data collected was extrapolated to a 12-month estimate using a User Visit Model developed by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. This model examines data collected using electronic counters at 58 different locations on rail-trails across the United States.

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

Spring Valley Road June 1, 2.010 to August 10, 2.010 3,703 14,453 17,344 9,12.8

Warbasse Junction Road August 10, 2.010 to November 4, 2.010 4,768 18,077 2.1,692. 11,416

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy / 2.1

The economic impact of the Paulinskill Valley Trail is comprised of a number of elements.

From the survey, the percentage of respondents who have purchased “hard goods” (bikes, bike equipment, running/walking shoes, etc.) was determined. Many of these respondents also revealed how much they spent on these types of purchases during the past 12 months.

Also, from the survey it was determined how much trail users spent on “soft goods” (water, soda, snacks, ice cream, lunches, etc.) while using the trail. Again, the percentage of respondents who made these types of purchases provides an important aspect for deter-mining the economic impact.

Very few respondents to the Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey indicated that an overnight stay was part of their trail experience. Of the 374 completed survey forms, only 35 indicated an overnight stay. Of those indicating an overnight stay, 59 percent were with family or friends and did not result in an out-of-pocket expenditure.

Estimates of the economic impact of the Paulinskill Valley Trail are presented in the following tables. These estimates are based on the potential spending of trail users who passed the Spring Valley Road and Warbasse Junction Road trail counters. They do not represent what the total economic impact for the full length of the Paulinskill Valley Trail may be.

Economic Impact

Hard Goods

Has your use of the trail influenced your purchase of? (check all that apply)

Bike 17.2.%

Bike supplies 15.9%

Auto accessories 10.4%

Running/walking/hiking shoes 16.9%

Clothing 14.6%

Fishing equipment 1.6%

Nothing 2.3.9%

Approximately how much did you spend on the items above in the past year? (enter dollar amount)

Average “hard goods” purchase $371.91 (n=2.19)

Soft Goods

In conjunction with your most recent trip to the trail, did you purchase any of the following? (check all that apply)

Beverages 2.2..6%

Candy/snack foods 11.1%

Sandwiches 6.7%

Ice cream 2..6%

Meals at a restaurant along the trail 11.7%

Bike rental 0.0%

Other 3.5%

None of these 41.7%

2.2. / Paulinskill Valley Trail 2.010 User Survey

Approximately how much did you spend per person on the items above? (enter dollar amount)

Average “soft goods” purchase $9.93 (n=162.)

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

Lodging

Did your visit to the trail involve an overnight stay in one of the following types of accommodations? (circle one response)

Motel/hotel 7.4%

Bed-and-Breakfast 7.4%

Friend or relative’s home 59.3%

Campground 2.2..2.%

Other 3.7%

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

Average number of nights per stay 1.7

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

Average expenditure per night for those providing an amount $104.44 (n=9)

The following chart takes the data provided above and extrapolates the purchases for the trail users who passed the Spring Valley Road and Warbasse Junction Road counters. While “hard good” purchases may not be made on an annual basis, they represent a significant expenditure figure. The purchase of “soft goods” does represent an annual expenditure, because these purchases are made on a per-trip basis by users. The percentage of trail users paying for an overnight stay may vary significantly from year to year.


Paulinskill Valley Trail Economic Impact Analysis

Annual User Est. (Rounded) Spring Valley Road (9,182.) / Warbasse Junction (11,416)

Category % Usage Avg. $ Avg. Life Avg. # of trips Avg. # of nights Spring Valley / Warbasse

Hard Goods* 70.0% $371.91 6 years 2.4.6 $16,195 / $2.0,136

Soft Goods 36.5% $9.93 $33,2.80 / $41,376

Lodging 2..9% $104.44 1.7 $47,2.2.7 / $58,780

Hard Goods = (% Usage X (Avg. $ ÷ Avg. Life) X (# Users ÷ Avg. Number of Trips)* In the above example, the calculation for Spring Valley Road would look like this: ((.700 X ($371.91÷6)) X (9,182÷24.6) = $16,195

Soft Goods = (% Usage X Users Avg. $ X # Users) In the above example, the calculation for Warbasse Junction Road would look like this: (.365 X $9.93 X 11,416) = $41,376

Accommodations= (% Usage X Users Avg. $ X # Users x Avg. # Nights) In the above example, the calculation for Spring Valley Road would look like this: (.029 X $104.44 X 9,182 X 1.7) = $47,277

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


Trail Maintenance, Surface and Cleanliness

One of the most important aspects of the trail user survey is that it allows the trail’s management organization to receive feedback, both positive and negative, from trail users. The 2010 Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey can serve as a benchmark against which future maintenance, trail surface and cleanliness issues can be compared.

The questions on maintenance and cleanliness were also asked on the 2008 Perkiomen Trail Study and the 2009 Ghost Town Trail Study. To provide a basis of comparison for the management of the Paulinskill Valley Trail, the responses from those studies have been included in this section of the analysis. No comparative analysis is available for the question concerning the trail surface.

Perc

ent


Perc

ent

Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent FairGood Poor0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Opinion of trail maintenance Comparison with other trails

According to respondents to this survey, the Paulinskill Valley Trail is fairly well maintained. The high stan-dard set by the Perkiomen Trail represents a significant amount of work on the part of the Montgomery County Department of Parks and Heritage Service. The Ghost Town Trail is also maintained by the county department of parks.

More than 80 percent of respondents rated the trail surface Excellent or Good. In the comments there were references to specific sections of the trail where surface repairs were needed. These responses may have come from surveys completed after rain storms or other natural occurrences that impacted the trail surface. Some of the surface comments may also be related to the many comments regard-ing horse manure on the trail.Pe

rcen

t

Paulinskill Valley Trail

Excellent Good Fair Poor0

10

20

30

40

50

60Opinion of trail surface


The feeling of security that trail users have is influenced by the presence of other trail users, visual observation of rangers, familiarity with the trail, and each user’s general perception of how safe the overall environment is. From the chart, it appears that survey respondents to the Paulinskill Valley Trail User Survey feel somewhat less safe than users of the Perkiomen Trail and the Ghost Town Trail.

Perc

ent


Perc

ent

Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Opinion of safety and security of the trail Comparison with other trails


Appendix A—Trail Counter Data


TRA

Fx R

EPO

RT:

Proj

ect:

Paul

insk

ill T

rail

Use

r Su

rvey

201

0St

art:

2010

-06-

01Lo

catio

n: S

prin

g V

alle

y Ro

ad T

railh

ead

Cou

nter

:Sp

ring

Val

ley

Road

Fini

sh:

2010

-08-

10C

omm

ent:

Tota

l Co

un

ts:

3,70

3D

aily

Mea

n W

eekd

ay:

36.0

Tota

l (1)

: 3,

703

Tota

l Per

iod

s:

71D

aily

Mea

n W

eeke

nd:

93.3

Tota

l (2)

: 0

Peri

od

Len

gth

: 1

day

Mea

n M

onda

y30

.7Pe

rcen

tage

(1) :

10

0.0

Mea

n:

52.2

Mea

n Tu

esda

y36

.0Pe

rcen

tage

(2) :

0.

0M

od

e:35

.0M

ean

Wed

nesd

ay31

.5M

ean

(1) :

52

.2M

edia

n:

43.0

Mea

n Th

ursd

ay40

.6M

ean

(2) :

0.

0St

and

ard

Dev

iati

on

: 38

.9M

ean

Frid

ay41

.2M

ax/M

in (1

) :

167

/ 3M

axim

um

:16

7M

ean

Satu

rday

93.2

Max

/Min

(2) :

0

/ 0M

inim

um

:3

Mea

n Su

nday

93.5

Tota

l Wee

kday

: 1,

836

Tota

l Wee

kend

: 1,

867

Dai

ly M

ax/M

in W

eekd

ay:

75 /

3D

aily

Max

/Min

Wee

kend

: 16

7 / 2

1

FIV

E PE

AK

PER

IOD

S: 2

010-

07-0

3 (1

67),

2010

-07-

11 (1

67),

2010

-07-

18 (1

46),

2010

-06-

19 (1

39),

2010

-06-

26 (1

34)

020406080100

120

140

160

180

2010

-06-

01 2010

-06-

03 2010

-06-

05 2010

-06-

07 2010

-06-

09 2010

-06-

11 2010

-06-

13 2010

-06-

15 2010

-06-

17 2010

-06-

19 2010

-06-

21 2010

-06-

23 2010

-06-

25 2010

-06-

27 2010

-06-

29 2010

-07-

01 2010

-07-

03 2010

-07-

05 2010

-07-

07 2010

-07-

09 2010

-07-

11 2010

-07-

13 2010

-07-

15 2010

-07-

17 2010

-07-

19 2010

-07-

21 2010

-07-

23 2010

-07-

25 2010

-07-

27 2010

-07-

29 2010

-07-

31 2010

-08-

02 2010

-08-

04 2010

-08-

06 2010

-08-

08 2010

-08-

10


TRA

Fx R

EPO

RT:

Proj

ect:

Paul

insk

ill V

alle

y Tr

ail U

ser

Surv

ey 2

010

Star

t:20

10-0

8-10

Loca

tion:

War

bass

e Ju

nctio

n Tr

ailh

ead

Cou

nter

:Pa

ulin

skill

_War

bass

eFi

nish

:20

10-1

1-04

Com

men

t:

Tota

l Co

un

ts:

4,76

8D

aily

Mea

n W

eekd

ay:

34.3

Tota

l (1)

: 4,

768

Tota

l Per

iod

s:

87D

aily

Mea

n W

eeke

nd:

108.

6To

tal (

2) :

0Pe

rio

d L

eng

th:

1 d

ayM

ean

Mon

day

41.3

Perc

enta

ge (1

) :

100.

0M

ean

:54

.8M

ean

Tues

day

32.1

Perc

enta

ge (2

) :

0.0

Mo

de:

46.0

Mea

n W

edne

sday

31.8

Mea

n (1

) :

54.8

Med

ian

:41

.0M

ean

Thur

sday

28.8

Mea

n (2

) :

0.0

Stan

dar

d D

evia

tio

n:

45.1

Mea

n Fr

iday

38.5

Max

/Min

(1) :

18

8 / 0

Max

imu

m:

188

Mea

n Sa

turd

ay10

6.8

Max

/Min

(2) :

0

/ 0M

inim

um

:0

Mea

n Su

nday

110.

4To

tal W

eekd

ay:

2,16

1To

tal W

eeke

nd:

2,60

7D

aily

Max

/Min

Wee

kday

: 17

3 / 0

Dai

ly M

ax/M

in W

eeke

nd:

188

/ 19

FIV

E PE

AK

PER

IOD

S: 2

010-

09-0

4 (1

88),

2010

-09-

05 (1

79),

2010

-09-

06 (1

73),

2010

-09-

26 (1

52),

2010

-09-

11 (1

44)

020406080100

120

140

160

180

200

2010

-08-

10 2010

-08-

12 2010

-08-

14 2010

-08-

16 2010

-08-

18 2010

-08-

20 2010

-08-

22 2010

-08-

24 2010

-08-

26 2010

-08-

28 2010

-08-

30 2010

-09-

01 2010

-09-

03 2010

-09-

05 2010

-09-

07 2010

-09-

09 2010

-09-

11 2010

-09-

13 2010

-09-

15 2010

-09-

17 2010

-09-

19 2010

-09-

21 2010

-09-

23 2010

-09-

25 2010

-09-

27 2010

-09-

29 2010

-10-

01 2010

-10-

03 2010

-10-

05 2010

-10-

07 2010

-10-

09 2010

-10-

11 2010

-10-

13 2010

-10-

15 2010

-10-

17 2010

-10-

19 2010

-10-

21 2010

-10-

23 2010

-10-

25 2010

-10-

27 2010

-10-

29 2010

-10-

31 2010

-11-

02 2010

-11-

04


Northeast Regional Office 2.133 Market Street, Suite 2.2.2. Camp Hill, PA 17011tel 717.2.38.1717 fax 717.2.38.7566

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

www.railstotrails.org

Documents

Paulinskill Valley Trail - Rails to Trails