Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
P&R 07-07-05
I ..;70 i J1~ ! ____.----.J M'-t: .- f F CUPERJINO AGENDA Parks and Recreation Commission Thursday, July 7,2005 Roger Peng Rod Brown, Chair Frank Jelinch Vice Chair Jeanne Bradford . . Therese Smith Director ~ Speaker's Podium In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities during public meetings. If special assistance is required, please contact the Parks and Recreation office at 777-3110 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. ~ See back of cover for further infonnation on the Commission's meeting. CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL, 10350 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408-777-3110 - Website: www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO GOVERNMENT Cupertino is a general law city organized under and subject to statutes of the state of California. It is governed by a five-member city council, with the mayor as the presiding officer. The Parks and Recreation Commissioners are appointed by and report directly to the City Council. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION The commission regularly meets the first Thursday of each month. These meetings are held in the Cupertino Community Hall, starting at 7 p.m. Agenda copies are available to the public as soon as they are printed and copies of commission minutes are available after they have been approved. These same materials are also available by mail, for a nominal fee. Current and prior commission agendas, minutes, and packets are also available at www.cupertino.org (click Agendas and Minutes). COMMISSION POLICY It is the intent of the commission to provide the opportunity for any person to communicate with commission on any matter of community interest or within the commission's purview. To assure fairness to advocates on all sides of an issue, debates and actions taken will be limited to those items previously placed on the agenda. Items of an urgent nature, which cannot be carried forward to the following council meeting, may be processed under certain conditions. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS The Chair is the presiding officer of the commission. All statements and questions are to be addressed to the Chair whether by members of the commission, the staff, or the general audience. During the course of business, please refrain from outward expressions of emotion, such as cheering or clapping. Such behavior delays the meeting and may intimidate the applicant or other persons wishing to express alternate views. Loud, unruly outburst will result in removal from the meeting. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The commission encourages expression of views by its citizens on matters of concern to those persons. Oral presentations during public hearings are one method of expressing these views, or citizens may address the commission under Oral Communications if the item does not appear on the agenda. Another method widely used is the written communication. If any such communication pertains to an agenda item and is received by the Parks and Recreation Administration office prior to noon on the Monday preceding the commission meeting, it will be duplicated and distributed as supporting information to the pertinent agenda item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Such presentations are restricted to three (3) minutes. Speaker's cards are available at each meeting and may be completed and submitted to the recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Oral Communications is not intended as the means for debate or decision-making, but only for the making of a presentation in person. TELEVISED MEETINGS Commission meetings are televised on cable channel 26. Broadcast schedule: . I" Thursday of the month (live) at 7 p.m. . Replays on the Wednesday and Saturday following meeting - See City Channel program schedule for specific times Dates and times are subject to change. Confinn meeting schedule with the City Channel's program schedule that is available in the City Hall lobby, the Cupertino Scene, and on the City's website at www.cupertino.org. AGENDAS AND MINUTES ON THE "WEB" Agendas and minutes for current and prior meetings are available on City of Cupertino's Website at www.cupertino.org(clickAgenda&Minutes).This site includes a convenient keyword search feature. I- CUPEIQ1NO P ARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday, July 7, 2005, 7 p.m. Community Hall Council Chambers 10350 Torre Avenue AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS A. Regular meeting of May 5, 2005 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes a person. In most cases, state law will prohibit the commission ITom making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Stevens Creek Corridor Park: . Follow up to May 5 meeting - patrol and operations relative to parking and neighborhood impacts 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Meeting schedule for August 8. MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED A. Written communications B. Staff oral reports C. Community contacts 9. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the city of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the Parks and Recreation office at 777-3110 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. DRAFT P ARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF CUPERTINO REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, MAYS, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chainnan Jelinch called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Others present: Jeanne Bradford, Rod Brown, Frank Jelinch, Cary Chien, Roger Peng None Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director; Marie Miller, Administrative Assistant, Parks and Recreation Jana Sokale, Environmental Planner Commissioners absent: Staff present: 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS A. Regular meeting of February 3, 2005 ACTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously made to approve the meeting minutes of February 3, 2005. B. Joint meeting of April 7, 2005, with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission ACTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously made to approve the meeting minutes of April 7, 2005. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chester Gabriel, Scenic Boulevard, spoke on his negative experiences with loud amplified music from Blackberry Farm and his concern about opening the park to year round use which would expand the continuation of amplified music. He believes that his home value will decrease, as he will "have to divulge this nuisance when he goes and sells the house". Chairman Jelinch referred this issue to staff to investigate. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Stevens Creek Corridor Park: Director Smith presented a PowerPoint report outlining neighborhood access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park. She covered the City Council's commitment to a multiuse trail within the parkland and the request to investigate ways to reduce automobile traffic into the park. Commission had Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May 5,2005 Page 2 of7 been asked to take public testimony and make recommendations regarding pedestrian/bike access points to Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Access Points: Director Smith provided examples of possible pedestrian!bicycle accesses to the park from Dean Court, Scenic Circle and San Fernando Avenue neighborhoods. She reported that it had been detennined that access for the Dean Court neighbors could be from one of the Stocklmeir gates only if that neighborhood would like their own access; there would be no public access point from this area. There is already a gate in the Scenic Circle neighborhood, but it has been locked. Park access could be offered to the public from this neighborhood. To provide pedestrian/bike access from San Fernando, a short, narrow segment of the trail could be installed along the inside of the golf course, parallel to San Fernando Avenue into Blackberry Farm. . Cost: It was reported that this is an appropriate time to make these decisions as surveying and planning work is underway. Developing each of these access points will increase the cost of the project; however, as the map illustrated, they would also provide convenient access to the park for surrounding neighborhoods. After it has been detennined which of these access points should be developed, cost details can be worked out. Parking Fee: Councilmember Sandoval had asked that the commission to consider charging a parking fee so as to discourage driving into Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Director Smith reported that from a review of the Stevens Creek Trail Task Force files, a major concern for property owners surrounding the Corridor was that parking would overflow into their neighborhoods, and for this reason, staff does not recommend that a parking fee be instituted. Public Comment Max Bokelman, Scenic Circle resident, reported that he and his wife have put up with years of picking up trash and calling the Sheriff due to nighttime disturbances. In a letter to the city manager, they requested that the city close off access to the park by extending the fence further along the creek. In the response letter, the city manager wrote that the city does not object to extending the fence further if that is the wish of the neighborhood; hence, a fence was installed closing off the opening and a gate was put in on a trial basis to accommodate a few neighbors who wanted some kind of opening to the park. A neighbor locked the gate nightly, which became a chore, and the gate was left open for about three months. The consequence was the resumption of nighttime parties and calls to the Sheriffs department. The gate was locked in January 2005. Since that time, there have been no disturbances. The most recent petition, signed by all households in the neighborhood, expressed opposition to any plan that would give open and direct access to the planned trail from Scenic Circle. He asked the commission to consider the re-opening of this gate and exposing the neighbors again to nighttime disturbances of the past. He reported that in February, city staff and neighbors met with Sheriff Hirokawa. Hirokawa Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May 5, 2005 Page 3 on had stated that if access to the park is re-opened from the neighborhood, lights should be installed at the park and shrubbery should be cut by the access so deputies will have better visibility to the area. Mr. Bokelman believes that it wouldn't be fair to the neighborhood to provide an access to the park and trail from Scenic Circle. He also believes that it will degrade the property values of the homes. 1. Y uen, Scenic Court, opposes a park/trail access point in the Scenic Circle neighborhood. He requested that the commission consider making a recommendation against the Scenic Circle access option. Aaron Grossman, works at McClellan Ranch, lives near the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View, spoke in favor of providing access to the trail. He stated that the trail in Mountain View is safe because the pubic uses the trail and this discourages unsafe and illegal use by others. He reported that there have been no more problems on the trail than any other part of Mountain View. He did recommend that a nighttime patrol once or twice in the evening might be advisable. He recommended locking the gate at night to address the neighbor's concerns. He reported that Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View is viewed as an enhancement in the selling of homes. David Greenstein, Byrne Avenue, does not believe that access from Scenic Circle will work because the area is isolated with lots of hiding places, and that putting a chain link fence will not change this situation. He believes that parking permits might solve the problem. He encouraged a neighborhood watch program for the area. Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino realtor, commented that on the topic of whether the park and/or trail would add or subtract value to the homes next to it, he would lean more to the taking value away from the homes. He reported that in the disclosure process, the park's noise, litter, traffic, or egress problems would need to be reported. Adding the access, in his opinion, will make the neighborhood less desirable and less valuable. He also stated that parking pennits in neighborhoods raise concerns that there are parking problems and this does not make people feel that they are in a better neighborhood. Jill Moody, Scenic Circle, spoke against a trail/park access point in the Scenic Circle neighborhood. She does not approve of parking pennits and the signs that come along with that process as it destroys the "whole nature feel of the area." Steve Moody, Scenic Circle, spoke against a trail/park access point in the Scenic Circle neighborhood. He relayed an incident when someone started a fire on a picnic table about five years ago. Alex Tsai, San Fernando Avenue, is concerned that the Scenic Circle neighborhood is not designed for a trail/park access point. He believes it will have a negative impact and detriment to the residents. He would like to see the trail designed in such a way that it is good for the neighborhood and the trail user. Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May 5, 2005 Page 4 of7 Larry Loo spoke in opposition to any access to Scenic Circle. He believes the trailhead will bring more traffic to the neighborhood. He requested that the commission recommend keeping the neighborhood the way it is. Commission Comments Commissioner Chien stated that he is familiar with the area. He supports keeping the Dean Court area not accessible to the public as it is on private property. Commissioner Brown asked for clarity on improvements suggested on San Fernando A venue by pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Sokale explained that the road is too narrow to accommodate vehicles and pedestrians, so a small, narrow trail was being proposed along the golf course that parallel's San Fernando Avenue, slightly down slope from the road. Ball catcher fences could be installed for protection. The small trail would need to be constructed because the park fee-based services will be open 100 days a year; otherwise, they could use the road for the trail. The trail would then connect with the Stevens Creek Trail near the retreat center. Commissioner Bradford asked for clarity on the parking fee. Director Smith stated that she was unable to come up with a single argument in favor of a parking fee. She stated that a parking fee might bring in some revenue, but there would be additional costs to manage three parking lots. Commissioner Bradford agreed that a parking fee would create a negative impact on the neighbors and would not be good for the city. She stated she is not supportive of a parking fee. She would like to see a decision made that defers to the neighbors' needs, but she is not sure that every decision made needs to support the neighbors' requests; she believes there should be compromise. She stated that she struggles with the Scenic Circle access, as she understands the issues the most immediate neighbors to the park have, but she sees that the Commission's role is to make a recommendation to City Council for policies that serve the greater community, not the people most adjacent. She supports the idea of patrolling the area. Regarding San Fernando Avenue access, she believes it is a good idea, but she's not sure how to make it work because the hole is close by. Commissioner Brown said he would be against charging for parking and implementing the parking pennit process. Regarding San Fernando Avenue, he would support providing a parallel trail access as this addresses safety concerns of people walking or biking on San Fernando Avenue. Commissioner Brown stated that he had heard all the comments from the Scenic Circle neighbors and understands that the area has had its share of problems, but believes it is mostly due to the fact that it has been an isolated area. As a result of studies done on similar trails, he believes that problems will decrease substantially if this area becomes a public access point. He would like to see a gate- locking regimen done by city staff and that it should be locked at night. He also stated that there is a lot of data that states that property values remain stable in the one or two houses immediately adjacent to a trail access and increase going offfrom there. He has Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May 5, 2005 Page 5 of? concerns about cutting off the Scenic Circle access during the day when people can have positive interactions in this public area. He believes that if there are problems in the future, the plan can be modified, but the gate should be an amenity for all residents, not just the Scenic Circle neighborhood. Chairman lelinch stated that he does not support parking pennits in the neighborhoods and does not support a parking fee. As for the Scenic Circle neighborhood, he agrees with allowing trail/park access in this area. He does not agree with the neighbors' concerns about crime increase, as studies prove otherwise and, in fact, neighborhoods improve. He is in support of a gate that is locked in the evening. He is in favor of patrols and reported that Cupertino has one of the lowest crime rates in Santa Clara County.. He is supportive of any measure that lessens the impacts on the community. Commissioner Bradford stated that she would like to see the issue of adding patrols be coupled with an adequate patrolling plan. She believes that the access on Scenic Circle will not work if there are no patrols. Director Smith reported that the city of Mountain View developed a ranger program for their Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek Trail. These ranger positions are a combination of enforcement and maintenance responsibilities. She reported that with the addition of Stevens Creek Trail and Stevens Creek Corridor Park, there will be a review of staffing needs, and ranger positions will be considered. Ms. Sokale recommended that the commission take a look at the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study appendices where there is information on an operations plan for the trail. Commissioner Bradford made a motion that the commission recommend that the access points recommended by staff be adopted contingent upon an adequate patrol plan. Commissioner Brown amended the action to add that this be contingent also upon locking the gate in the evening and that the locking of the gate be done by city personnel to reflect the hours in which the park is open and closed. Commissioner Chien stated that he will be voting no for the access at Scenic Circle because there are other ways to get to the park via Stevens Creek Blvd. and McClellan Road, and he believes that past history has shown that crime has been brought into this neighborhood because of the dense shrubbery and by bringing an access into the neighborhood will only bring crime back into the area. Commission Peng echoed Commission Chien's position for the reason of the history of the area, unless a plan is provided that will give the neighbors the confidence that this access point will work. At this time, he does not believe an access point in Scenic Circle should be provided. Commissioner Brown suggested that the issues be separated out for individual votes so that their attitudes on each of the access points are clear to City Council. Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May 5, 2005 Page 6 of7 Commissioner Bradford withdrew her motion. ACTION: ACTION: ACTION: Commissioner Brown made a motion to accept staff's recommendation on San Fernando Avenue as proposed and pass the recommendation on to the Council. The motion was seconded and unanimously passed 5-0. Commissioner Brown made a motion to recommend access via Scenic Circle contingent upon the patrol of the trail as discussed and the closing of the gate at night by city personnel based upon the hours of park operation. The motion was seconded and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Peng and Chien voting no. Commissioner Bradford moved against charging parking fees.. The motion was seconded and unanimously passed 5-0. Commissioner Bradford said she would like to see it done as a joint effort between the neighbors, the Sheriff's Department, and city staff. Director Smith stated that if the Commission so desired, they could make a motion regarding the Dean Court access and that if the neighbors wanted a spur trail, the city would add it to the budget. Commissioner Brown asked that because Dean Court is private property, the city would pay for the spur trail, which is clearly on public property, but the gate and the access point itself would be paid for by the owners of Dean Court if they so desire, unless they wanted to open it up to everybody. Staff agreed. ACTION: Commissioner Brown moved that an access at Dean Court could be provided if the neighbors desire. The city would support construction of a spur trail to the gate if requested by the neighbors. The motion was seconded and unanimously passed 5-0. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Meeting schedule for June and July: Chainnan Jelinch stated he would not be available for the June 2 meeting. Director Smith reported that a couple of topics would be coming to the commission for a six-month review such as the Community Hall policy, and she wanted to know if commissioners were going to available for the two regular meeting dates of June 2 and July 7. She also stated that Council may want to have a budget hearing on June 2 and she would not be able to be in two places at once, but someone could fill in for her. The items that could be on the agenda might be the patrol (operations and maintenance) plan for the Stevens Creek Trail. She reported that the actual park plan would not be ready until September for review. Commissioner Bradford stated she would like to start the patrol plan, as it would be a good step for the neighbors to put some specific work behind what they can expect from the city in patrolling the area. Parks and Recreation Commissions Meeting of May S, '200S Page 70f7 Director Smith suggested forwarding a report to Council that says the commission has had the meeting, heard the concerns, and these are the recommendations. Staff and the Commission will work on the patrol plan before the Commission asks the Council to take action. Commission Peng supported this idea. 8. MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED A. Written Communications: Commissioners given copies of emails addressed to Director Smith regarding that night's meeting. B. Staff Reports: Director Smith reported that they were getting ready for the 4th of July fireworks at Cupertino High School. She requested volunteers for 1776 costumed characters. There is a rlan to have a birthday cake after the Children's Parade in honor of the City's 50' Jubilee. She reported that the budget seems to be coming together well; no cutbacks are anticipated. Fundraising for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park is going well. The city is short-listed for a number of submitted grant proposals. There are strong indications that another $1.2 million toward the project from three different sources. C. Community Contacts: Commissioner Peng thanked staff for the well put together packet and the information was given to them in a clear and concise manner. Chainnan Jelinch stated that they have excellent staff support. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marie Miller, Administrative Assistant Minutes approved at the , 2005, meeting. ¡SCENIC "~--+~--------" '-"-'--~"--- , --\ ..---+-~-~- ---~--_.._~---- : PALM -iŠCENIC-- - i ALARM CARD ----~LARMCARD ·_·-_·_--~·__·-¥-~t-·__·-·-_·· --- : UNABLE TO LOCATE ----'ALARM CARD -.---------.---1----- ____ NO REPORT - -.-.-.......- --"- )()()()()()( NO REPORT - "NO REPORT - H_ _0_ '. _ '_r___ m ___._.___"'.._ p',,____ )()()()()()( -',.. ---, NO REPORT -_._-----~----- NO REPORT -UNFOÜNDËj)·------ _n__~ --'..__.-- SCENIC ALARM CARD NO REPORT .~_. - - '- : NO REPORT NO REPORT -~ --,,' ---..,'-- .------ 98-167-0022-C -- NO RËPORT-'-- ALARM CARD ~__ ____...__.~_._H _~~()_RE:~~1.:.___ ___ 'UNABLE TO LOCATE NO REPORT --.. -----,.--.,-'-,,--'" 98-193-0411-C F.r. CARD SCENIC BLVD SCENIC BLVD -+-- --- SCENIC BLVD SCENIC CIRCLE ~_._.._. --.--..-."-- SCENIC BLVD -,-- .,,---.---.-".-..- SCENIC CIRLCE 04/16/1998 20451Alarm, intrusion 04/16/1998 2240: Alarm, intrusion -06705/19982050.9=i=lunfounded- 06/07/1998 1420 Vehicle abatement search/marked Õ6j16/i9~~ oiOiJ[Grirld·tiîëft-_~=~~-=--=__- 06/24/1998 0020: 9-1-1 unfounded 07 /05j1~g¡ 12?Q!-larm,intrus.!9n 07/06/1'39813?S.9-1:!_ul1~!:I.nd~_______ 07/10/1998 2200 Suspicious person_ SCENIC CIRCLE 07/12/1'3'38 1035J~_uspic:ic:>IJs_c:ir£~mstëlnce~__ ___ SCENIC CIRCLE_ 07/12/199J3 2225()_thf:!r_~i!;d_em~~n£l'____ 5CE~IC 07/15/19982320' Disturbance, juvenile SCENIC CIRLCE . 07/31/1998 2215,Älarm, intrusion : SCENIC BLVD ~.___._ -- . -__ ._._u_ .---....;........__._________..._.. ___..___" ----..---.----.---~~--r---- -----.- 08/01/1998 0400:Alarm, intrusion 'SCENIC BLVD - ö8/21/i998225o[Áíarrn. intrusiOn" ... ---------- - ·-':SCENIC BLVD 08/22/1998 0250 Alarm, intrusion ¡SCENIC BLVD _._ _ _ __ __.____._..___,.. ,,_,_. _.____.._m___.__"..__.~._____.._____._..._.__.~____J____.. ._ ______._._..___... -~_ 08/23/1998 2325:?_uspic:'ou~ circul1l~tël.nces____.. .~SCENIC Bl,Y[) 08/25/1998 0808,5uspic:i()(Js_vehicle, radio initia~ed... . SCENIC BLVD 09/22/1998164019-1-1 unfounded SCENIC BLVD .._..... - -....-0_. ._.·.__4·_~___~~~______·_____~ _ .__. _ _.__-,__._ 10/11/1998 1305!Vehicle abatement search/marked SCENIC CIRLCE ·11/1-5/1998 22"¡Õ[Sü3JiCiÕus circumstances- ---TSCEN!C-ORêì..i: _12/06/19-'38 160019-1-1(J~founded ________..L~CENIC ~L\I[)_ 12/12/1998053019-1-1 unfounded ¡SCENIC BLVD -ii/2Úi9982202í9-í=-lunfounded----- ----ScËNÌC CIReLl SCENIC BLVD ---_.~ --~. ._.~--~----_.- SCENIC BLVD NO REPORT NO REPORT ALARM CARD NO REPORT ~_.-.. -' - - --~~---- ALARM CARD · ------~"-_. · ALARM CARD · -- - --.....---.....- NO REPORT · ----"-.-.--- NO REPORT --_..,~------ NO REPORT NO REPORT .__._.u_____ NORMAL - -"-.. ~-- NORMAL NORMAL 01/14/1999 131S Suspicious circumstances SCENIC BLVD : 02/28/1999 1715, Disturbance, other 1SCENIC BLVD '------.-..- - - -_. -... --- ... ." -.- -.....--..-,-.- -----'-'- -,-._.._-- --, -., -- . ~ _.'._. , 03/15/1999 lS30jAlarm, intrusion 'SCENIC ORCLE 04/08/1999 2215,9-1-1 unfounded i SCENIC BLVD -- - ~----~~- ------ -----+--.-- ------..---t----- 05/11/1999 144S!Alarm, intrusion 'SCENIC CIRCLE ! OS/22/1999Ù30Alarm,intrusiori - - -'SCENIC BLVD----r-- ,- ~ --., '.. - ~ 05/24/1999 1100.Alarm, intrusion SCENIC BLVD ¡ '..____~_ _..____.. ______,_..______._ _._..~. '_m__ _."_ __~__~_~__~__,~______________-L__.._____ __ OS/_?~1~29_234SL[)is~urbanceLI()u_df!'u~ic______.____..1~C:E~I.s..B!:VD ___,__ .. : 06/15/1999 1015, Suspicious circumstances 'SCENIC BLVD =-Q6/is/19~914~0_fv11ssingpe!5<)n,lostlsear.c:f1.. __---'~CENIC BLVD__ . 06/16/1999 1215 Patrol check, residential 'SCENIC PALM '-06/30/1999 1030" patrol-check~resicìeñt¡á-I ----- . ISCEÑIC ORcŒ- SCENIC \ - - -;. ..-...-..... ,- I 07/06/1999 1000' Patrol check, residential SCENIC ORCLE SCENIC >___ .___,',__ H ..________~__ ~.__. ._." ._._ _....I..-......-..__._~_._. ~___ --<--__',.____ ¡ 07/18/199912009-1-1 unfounded -- - 'SCENIC BLVD, ,NO REPORT r--07/26/1999210SiWarrãñtln-fielcì-êitatión- TSCENi¿ COURT - -'SCEÑÌC ORCLE-'99~2¡¡7-Ò446-C : iJ7f26/1999 2140 Towed vehicle .iSCENÌ¿COURT SCENIC ORCLE 99-207-0476-C . ' r- 07(26/1999 22ÌS-Warran"Çiclõiíÿarrest u ----- -: SCENÍCCOÜRT ; sCENIC-ëIRCL:E--2-iìvÄRRANTS-CLEAREO--' :OS!16Ì19991912 <:Ivil-stã¡'cìby- - _u__ --'Së:ENIC-ÔJlJRT-- ---- -No REPORi'--- -- : 08/i2Ì1999 2205 Suspicious vehicle, radio initiated-¡ SCENIC ORCLE . SCENIC COURT ,UNABLE TO LOCATE L______ ._..__.~.__._,,___.--,~.___..__.___._ .~___ _ ._._..__________~___.____~__--+---..___. ___._','__,.__ 0-' ,_"_.__.._.,, _ __°0 __ ...... _ _ __ __.~..~________ ! 08/24/19990200: Suspicious vehicle, self initiated ! SCENIC : PALM ')()()()()()()() ~~____..._"..,^.____,_._ ..__.._. __"___ ..~.,______ _._~_.__. ..__~_._...____,. _____..____.._.------¡-___ ,_____ .0-0 _+.__.. _._.______.__.__ f 09/03/1999 1900 Suspicious vehicle, self initiated SCENIC ,SCENIC)()()()()()()() r-09TÚ/1999n16S0Check/credit carcf-- SCENICBLV-D ¡- :99-254-02io~cn ¡-;_____~___'_ .._n._._____ ____ ________n___ .________-,-__~________. ; 09/24/1999 1145 Vehicle abatement search/markedSCENIC ORCLE ,MARKED rïO¡i.S/1999 1910'9-1-1 unfouñ(j~ -- -- - -sCENic BLVD --.-- - .-- i NOREï>OR,T------ !11/07/1999 1000 Vehicle abatementsearch/márked SCÈNIC-- 'CARMEÑ -¡COMPLETE r---:-:-;-~-'~----' --........--.-.-. -- ----..- ------...~--.-.,.--'--_.~---~--- , 11/09/1999 2230 Suspicious person SCENIC RNERA i)()()()()()()(/FICARD ___--~._._.M.-_..-·_·..-._-- __ _,____ ,_._ ___,_ ___._..___~._ .'___'__'.__._ __.__ -..-.-~. ------------«.~..-._.~..._. ! 11/15/19991700 Civil standby SCENIC BLVD .NO REPORT .~___.n __ _ ._ .~. -- - ..-.-- . -" ........--...-- -. - l' ..- , 12/10/1999 18W,Missing person, lost/search SCENIC BLVD I ! -12/18/19991535: Suspicious circumstañces --~---;SCENic------1sTÖCKLMEIR ------~----_. -. ,.--...,..--.-"-.----- ~---._.-'-'- ----------_.~~_._*'_."--_.-_._.-._- --"....,..---.------.. i 12/2~1999 1100,9-1-1 unfoundedSCEN~c:BLVD 12/27/1999122S:BI SCENIC BLVD ,,~_o_._·, NO REPORT ---'NÕ REPORT ---- --- _..--_.._--~--~------i NO REPORT . 99-361-0181C multi 03/21/2000 14001 Suspicious circumstances 04/14/2000 OSlSi Burglary residence, single family -ò5/1g/20QO ~liõT9~i=l-u~founded ~=------- -.-. 10/19/2000 0110' Suspicious ve~icl sel NO REPORT 00-105-0050C --------_._-~- NO REPORT UNABLE TO LOCATE SCENIC ŒRCLE SCENIC BLVD .,.,.-..--- -"' '_.,-..--_.-- SCENIC BLVD j.... SCENIC 01-007-00llC . NO REPORT -+-.-. : NO REPORT -..\.. - ¡ NO REPORT -iN-o- REPORT .--i'.". -.... i 01-123-00B6C _~UNABLE TO LOCATE . MARKED FOR TOW _<__1..... _ __.~~,_ - -___ : NO REPORT STEVENS CREEK STOCKLMEIR ___~....__W··._.··__ SCENIC BLVD · SCENIC ORCLE - _._-~ .' ..------ SCENIC COURT --.---.. ,-. SCENIC BLVD -~---------,-._-~"-- · SCENIC COURT ---_.~._.- ~.----._--- SCENIC BLVD - - SCENIC BLVD : 01-21B-0097C [NO R.EPOR.T !MARKEj)- IALARM CARD/H -;~.( ë:ARD:~ . NO REPORT NO REPQ~T/PARTYCARD J.Ql ~296()9~9ªC_.. ! NO REPORT ,- _lLJN~B!-ÉT() LO~TE i NO REPORT ------_._.._-~- '_.._--," ! NO REPORT UANG SCENIC ~'-'-"'-------'" SCENIC BLVD SCENIC BLVD ---.---_.- -.-- . SCENIC BLVD --, SŒNIC-- · SCENIC COURT ~ ....---- ---..--- SCENIC BLVD '-lsëiNÌC BLVÒ· 1SCENIC BLVD TScÉÑic BLVD- -,-_..,,-.-- - -_.._- SCENIC ORCLE SCENIC ORCLE VD 01/07/2001 09051 Burglary residence, single family 02/02/2001 19.?0. 9-1-1unfound~___ __ 03/1~/20011BI0 9-1-1 unfour1d~ ____ _ 04/01/2(j()1.()110 Suspicio~~ circum~tances ___ 05/1lj2001 1930 [)i~~rbance, other ______ (j5/17/20011245 FOllow-up,fel()ny OS/2]/2fJO!.. 0125. S~spicious pe~.r:'_ _____ _0§!J9/20010300 Veh~cle_a~at~rner1t search/rl1ark~_ OB/04/2001 2345 Disturbancec loud m~sic _0ª/(j6/.2001 0§30 Au!<>_theft____ _.. ___. .____ : OB/06/2001 2220 Suspicious person ¡-OS/27/2001iiîSVeh¡èíé äbãtement search/marked 1....___.__ _." _. - __ - .~___.._ ____. ..o,,·__··n i 09/01/2001 1255 Alarm, intrusion 1----" - ----...--.- ----..------.--.--.--.---.,-.--'..-----." i 09/0B/2001 1300 Alarm, intrusion ~_>_._~__..__.. _ __..__._....:....___._____"_.___n'^~____.__·___·_ ¡ 09/16/2001 0050 Disturbance, other J..--..- .._.___..u··,· -- - ..------- ..-.~-..~- : 09/16/20010145 Disturbance, loud music r---.------.~.-- ..--- ~ -------.--..---~-.-- -.-- ; 10/23/2001 IB20. Disturbance, telephone calls r-irïòi/2001 2045suspièlous :ë¡¡,cü-rñ~tances-~:. . . }ljI2{200 1_(jQOO_S_usJJici()U~person_______ ~!..2j~2/2001 0940?-,:!:.lunf0lJ.!:1c!~ ___ ____ 12/29/2001 23401 Disturbance, animal '-t".'" i/ 3MVW661 N-Ü ~EPoRT ~-~- -1---- I NO REPORT -~INO REPORT TNOREPORT .- -----;-- ! 02-066-0184C NO REPORT ~---._----_._-_.--- i NO REPORT -t_~~____~_~__~. . UN.A8.~E_~~_L~~IE i NO REPORT -~"'._-_. ..'... . NO REPORT IN()~ª,ª-R!_ NO REPORT NO REPORT ~--._~---~_.- NO REPORT ---,._--_.~,_..- NO REPORT -----. ,CHECKED CLEAR . t---.---~-~----- ¡ NO REPORT -~-", ---I---.._----_._-~,--- ¡CHECKED CLEAR I02:joo-=-ó264c - !No REPORT- ~'~---r.-:---'.- -- -- - ~ lN911.~EPORT i~Q,YOY~O~l!!..!~Ala~m, intrusiol __________.;SCEN.ICB_Lyp 01/01/2002 1835: Suspicious vehicle, self initiated 'SCENIC ¡ 0l/OSh002160S\iandalism ¡SCENIC BLVD I 01/07/200?-.!~30[¡)]Sturbarice,-~th~-,,----_____ _ __J~fNÏ~_BLVD =---- : 01/10/2002 1240 Suspicious circumstances ,SCENIC BLVD 1-03/oi12002 1200'Contact with publicofflciai ¡SCENIC BLVD ___._._,.~...,_ - ______n .. __,____._----I-.____.____~_.__ i 03/09/2002 1400.F( llow-u~e...f~I~)nL__________._:.§c:E_N~I~!!LVI:)_.____~ ~Q,~L1.71?002 1015 9-1-1 unfounded ; SCENIC BLVD i 04/24/2002 2100 Suspicious circumstances SCENIC BLVD i05/06/20020020 Suspicious vehicle;radio-iriltiãted- -'--i SCENic BLVD --~---- '05/23/2002 074SiVehicle abatementsearch/marked---¡- SCENic- ~ ~ ----~ ..~ -- . PALM i ._ ...~_...,.--.._ _ .__._·__..·..______.~_·.___·~..w l-......____.___.__ _ _ .J.... -- '-~~/~/2002 21001 Suseicious circul11stan~!;_ ¡ SCENIC: __ .~. _____lSc:E IJ~c: · 06/24/2002 2230iVehicle abatement search/marked 'SCENIC BLVD . ,- --~. ---.----. . - ~~-~---~-~~--._----!:~._~-~ ~--~~- ~ ~---~. --.. Lrp/23/2002 2~5SlSLJspicious circumstances m ._ n___+~c:~NIC BLVD ~Q8!03!~002 1640iSusr>~Cious circumstan-<=~____-----+~C:EN.!C::BI,VD_._...__ i 09/24/2002 22301 Vehicle abatement search/marked 'SCENIC BLVD ,'09/30/iooi-î630TSuspiclous circumstances'- ·----'SCENÏC BLVD mu_'_ ! ~10/2Î/2002 16159-1-1 unfounded _.~-. ;SCENIC BLVD ~ ,----._________1-.... ....__ ___ ._~__________ _.~__J..-..___~_____n' --...-----.-,-.------ i 10/24/2002 1215· Vehicle abatement search/marked . SCENIC BLVD _____<__....._._..._..__.___.___.,_. '. '. "0" ._. ____,_,._____ _'^ "'__~__'____.' _.. .~_._...__.__.___.__.____.._,._~._.__ : 10/26/2002 170S! 9-1-1 unfounded SCENIC BLVD ;....- n'_..._, _..__ ____'.__._ ... __ ,_ __ _ _ 1_____ - .-------- ¡ 10/27/2002 1820!Burglary residence, single family . SCENIC BLVD .._~~_______~._.. _,_._____.._.___._~_._____.____ ._.._ _.__ i-._~__.____~_._.__ · 02/18/2002 1105' 9-1-1 unfounded : SCENIC CIRCLE · 06Ti8/200i-i9i5:9~~iunfo'Uñded-- ~.--- i S<::~NIC COUKi-:--' SCENIC .....___,. 'H_ SCENIC ~ NO REPORT NO REPORT NO REPORT NO REPORT --"----- --,-.--...-- NO REPORT ---- -- _...--- ._.- NO REPORT 03-080-0210C .~....- --. ..._-,--' 'NO REPORT -.-.-..----.- UNABLE TO LOCATE NO REPORT 03-184-0493C '--"'--"- --. 4AKB026 COMPLETE NO REPORT -- --------------. NO REPORT NO REPORT NO REPORT 03-249-01S1C .-.~<.- ....-.-- -- ~-- 4WPK120 STOCKLMEIR SCENIC DEAN --~- . SCENIC -----TSCENIC --iRiVIEAA _ . 01/05/2003 1630 Suspicious circumstances 01/09/2003 141S19-!:~lJn!.9lJ~~~______ 01/31/2003 18301 Miscellaneous incident, other -. .----- ... t ---..-.. .---..- 02/02/2003 12001 Vehicle abatement~E!a!ch/I11é!!~ed_ _ 02/06/200~!8.~L~is.t:urb¡ .nce~fa_l11ily_ _. . _ 02/º-61~0_0318.4S1Miscellaneou~ incident, other i 03/21/2003 14101 Burglary residence, single family U~~! 16/20!?~6S0! V~~~cle -.é!þätel11~l1!séé!rch/mär~E;¡j. 04/28/2003 01301 Suspicious circumstances .. ~~!Ol720Ò3 12S(¡¡[)iS~urb~rl~E!' o!~er 07/03/2003 2300lTowed vehicle SCENIC BLVD - - -- I -_,_.___..____..... -~-.___.___..__ ._--', -. ..------,', --_.___ 0]/.04/2003 104SjVehicle a.batement search/marked . SCENIC BLVD 07/09/2003 2100! Suspicious circumstances ¡SCENIC _ 09/06/200Ù11SITowed vehicle~------!SCENH:- _.._--~-"--~-----._._-~------_._--._--~~-_.._--_.._--------- . 09/17/2003 1100!Vehicle abatement search/marked ,SCENIC 10/17/ió030600r9~1~1 unfounded .....-. . ···:SCENIC COURT - -------::-t-'::------~---_.-----~-----------.-.----_7--------.----- _10/17/~.o!?~.Q.6?!?i9:1:!_u~f.9ull.cJed._.. _ ._LS.C:~NIC~()l,J_RT 11/20/2003 1600! 9-1-1 unfounded SCENIC BLVD 12/06/2ÓÒ3140S! Vehicle abatement search/marked SCENIC BLVD SCENIC BLVD ·1§C~NIC C(jUIU ¡SCENIC --_..~ SCENIC BLVD SCENIC GRCLE - ---. --- ---- -. --- SCENIC BLVD SCENIC 81 SCENIC SCENIC - NO REPOI ~--- -- ---~ ALARM CARD 04-066-0378C .--..._------ NO REPORT 104-104-0301-C -Tö4-107-Ó270C -rNOREPÒRT--- --\--. . '._---,-.--,,--,,-- ,04-194-0287C , NO REPORT 04-245-0203C 04-245-0203C NO REPORT -->-._~--- - ------'.- NO REPORT -~. ,-,-.-.,---..-,-.--" ..~ NO REPORT 04-279-0347C --~~- - ---- 04-286-0243C NO REPORT NO REPORT __ ._n,..n._··__ NO REPORT -- : ----~---~- 1 PALM - ...~~,~-,- ---- I , - --¡-- ¡SCENIC ----- ¡SCENIC -......,. --~..~ ..- --- ¡;¡¡J 01/30/2004100019-1-1 unfounded ·SCENIC BLVD ~02[l7I?Q<J{ó74õjArãrrn,iñtru~i~n - .~SC:EN~C BLVD : 03/06/2004 1935: Found child ! SCENIC BLVD "-- -----t--._----------------- .---!--.------ ¡ 03/07/2004 144519-1-1 unfounded ¡SCENIC BLVD _-____.___._~. '_..__n_ '; ,_....._ ~__._. _. ____ ____' _.__. _',___ - .,.,----->--r--:--------- _'n ¡ 04/13/2004 1800 Burglary residence, single family I SCENIC BLVD ,....._n_ _, _.. __ . n.... _. .+_ , 04/16/2004 1645 Burglary residence, single family I SCENIC BLVD ;...-----.-------------------.-------.. ....----.-------..--..- -- ----- ..... ".__.._-.-_.-~._--_.~._------_.- : 06/06/2004 1640 Disturbance, animal I SCENIC BLVD ~-~---_._._-_.__.~--- -'-'- -- ---"------..-.~-- -----. ----"- --------- _.---+-=---~--_... ._- ...- i 07/12/2004 1705 Trespass !SCENICBLVD 07L~/300406109-1~!.lIr1founded m _ lSc:ENJ~B_LVD I 09/01/2004 1030 Vandalism . SCENIC BLVD .'--.___.~.'~__'_ __..__. ---Á-._. ___~___. _. _ ___...___...._ _.,.. . _._ _. __~ '_~'.'__'__' __~~__'.__~ 09/04/200405251 Follow:up, felony_ SCENIC BLVD o.9/0~L2004.3?00J.Vandalis~____m_ .____ SCENIC CIR~LE °9LD._8f3004_22?01~lJ3>ici~u~-"i!:c.lll11stan_ce~_ . 09/28/2004 13101 Sus~cious circumstances ·lOLQ?{2004 1~45i Disord~rly co_nduct, ~run~ .10{].2/2q9-4 !93D.1Disorderlv. c~r1~~ct:,-~runk 1l/30/.20Q4 2000: Suspicious circumstances _13L!}L200~124()9-} -lu_nfoun~~ ..._ J2120@0" l?'l5 G~rbage dump ___ SCENIC - -_.....-- SCENIC BLVD SCENIC SCENIC SCENIC BLVD SCENIC BLVD --t---·------- ! SCENIC COURT -"'~- --.__.,'---~..-.. .,- 01/15/2005 205019-1-1 unfounded 01/23/2005 0050, Burglary, vehicle Ò!{25/200S 2045!9:1: iü¡,¡öljñdë:d--- 02/02/2005 1200' 9-1-1 unfounded ACODENTAL ! 05-023-0018C : NO REPORT ¡ ! NO REPORT SCENIC BLVD ,SCENIC BLVD --~----_.-~-. 'SCENIC CIRCLE L,~.. _ 'SeE: !It Worried about Crime on the Eastern Trail? John Andrews, President, Eastern Trail Alliance "There is no crime problem caused by Saco's Trails. - None whatsoever." - Sargent Paul, Day Shift Supervisor, Saco Police Department. Often when residents first learn of proposals to develop a neighborhood trail. there are legitimate questions about the possible influx of undesirable visitors. Many trail developers have heard these questions, which have resulted in several nationwide studies by organizations such as the Rails-to- Trails Conservancy, and the National Park Service. These nationwide studies conclude that trails do not attract undesirable visitors. Trails do not increase crime. In fact, undesirable visitors to abandoned rail corridors typically stop visiting those corridors once they become public trails and large numbers of citizens begin to use them for exercise and for travel within their communities. The Eastern Trail Alliance decided to conduct its own survey of some of Maine's newly opened trails. We simply called a few police departments to learn what they could tell us. You read the reaction of the Saco Police Department. At first, Sargent Paul seemed surprised at our question because he had no experience with crime on the local trails. There simply had been no reported crime. As a founder of Saco Bay Trails, I have also not heard of any crime. But we do hear comments about the reduction in litter after the trails are opened. We do hear reports of volunteers quietly removing trash left by others. We also asked South Portland's Chief of Police Edward Googins what his department had experienced when the South Portland Greenbelt was opened. That trail, which we hope will form the eastern end of the Eastern Trail, has been expanding since it was first opened ten years ago. The Chief told us, "South Portland does not have a crime problem related to its Greenbelt Trail" "The heavier the use, the safer they are, because, bad guys are concerned about being detected." It seems safe to conclude that trails in Maine, like those in other parts of the country, do not encourage crime. Of course, there are problems on trails just as there are problems where there are no trails. Common sense precautions will reduce most risks. Don't travel alone. Don't visit at night. Do report anything that seems wrong and do enjoy them. One nationwide survey reports that the Chief of Police in South Burlington, Vermont wrote to a local planning agency, "Crime and the fear of crime do not flourish in an environment of high energy and healthy interaction among law abiding community members." He went on to say, "The trail may be one of the safest places in the city." The Eastern Trail Alliance wishes you many safe, and " Happy Trails." WWW.EasternTrail.Org The Effect of Greenways on Property Values and Public Safety A Joint Study by: The Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks State Trails Program The Conservation Fund Sydney Shafroth Macy, Colorado Director Leslee T. Alexander, Project Manager Colorado State Parks State Trails Program Stuart H. Macdonald, Director Chr:s Ford. Greenway Trails Planner March, 2995 Abstract REPORT TITLE: The Effect of Greenways on P~operty Values and Public Safety. A Joint Study by: The Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks, State Trails Program. SUBJECT: A study to determine the impact of greenways on property values and to evaluate the effect of greenways on the public safety of adjacent and nearby residents. AUTHOR: Leslee T. Alexander DATE: November, 1994 COPIES: Sasha Charney Colorado State Trails Program 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, Colorado 80203 ABSTRACT: In the Denver-Met~opolitan Area, greenways are gaining in popularity and expanding at a rapid rate. yet there are questions as to their suitability for certain neighborhoods. The questions cover the effects of greenways on property values and on public safety for homes adjacent to the trail. The analysls was conducted using data from seven separate surveys c: three different greenways. These were ~~rveys of re:~dents aCJacent and near to the trail, real estate agents. police of:icers. and newspaper real estate aàvertise~e~ts. KEY WORDS: Greenbelt, Greenway. Open Space, Property Value. Publlc Sa:ety. Quali:y of Life, Riparian Corr~dors. Tralls, Urban Tralls. i E.xeCU t.:ì. ve SUIIIIIIoII.ry 3 PURPOSE .- The study of Property Values and Public Safety (herein known as the study) was to determine what effect, if any, the presence of urban trails has had on public safety to property owners who live adjacent to a trail and on property values of homes located within one block of a trail. The study also evaluated the level of public acceptance for urban trails and their effect on the quality of life in these neighborhoods. The need for the study arose due to concerns expressed by several different neighborhoods over the proposed construction or new trails. These concerns included fears that the presence or an urban trail might lower property values and also create a =isk to public safety, thus adversely affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood. These concerns are similar to concerns voiced in the past over proposed trails that are now established and accepted. TRAIL PROFILE ':':1e me::=:J-Denver a=ea has hundreds :Jf trails which connect :::Jge::her to c=eate an expansive and constantly growing system. 7rall users vary_from commuter bicyclists to couples taking an evenlng stroll through the neighborhood. Though many types of ::=a:ls located in dl:rerent areas of the city were looked at, o:11y :ive t=ails we=e consldered for use in the study: the ==anklln Street foot-path, which runs along Franklin Street as ::: passes through Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village; ::~e Hlghllne Canal Trail, located in Aurora; the Lee Gulch Trail 1n the Wlndemere nelghborhood; the Weir Gulch Trail, located in ::he Barnum neighborhood of west Denver; and the Willow Creek Trail, located in southeast Denver. 4 becutive Summary The Franklin Street footpath is a small, in=requently traveled trail. It was difficult to obtain data that was pertinent for use in the study due to its size. The Lee Gulch Trail would have been appropriate for the study, but it was difficult to ascertain whether the individuals interviewed were referring to the Lee Gulch Trail or the southeastern area of Highline Canal Trail, which pa?ses in close proximity. The trail segments chosen for the study were the Highline Canal Trail, the Weir Gulch Trail, and the Willow Creek Trail. These trails represent the variety of trails in Metro-Denver. Each study area is under two miles long and the composition of the surface of the trails ranges from dirt or crusher-fines to asphalt or concrete. The trails run along natural waterways and are surrounded by a combination of indigenous plants and recent landscaping. Though these trails are located in residential neighborhoods, they also cross busy intersections and pass through commercial and retail areas. The hls:ory or each trail varies greatly, ranging from an old serv:ce road alcnç the Highline Canal Trail which is now paved, to a small foot path along the Weir Gulch stream bed that has evolved into a connector path between neighborhood parks. The Highllne Canal Trall lS the most highly used trail in metro- Denver, with ambling pedestrians and commuting cyclists, whereas the Willow Creek Tra:l and the Weir Gulch Trail are used primarily by ne:ghborhood residents. METHODOLOGY Data was coEec:e:ì the swnmer of 1994 through telephone interviews of resice;.:s adjacent or near to the trails, real estate age:-.:S W:-.o tt.:·,' ar.::: sell homes in metro-:Je!1ver, patrol Exec:u ti ve Summary 5 - officers who work the trails, and biweekly surveys of the Denver Post Real Estate advertisements, sections H and I. Residents were asked if they thought the trail had affected their decision to move to their present home and if they thought the existence of the .trail had affected the value of their property. Residents adjacent to the-trail were asked if they thought the presence of the trail posed a risk to their public safety due to incidents of vandalism or trespassing from trail users. Real estate agents were asked similar questions concerning the effect of a trail on the value and desirability of property located near the trail. Patrol officers from metro-Denver and the Carson Nature Center in the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District were interviewed. They were asked if, in their opinion, there was a correlation between trail users and incidents concerning public safety, specifically vandalism or :respassing on property adjacent to the trail. Biweekly surveys of The Denver Post was conducted to determine if a trail was used in adver:ising c::Jndomln~ urns. homes, townhomes, apartments, and Attempts were made to determine whether the assessed value a~d se::~nç price of homes In the study area had increased due :0 :he~r close proxlmlty to a trall at a greater rate than homes 0: comparable value, but ln an area not associated with a trail. AI: attempt was also made to contact realtors who sold homes w~ :hln each spec~fi:: study area. Due to the many variables :nvolved In determlnlng the value of a home and the fact that areas are not categorlzed solely by their proximity to a trail, .- was dlfficult to quantify results from such a study. Nonet~eless, the deslrabillty of property due to its proximity to a tra:: was è~scussed wlth both realtors and homeowners. 6 becu ti ve Summary CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Urban trails are regarded by real estate agents as an amenity that helps to attract buyers and to sell property. Single family homes, townhomes, apartments, and condominiums are regularly advertised as being on or near a trail or greenway. Trails and greenways are considered lifestyle enhancements and usually included in the sales package for a property. Of the real estate agents interviewed, 73% believed that a home adjacent to a trail would be easier to sell, and 55% agreed the home would sell for more than a comparable home from a different neighborhood. 64% of the real estate agents believed homes located a block away from the trail would be easier to sell, but the likelihood of the trail having an effect on the pr:ce of the home was less than 10% In older communit~es, 45% of the real estate agents thought trails had the propensity to increase the market value of the ~ome, and :he o:he= 55% believed that the homes would maintain ~o=~~_ ma=~e: valuE. 64% of real estate agents were in agreement t~at trails are located in all types of neighborhoods, a~c ~ot re~e?a:ec -~ one class or demographic area. :or res:ae~ts of s:ngle family homes adjacent to a trail, 29; bel:eved that the locat~on of the trail would increase the se~l:ng pr:ce cf the:r home. 57% of the res~dents felt that the tra:l wode make the home easier to sell. 57% of these res:aents also had lived in their homes prior to construction of the tra:l, yet 29% of those surveyed were positively influenced ~y the tra:l :n :he:r decision to buy the ~cme. None of cc~::iomin~ \.:::'.s the res:der.ts of townho:nes, trail thoug:-.: apartments, the trail and would ad] ace~ t t·:J a Ez.cutive summary ï decrease the selling price of their home, and 42% thought that it would increase the selling price of their home. 75% of the residents lived in the area prior to the construction of the trail, and 17% were influenced by the trail to move to the area. In regard to public safety, only one resident was concerned with their situation. They lived on the connection of a trail to a park and had experienced some vandalism and damage to their property. As a result, they chose to put up more lights around their house in an attempt to ward off trespassers. This effort proved successful and, despite the annoyance, they felt that the trail increased their quality of life. The patrol officers did not have concerns for public safety along the trails when the trails were used during regular daylight hours. No public safety issues could be directly linked to the trail. The most serious issues of late have been graffiti and tagging at underpasses. None of these incidents were focused towards other trail users and usually occurred when there were no other people on or arounè the trail. The officers doubted :~e~e WOL.:lè a c:::>:1cern fo~ public safety due to the constant It was also mentioned that and would be more li~ely to passage 0: people on the trails. people rely on t~e:: automobiles, ccngregate :n a park:ng lot. In summary, concerns that urban trails might aC'Jersely effect publ~c safety and property value in surrounding ne~ghbor~oods are not substantiated by the results cf this study. '~e effect of a trail on the neighboring pro~erty is benefic~al, rather than detr~mental. The general opi:Üon is that tra~ls are an amenity to the neighborhoods arou~~ them; they increase the des:rabllity of property and provide ~ space for young ~~ild=en and adults of all ages to run and pl~y. 8 Executive summary One point of concern regarding ~rai:s should be mentioneè. Though the general opinion is that trails a=e an amenity, almost half of the people interviewed either did not use the trail discussed, or were not aware of its existence. It appears that greater community involvement should be recruited for future trails to truly be an useful aspect of a neighborhood. {' '.. BACKGROUND AND TRAIL PROFILE ...-.....,..............-.-..-.. .....-...,.... .. Back~round and Trail Pro~il. 11 Figure ~ metro-Denver 2 mu. NOftl'\. :Q 41' 11' 1-70 0 ¡; .. I '-. ': Denver , .- ~ Aurora 1'.2$ High/ine Canal T~il 0 Study Area I '- , I - I ,; ~~ :.,-.. ~.......; \'......-~ -..... .- '. , < rr" :::. L I' . =-----;-1 f . " ~- ~ i '--"'~"'- , r- ~ ~ I . , " I ~ '. ._~ ""S"'Òl:Jltìwes ¡ Ar apa tìOe GreenwOOd Village '- ,¡ J; ,; ! . , , ~ l.. L " -- L- \ " n _.,~ ! ~ ~ .. ~ .. . u g 0 ¡ t < ~ z ¡¡ ¡¡ II' L i I r· Ij·-· ~ .....:.~- , --- -' Lri:.J.et ~ .-- .. I ... . I : G'~ o '-- I SouthglOM '.'___0 Willow Creek Trail 0 Study Area n' ª:- --,..-- ., .' . ,).,)..... 140000aN111111Mt'1 CD" ~ Th~s map ~s rne:ely a represen~atlon. There ~s no cla~rn to accuracy. 12 Baekground and Trail Profile THE HIGHLINE CANAL TRAIL The "7l-mile Highline Canal" has been a part of Colorado since the state's inception into the Union in 1676. Througtout t~e years, it irrigated up to 20,000 acres of land at a time. The Highline Canal contains a variety of historic sites, including Denver' s Platte Canyon Reservoir. In 1924, the Denver Water Board purchased the canal and has since managed and provided service for those who hold the water rights for irrigation or other purposes. A maintenance road that runs alongside the canal was pinpointed in the early 1970's for potential use as a recreation area by several different planning groups. Within a few years, the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District, the City of Aurora, the City of Denver, and the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation had entered into separate agreements for the use of more than fifty eight miles of the road. This historic maintenance road is now one of the most highly used trails in ~etro-Denver, and is host to a variety of users, traIT'. people out for a stroll to daily co:nmuters. The area chosen for the study is in Aurora, between South Peoria Street and Soutr. hava~a Street and runs for l.4a miles. This portion of the trai¡ runs along Highline Drive, crosses over East 1st Avenue, and then brushes up against the south side of Del ~ar Par~. Trees ~ave been planted along the trail and the surface or the trail is mostly asphalt, with a small amount of -:mcrete. B&ckqround and Trail Profile 13 'Figure 2 The Highline Canal Trail :!IJOO f..1 . 1 h ;;; ;;; '- < ~ ;;; 0 .. . Š 3 J! ~ .. '" .. '" ~ ;¡ -'" c: . "'J! > '" :r rd . <D V9 ¡ . E ! 0 2 " , ~ '~ ;- Ii.CIt' "'~ , 0< ~ E ~aYaud ~~ ~Q.I alTrail , (~~ Highhne Can ;;; < 2 ¡; J~ / .- J ;- 0..011 A.., AIU. ." . " > 0 .. z " . .a .~.. E v. ~ ~ ~ . It. '" . ; .. .u E VI !!! Ò .. Q" Ea-.:II) "" .... E 2 . ~ . i L E N cM:' "'., u ~ .. ~ ; ! ¿ " .. C " It z p .. L 0 U § ~ ¡: L < " ~ ë ':! Õ Th~s map is merely a :e?:esen~atl0n. There lS no cla~m to accuracy. 14 Backqround and :rail Profile THE WEIR GULCH TRAIL The Weir Gulch Trail, located in Denver just east c: Lakewcod, runs along a natural riparian strea:n corridor. The waterway enters the Barnum neighborhood from the west ar:d meanders northeast, above and below the surface, through Barnum Park, and then continues on to the South Platte River. In 1971, a plan was initiated to àevelop a small footpath that ran along tne stream. The plan included drainage and channelization work by Wastewater Management and Urban Drainage and Flood Control has been completed, and, most importantly, community involvement. In the early 1980 's, small block groups in the Barnum neighborhood carne together to create small pocket parks that include greenspaces and small playgrounds. By 1988, bond money had been awaràeè to Denver Parks and Recreation to work on the trail. In 1990, a masterplan was proposed by Denver Parks and Recreation with the community for the long term goal to develop Weir Gulch as a connector system for parks and open space. Elementary-aged chilèren take the trail most often, using l t as a pa t:: around the neighborhood. The trail segment is intersect~d a: Sheridan Boulevard, runs up to the proposed 2nd Aver:ue corr~cor, ~~~=~ It :ollows to Barnum Park. Landscaping along the corr~dor was upgraded in 1994 with a variety of non- na tl ve anè In::: genous species. The eight- foot wide trail is cc~~cse¿ prl~arily c: as~halt, with a few new areas of concrete. It runs through a varlety of pocket parks and along concrete channels. Backqround and Trail Profile 15 Figure 3 The Weir Gulch Trail .~ '. ! ~ oil - . ""..... ~ .. . . - :'000 leel ,",onh. J9 C3' -.!J0 . , - =w; ~e_ ! . · · s ~ i' f . ~ .... ! l v.- ~..- y ~ o · · · · ~ . . ; f-- W ;ih A . ~ ! J 0; ~ 1 , ~ ~ . ; ~ ~ 0 - - 1 , !: ¡ . ; , 0 - !- , - 0; 0 < ¡ . ~ Av. : . ~ ~ o ."" v - "0 !! ~ M - 0 ~ , " I'L . " ~ Vf'.. ...."'.... ~ . . I--- . . W 6Ih ~iv.1 r-'- . ;1 · ;¡; I · ~ W 5ilh A e 5 ~ · 1 - ~ ~ i · ! .. SNI'I" ~ · ~ ~ - ~ .. "1'110... i - W ~d Av. W ¡¡, Av. ." . - 0' ." e · . .. ¡ I . G _f ::i - ~ . G ,.//Í ..... I~, .;; . . - ,- ..tJ~ ~~ ;;; - ;; 1 ~ . ~ 0; ~ . . s -<,(1)"- . G~\C~j'" ..Ie\\- A ~I~"'~_- 'I·'~.. -'I~ :Y ,i ;'~;;I .'W Ba au AJ. 0; I I. ,.,.\...1 Ao'~--\ P!'1~1~1' ~r~~\ Ai .~ .... ¡ \ . nolO' I ...... .......,_..... . 'v, r F9 ... .~) .....~.. - 'e>.._ ., : , ."'.... ~~ "',/ ./ I . c.._ h . ~ _~'/ W G,II F'I :./:' -' - , ¡ , .;:; U I _I.. .../.... V) ¡----·>!:"'11 ~ ~ I ;;; I: "y "'<. ~... - ~ - I : . ..1 , 5 o\~.. = 'f OJ\'LA~ tn¡ ... .... ~_, ~~~., . /' , : . ~;;,./ I - . :;¡;brJ;:-- .~~- W Is A . ~' - . l _,: ;; i,""" 1"'-' '" -: . 0; i ~ ¡ . - ~. ~ .. . i' uo i !:: - ~ ~ : C) Q ;; 0 ~ : r c .,. . " ~ - ." L' ~/ I/V /' . ,-. ". - i . o uo - ~ 2 " ~ 3 .. ~ .. h. ,., I "'I ..eo" .. " .. .....to. ,. I . . .APOII..' .. O"IIU .. ;:. .. : J. r I ... 0; ;; .e.. . . , ! , I 0 z " - W Gill PI I w-"L' Th1S ~ap 15 merely a represenLa~lon. .;; ~ <~ :1. 't:-y :' f~;/ _iY I ~ W SI!).,Ave - ~ ~ I ~ ~nh // ".,..- ./ Av. ..,....... ~ " ~ ¡ lwid". ~ r . " . . . ""'''',II1II " W Dakot Aye .~"." _," v,_. II", .. f'., ,.. ". W Cenl!1 Ave VI E XDO$I Ion Aye W Wal~h I W OhIO "ve - There lS no clalm to accuracy. );f - ., - ., - ~ i :z: . ·n , .. ~ .. "L,I fi~ o ~ ~I'''r -: W 8Ih .. s...... W 7th - . .. "" ... ""dA. ~ , . . ð - ~ ¡ , · ~ .. c ; to - .- rn · Go Õ .. ~ .. - II ~ ;. .. · (,) § " ! Go ~ " ! .. ¡; I!' .. - 16 Background and Trail Profile WILLOW CREEK TRAIL Willow Creek is a natural riparian stre:m corridor located in southeast Denver. Small. localized paths were present beside the stream before the construction began in 1985 to create the eight-mile trail now in existence. This trail was designated on the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District Trails Mast~r Plan and was developed through a public process. Community and citizen support was strong. The Willow Creek Trail is a neighborhood trail. connecting community parks and open space. The trail runs behind homes. through picnic and play areas and includes wildlife habitat and nature study sites. The trail also goes under busy intersections. The trail users are of all ages. The trail is composed mostly of asphalt, with intermittent use of crusher :ines on tie southern end. Future construction is projected by the end of 1995 to the north of the existing trail through Willow Spr1ng Open Space. The stuty are~ of t~e Willow Creek Trail runs from East Dry Creek Roat a~c Sou:~ Quebec Street southeast to East County Line Roas ant Sou:~ ~ose~ite Street. Through this section the trail lS e1Ç~: :ee: W10e and composed pr1marily of asphalt. The trail goes underneat~ busy Quebec Street before entering into neiç~bcrhoccs where ;- lS bordered by a split rail fence. As the tra1l ~eanders alonç the stream corridor 1t goes through small parks wlt~ plaYlng ::elès and large expanses of open space where fox have been slghted. Baekqround and Trail Profile 17 Figure 4 Willow Creek Trail I~ I , . , ~....,or . I I. '.. I ¡.. I" '" I ~ ""'tt ~ I ...," , Ó 1'= ~! \ . 2000 ,.., North. . . .. [a.,.", VI '4,! ~ . .. o 0' >- '... VI :0.. " ~.... . " :" I I!' · · ~ .: '" '" ~ · · ou Z l' ~ ~ · " ~ ~ . t < " ii '" ¡; ~ ~ Th~s map lS me:ely a repreSentðtlon. There lS no clalm to acc~racy. I' EV ALUA TION OF THE BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL'S EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES AND CRIME SEATTLE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OFFICE FOR PLANNING MAY 1987 --- -- -- -- I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, if any, the Burke Gilman Trail has had on property values and crime affecting property near and adjacent to the tra i 1 and to eva 1 ua te pub 1 i c acceptance of the tra i 1 and the tra i 1 ' s effect on the quality of life of adjacent neighborhoods. The need for the study became apparent when property owners in a different area of the city expressed concern over the development of a new trail project on the basis that it might reduce thei r property va 1 ues, increase crime, and generally reduce the qua 1 i ty of life. These concerns are similar to concerns raised by property owners prior to the construction of the Burke-Gilman Trail. Trail Profile The Burke-Gilman Trail is a 12.1 mile (9.85 miles are in Seattle) eight to ten foot wide multi-purpose trail that follows an abandoned railroad right-of-way. Most of the trail passes through residential neighborhoods. In Seattle, there are 152 single-family homes and 607 condominiums irrmediately adjacent to the trail, and 320 single-family homes within one block of the trail. There is an average of 20 feet of shrubs and/or trees between the trai 1 and the edge of adjacent properties. The trail also passes through an industrial area, several neighborhood corrrnercial areas, the University of Washington, and links six parks. The trai 1 was constructed in 1978 and currently has an estimated three quarters of a million users per year. As many as 4,000 to 5,000 users (80 percent bicyclists) enjoy the trail on a busy day. Methodology Data was collected in the surrrner of 1986 via telephone by interviewing residents near and adjacent to the tra i 1, real estate agents who buy and sell homes near the trail, and police officers who patrol neighborhoods adjacent to the trail. Residents were asked questions on their decision to buy their home; what effect they thought the trail would have on selling their home; what problems, if any, they have had with break-ins and vandalism by trail users; and how the trail has a ffected the i rove ra 11 qua 1 ity of lHe. Rea 1 es ta te agents were asked s 1milar questions on how the trail affects the selling price of homes along the trail. In addition, police officers were asked questions about trail users breaking 1 into and vandalizing homes. advertisements and real estate homes were being advertised as A bi-weekly survey of newspaper real magazines was also conducted to determine being near or on the Burke-Gilman Trail. esta whether An attempt was made to compare the selling prices and assessed values of homes along the trail with homes in comparable neighborhoods., However, due to the many variables that determine the value of a home, it was impossible to isolate the trail as a determinant of increased or decreased home value using this method. Conclusions/Recommendations The Burke-Gilman Trail is regarded by real estate companies as an amenity that helps to attract buyers and to sell property. Single-family homes, condominiums, and apartments are regularly advertised as being near or on the Burke-Gi lman Tra i 1. Property near but not irrrnediately adjacent to the Burke-Gilman Trail is signi- ficantly easier to sell and, according to real estate agents, sells for an average of six percent more as a resuH of its proximity to the trail. Propert. irrrnediately adjacent to the trail, however, is only slightly easier to sell. The trail has no significant effect on the selling price of homes immediately adjacent to the trail. Residents who bought their homes after the trail was opened are most likely to view the trail as a positive factor that increases the value of their home. Long-time residents who bought their homes prior to the opening of the trail are generally less likely to view the trail as an economic asset. Real estate advertisements that promote properties as being on or near the trai 1 tend to be from the companies that regularly sell homes near the t ra ; 1. In other words, people who have recently been involved in the real more 1 ikely to have experienced the economic assets of the estate market are t ra i 1. The existence of the trail has had little, if any, effect on crime and vandalism experienced by adjacent property owners. Pol ice officers interviewed stated that there is not a greater incidence of burglaries and vandalism of homes along the trai 1. They attribute that fact to the absence of motor vehicles. They noted that problems in park areas are generally confined to areas of easy motor 2 ~ vehicle access. The police officers said that there would be no significant trail problems as long as parking lots are away from the trail and bollards prevent motor vehicle use. They also recorrrnend the development of additional tra i 1 s. Residents adjacent to the trail are also positive about the trail, especiany when compared to conditions before the trail was opened. A former opponent of the trail (her home is on the trail) stated that the "trail is much more posi- tive than I expected. J was involved in citizens groups opposed to the trail. J now feel that the trail is very positive; [there are] fewer problems than before trail was built; [there was] more litter and beer cans and vagrants when railroad was in." Not a single resident surveyed said that present conditions were worse than prior to construction of the trail. In the eight years that the trail has been opened, there have been an average of only two incidents per year of vandalism or break-ins where a trail user may have been involved. There is also a very high level of publ ic acceptance and support for the trail. Not a single resident surveyed felt the trail should be closed. Less than three percent said there were any problems associated with the trail that were serious enough to cause them to consider moving (reason cited for wanting to move was always related to privacy, never crime or vandalism). Almost two-thirds of the residents felt the trail increased the quality of life in the neighborhood. In surrrnary, this study indicates that concerns about decreased property values, increased crime, and a lower quality of life due to the construction of multi- use trails are unfounded. In fact, the opposite is true. The study indicates that multi-use tra~ls _are an amenity that help sell homes, increase property values and improve the quality of life. Multi-use trails are tremendously popu I ar and shou I d con t i nue to be bu i It to meet the eve r-g rowi ng demand for bicycle facilities in Seattle. One pOint of concern regarding the trai 1 must be mentioned. Although not included in the survey, thirteen percent of those surveyed brought up the problem of user conflicts (i.e., speeding bicyclists) on the trail. To some extent, it is a problem of success. The trail has twice as many users as originally forecasted. Solving this problem may require trail design changes, educating users, and enforcing trail regulations. 3 II. BACKGROUND/TRAIL PROFILE The history of the Burke-Gilman Trail goes back to 1BB5 when Judge Thomas Burke and his friend, Daniel Gilman, headed a group of 12 investors who set out to establish a Seattle-based railroad. They formed the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railroad (S, L, Sand E; also known as the Sumas spur) and in 1885 laid the tracks that they hoped would someday connect to the Canadian Transcontinen- tal Line at Sumas. While this connection was never made, the line did become a major spur, serving logging areas throughout the Puget Sound region. The S,L, Sand E spur was acquired by the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1913 and continued in fairly heavy use until 1963 when through-train operations were stopped. During that time, the Seattle area continued to grow. The section of tracks that later was to become the Burke-Gi lman Trai 1 became surrounded by urban neighborhoods. Between 1963 and 197D, use of the tracks declined significantly. In 1970, the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and Burlington lines were merged to become the Burlington Northern Railroad. One year later, Burl ington Northern fi led for abandonment of the Sumas spur. The abandonment was part of a pattern that saw 50,000 miles of track abandoned across the United States. Alert citizens and city plannen quickly recognized the recreational potential of the abandoned rights-of-way. The City of Seattle adopted a Comprehensive Bikeway Plan (1972) that designated the right-of-way as a "priority corridor" for a multi-use trail. A citizens' group formed to lobby for the trail. By 1973, the City had acquired the right-of-way and began to proceed with plans to build the trail. The University of Washington and King County acquired the sec- tions that went through their jurisdictions. The funding package that was put together to build the trail included 196B Forward Thrust Bond money for Seattle, Corrrnunity Development Block Grants, and Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) funds. This was the first use of federal gasoline tax for a bicycle/pedestrian trail. After several more years of work that included planning, designing, and con- structing the trail, it was finally opened in August of 197B. The trail is currently 12.1 miles long, extending from just east of Gas Works Park at the north end of Lake Union in Seattle to Kenmore Logboom Park at the 4 r north end of Lake Washington in unincorporated King County. Of the 12.1 miles, 9.B5 are within the City of Seattle and 2.25 are in King County. The trail sur- face is asphalt and varies in width from eight to ten feet. The majority of the trail passes through residential areas and is about a Quarter mile off the shoreline of Lake Washington. There is an average of 20 feet of shrubs and/or trees between the trai 1 and the edge of adjacent properties. In Seattle ·there are 152 single family homes whose properties are ilTrnediately adjacent to the trail, 320 single family homes within one block of the trail, and 607 condomi- niums ilTrnediately adjacent to the trail. In addition to the residential areas, the trail passes through an industrial area, several neighborhood cOlTrnercial areas, the University of Washington, and provides a link between six parks. Today the trail has about three-Quarters of a million users annually. A 19B5 survey of trail users conducted by the International Bicycle Fund for King County (with assistance from volunteers of the Cascade Bicycle Club), has pro- vided valuable information on trail use. Almost 80 percent of the users pas5ing a particular point are bicyclists, 9 percent are joggers, 9 percent are walkers, and 2 percent are roller skaters, wheelchair users and similar users. About 80 percent of the bicyclists are recreational users, and 20 percent are cOlTrnuters. The average trail user is 35 years old and has an annual income of about $35,000. Fifty-eight percent of the users are male and 42 percent are female. The survey of trail users found that on weekends, almost half of the bicyclists put their· bikes in their cars and drove to access points along the trail to begin their cycling. In other words, the popularity of the trail cannot be solely attributed to its proximity to particular neighborhoods and the University of Washington. The trail has become a regional facility that attracts users from" the greater Seattle area. The trai I is not patrolled and there is no enforcemen.t of trail regulations. There is no special lighting pro- vided on the trail. 5 THE IMPACT OF THE BRUSH CREEK TRAIL ON PROPERTY VALUES AND CRIME SANTA ROSA, CAUFORNIA APRIL 13, 1992 TABLE OF CO'\TE"TS PaDe o 1. peRP05E .1 " TRA.IL PROFJLE .1 3 METHODOLOGY .1 - -- -. .- --- -,- --. 4 5eRVEY Or. RES1DE:\TS ALO\:C THE BRL'SH CREEf.: TRAIL .3 :0 SCRVEY Or APART\1E:\'T &. ".10BJLE HO\1E PARK .\1.-'.:\.~.GERS .10 6. 5L'R\E\ Or REAL EST A IE ACE:\'TS . .10 /. SL-R\'EY Or LA\\' E:\'FORG\1E:\'T ACE~,CJES .i3 s. SL'R\'EY 0:= PROPERTY \·.~.LLES J:\ OTHï:R (JjE5 .!.) s SeR\TY OF CRl\1E 5T.-'.T]5TJC5 1:\' OTHER cmE5 .1'; 1Q. CO:\'CLè_'-S10:\. .15 313LJOGR.-'.p¡-;y APP;::\,D]>; A ~- ( , ì\ \ ~: \ 1_- ..,. ,I .¡ J! E:' " --. . I .) I ,. ! I I FIGURE " , . ~ ,. ,'. .' ..' '. ';." .. .- .. AN¡..¡.t.DEl Sj,:..jE ~.L.ñK I \ I \ .I r 7 i r; I j~' : i:: ~ ' i i:U~ns I i \ '"0 ,. ..- ~~;' "\~" . oo:u-__ . ., :', '-ì., : :~.-:".~~ ~'~~;'.l-:~ . ~ .. . ' .' . " " ,",. .. . ." ., ~ :....:. . .. . .,. . -. .. ,,"~"., .. , LEGEND BRUSH CREEK TRAIL ......... . , . , , c__ , ,-- 1 2 , \ \ \ ,; .., --" , N Ó SCALE IN MILES 1 srTE MAP iij PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, if ",ny, a bicycJe/pedestTian tr",iI 1'1",s on property nJues and crime rates. Concerns by local property owners th",t proposed trãÜs may negãtiveIy affect property values or incre",se crime prompted this survey. Due to its 9 year existence, the Brush Creek Trail, bui1t along Br;,,:sh Creek in Santa Rosa·s Rincon Valley, was seJected as the focus of this sU",'ev. - .... - -.--. -- ~ -- .. --. TRAIL PROFILE In 1962, the Sonoma County V\'ate, Age;-¡cy CO;-¡structed a flood control --se··'o¡·r ¡On Ri'n~on ì',l]e\' and Cn';-¡n01:70.-' Bruc1-, C-eek a";d'nc:o , ""ra\'e1 ~ -= - \ '- ¡;¡;...';' ~.-.. .. .......___'-l _.1.... I I,.<.i.'¡ c: '"" 0 .. - ... ';'-þ .- .:;I.C::- ,.~,...; 1 ~ """".- ] ~o~~ (..~.=> .,.. po.,. ,. i9R.... ,¡.~ C:,., f S-. +-_ ::,ce. \h....... al...c__:::> .0,-"..... a..ono t..t:' e..cu' OJ ....... c..e_.I(. ,I.n _ '.'''~I L..¡e l.) 0.. G:l...::::: :.::.0-" con......-uc..'o,...; a ., "i:; ..--.i]e 1 n fOO" ~"::ìe ac;n~-¡¡· bJc\'clo pa.h ..:.-.. :::>- :::>... I........... J. ...:..-, ..... , .. 1.....' . ......... -.t- ..,=:.. ..'...." fro:::-:. ....ro~·ec:..o 1=:0"leV2-ri ~o u:......ì-v--v~.., 2.~....,-¡C' tJì' e ;o-m-'" c---'-Þ] a-ceo, -oa~ _'.1 .oIl 11. '-' -. .;.~.. ....1<=_1 'G._ __, ;~-'C>" .. .':'J 1::.:. c.c....... .. __.;. ....:.. -~...??rcxi!Tl.G.te}y eighty-fi\'e hom25 2.:-e i::"l:TJeàiê.teiy 2djacent to the trail \\'"it:. .....- , ,..... J. '" ] c;,p c:. -:; f +.:. .:.' p ...__:, f· o?e. '} In._ as c 0__ "'. 0". 00. ,0 ,,'1. "",,. The t:.::.il i~ !Tlë.intë.ined bv fhe City of Santa Rosa' Public h'OTks De::anme:1t, whereas the Geek is ----;;-...~i~ d· b,·' S m- C l' ...~~ \^-.'-.:.:;- ~ C;:"D-,,....,. ~~~c.u..c..;.e ) rne ono;J_c. O_T1..\ . c.1.__ """a.....'.....\. \1.!:iHODOLOGY IT: t~i5 S'L:.Tvey, G2.ta ¡..·as colJecteè by åoo!" to doo!" :!'lte:-..-ieA,\As \\~ith resiòents '0 'co~t to ,1,0 B- 'sh C-e"k '- , Se,.'pn'.'.,;_-r,'¡"'.·e -,es'.·~p'l"'..'.-_:::; ~'·e-,e S'~T'.\.eye" on -')~ _"L .~."" .:...~ J.... :-.2.-;. _ ....l_ _ '0'\ ..... \..I... ho\'o' ]o;-¡g'they had lived iTl the :1eigbod1Ooè; ho·,\· ofrer: they :.!se the t,,,,iJ; 1 Sl'R\'EY OF RESIDE\'TS WHO OW\' HO\IES ADJACE\T TO THE BRLSH CREEK TRAIL Methodology: (Questions 1 through 10) A door tL) door survey was conducted over t\\'o weekends in ),1 arch. 1992, oi homeowners immediately adjacent to the Brush Creek Trai¡ Seventy-five residents responded to the i:1ten·ie\\·. Objective: The objective of survey questions 1, 2, and 3 was to determine hOI\' long residents have Iil'ed jJ~ the neighborhood, ho\\' L1ften they use the tr2.il, 2.nd their perception of the qU2.lity of life H\'ing nearby the Brush Creek T:2.il. - .-.- ,~- - .. _ ___ _ _. u Results: Questions ],2. and 3 -. -- ..-- -" -_._. ¡ Ho\\~ long h2.l·e you Iil'ed in this l1eighborhood' a. less than] ,'ear b. 1 to :; vears c. o\"er 5 \"ez.rs 1 DO ~ °0 . ;0 i 70 I 601 -_ I ~v ""'\ 1 40 -' 3D j 20 -j 101 o 57.4 B b c 3 Objective: T!1e objectin oj sU~\"¿\' questions 4, 5, 2.nd 6 \\·2.S to determine if the Brush Creek Trai] had am" eifect on the perceived marketabiJjty and value of homes adjacent to the Brush Creek Trail. Results: Questions 4,5, and 6 4. Ii you \,'ere to se]] your hom" today, do you think the Brush Creek Trail would a make the home slightly easier to sell b. make the home signifjc2.ntly easier to sell c ha\'e no effect on se1ling the home d. make the home slight]y more dijficul,t to sell e. make the home si¡:nifjcantll' more difficult to sell .' , ,ot J- 90...J 8D 1 :~l 50 ~ 40 ~ _0 J ~ ~ 20 ~ '0 1 l D ..- --.-- . - -- . - - - ---- .._- -.--. -'"93 ô b c d 27 e 5 Objective: The objectives of survey questions 7 and 8, were to determine what type of fence homeowners had behind their house and how the trail affected their privacy. Results: Questions 7 and'8 7. What type of fe:1ce, if any, do you have behind your house? a. solid fence b. see through fence c. landscaping d. no fe:1ce 100 ~ 90 80 70 - 60 ~ 501 401 ~o 1 20..J 10 J i o . - -.- - - - -. _.- --- "- .- --- H53 ô b o c o d 8. How do you fee] the Br'Clsh Creek Trail affects your sense of privacy? a. decreases privacy sEghtly b. decreases privacy significantly ~. has no efíec! on princy d. increases privacy slightly e. increses privacy significantly 1 D:J . J 9D l 80 ~ 70 J J 60 ~ 50 -, . 40 ' 3D j "/0 ~ - , 10-: o j 53.3 e b c o d o e 7 Objective: The objective of question 10, ""as to determine if residents had any addítiona1 comments not mentioned in the survey regarding the Brush Creek Trail. Results: In question 10(b), sixty-seven percent of property owners had additional comments. (See additional comments below graph) 10. Do you have any additional comments not mentioned in this survey regarding the Brush Creek Trail? a. no b. yes If yes, what additionaJ comments (See additional comments below) . 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 - 30 ~ 20 l 10 i o -=.-....... "'-=' .'-'"?'c '"" ..:.= _ ..,.. 66.7 e b ADDITIO!\:AL COMME!\¡-rS TO QUESTION 10(b) Listed in order of most com:'!\Œ1. response. Some respondents had more th2.n one comment to the following question, "Do you have any additionai CO!!lments not mentioned in this sur\'e~' regarding the Bru.sh Creek Trail?" "Like it, glad it's there." "Use it for exercise a:ìd \o,'alking the dog.'· "Like to watch the wild Efe." "Glad no home is behind !!line." "Good for the COt~ì:7luni:~', an asset." "Needs to be ligllted at night.·· v ~ "Too many kids loitering." Response · · · · · · · ; Number of Responses 11 9 6 ::J 4 3 3 9 Results: Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 1. In your experience with home sales immediately adjacent to a natural creek, the creek will a. make the home se]] for slightly more b. make the home se]] for significantly more c. have no effect on the selling price of the home d. make the home se]] for slightly less e. make the home se]] for significantly less '" j 9D 8D 7~.2 ìD 60 j 5D 4D 30 20 10 0 0 e b -.,.-...,.=-.....~ ..,... -..-., ... ''."T - 25.8 c o d o e 2. 1:1 your experie:,ce with home sa]es immediately adjacent to a modified Geek, (channelized with :-ock rip rap).the Geek will a. mÙe the home sell for slightly more b. make the home se]] for significantly Dore c. ha-,'e no effect on the selling price of the hOwe d. r.'\ake the home sell for slight)v less e. make the home sell for significantly less 100 J :: j 70 60 50 ¿¡2 40 30 20 10 0 e 48.3 c d o b 1 1 SURVEY OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Objective: The objective of this survey was to determine whether the presence of a trail/creek affects the crime rate in the area. Methodology: Telephone interviews were conducted with the following law enforcement agencies with their respective neighborhood trails/ creeks. 1. Santa Rosa - Brush Creek T:-,Ül 2. Rohnen Park - Copeland Creek Trail 3. Petaluma - Lynch Creek Trail Results: All the agencies compile their crime data by districts. For each district, a number is assigned that indicates the total number of specific crimes in a given year. The crime data is not street specific. Therefore, by. using this~method,·therë~-is~no-wãy·-f6 aefèrmine if tnè Brush- Ciéek-Trail, Copeland Creek Trail, or the Lvnch Creek Trail was used to commit crimes. SURVEY OF PROPERTY VAWES IN OTHER CITIES Objective: The objective of this survey was to determine if trails/creeks in other cities had any effects on the marketability and selling price of homes adjacent to a trail. Methodology: Fifteen cities were contacted by telephone in and outside of California, for information on sun'eys regarding the effect of trails or'. prope:-'1: value. There were five respondents. Results: The five t:-ail surveys received were from Dubuque, Iow2.; T2.ÌÎah2.sse, FJorida; Lafayette, CaJifornia; Seattle, Washington; 2.nd Ply:nount, Minnesota. The foHowing results grouped under "other'· were :;.ot specified in the surveys. In survevs alan!:; the 26 !':1iJe, 9 vear old, Heritage Trail in Iowa, seven tv- -' ,-. .. L- ~ three percent of the residents reponed that the traiJ had no effect on their pIOpen)' values. Fourteen percent felt thetrai1 would increase the vaJue of their homes and thirteen percent stated other. Eighty-two percent of the real es:ate agents concluded the trail v.;ould have r,o effect on property values, twelve percent reported increased property values and six percent re";Jorted other. A10ng the 16 mile, 3 year old, St. Marks Trail in Florida, seventy-fou¡- percent of the homeowners surveved felt the Irai] had no efiect on their property values, whereas sixteen percent fel t their property vaJues had increased wi th ten percenf reporting other. Eighty percent of the real estate 1 3 reponed loitering nee.r or on propert\·; with twelve perce;'d reporting other. Along the 7.6 mile Lafayette/Moraga Trail, forty-three percent of the homeowners reported problems from unleashed pets; twenty-seven percent, noise irom the trail; twenty-seven percent, Etter; with three reporting other. The existence of the Burke-GÜman Trail has had littie, if anI', effect on crime and vandalism to homeowners. Law enforcement officers who patrol the trail stated that there is not a greater incidence of burglaries or vandalism of homes along the trail. Eighty-five percent of the Luce-Line rail-trail homeowners have not experienced major problems with the trail. Óf the fifteen percent experiencing prDblems, còr.,plaiMs encountered have [¡een Etter; loss of priv2.cy anà trespassing. CONCLUSION Tl1e pÜ.rpose of this survey \\'as to determine \deat effect, if any, a bicycle/pedestrian trail has on prDperty values and crime to adjacent properties. This survey does not support claims that trails adjacent to reside:1ces cause an increase in criT:ì€. Most of these crimes that can be directlv attributed to the Brush Creek Trail involved vandalism by , , adDles:ents. COICsideril,g the trail has been ODen for 9 vears, the number ~ '- 2I"':.d types or c¡-i::le polled in this s~::--vey aTe minOT in nature. This survey f::-.ós t~í.at the Br~sh Creek Trail does not cause 2n inc:-ease 1rl c:-~me. These -.o-,,1_c:. :;¡~þ a]'o'i"':on-l'J\' c;"n:lo"t·] hI' othe" t--¡'l Su-\'~"S 0,,· 0: ;-'11P a"e' as .;....:-_..:.~- -~- l -~~ . c. p' ~I..:-.t- . C'l.: ..ct .;. t::: .....l............, :ne!1tioneà in tne text of :his 5ü:-vev. Additionally, th:s survey does nDt support claims that ¡rails adjacent to residences cause a negative impact on property values. To the cor-.trary, the _Q\'erriding opinion in this sun'e~' by residents is that property values were ;~ :l~ffected at all, o¡- if ë.nything, increased due to the Brush Creek Trail. "':'·'1~e S··-~-e\·r t'ro11' ot-i~eT 're's t""'''])e" S"DDO-' t\)ir ¡'in'"l'l)'" .1..1 ....., \' _,'':> ¡ _, '". ,"I ~........ J ~. ~ . l J...:> . ....1 6. Pe:-h2DS the most o\'e:ldleln"1ing opinion bv residents along the Brush .. ...... "- Creek Trail is thë.t the trail/Geek has a positive eHecl en the quality oi life in tÌ'.e T1eighborhood, 1 5 .._..-...-. ... '-:>~b_~~·!:!?~~___·II~!ril¡¡~...... ¡ !. ~ ~!~.I. ~ ~.~. ~ ~.~ ~.. t~I.~!.I.~.~..... .~.~;..~ ~.~~ .~...."."... ....... '. .. . ~ .~~.~y. !:,~!.!:...~.~_I.ì.I~.~~. .~.. _~~~~~.~.!.I.~(.~.?~_~º~¡. Ssaltlo. Washing Ion BUlka.Gilman j .................................................. ¡ P'ymounl, Mlnnüsola tuco LJllo i ,.......... :32% POSITIVE EFFECT ... ! ,..j ¡ ! ¡ ".¡ .¡ i 02"1.. 80"1" 52"1.. 43'\1.. 10 EFFECT 12% 20"1.. 2·1% NCREASE VALUE I ., .......i , ! ¡ , . 25"/.. IJEGATIVE EFFECT I I I ! . I 6% 2'1%. NO OPINION on ERS WT SPECIFIED ~--- TRAil ~f~.~jl.~~~ 51. Marks l:ala)'ellt!/M~ríl!Ja ßu ke-CI II¡iln luca Line CITY SURVEY OF REAL TOnS: EFFECT OF mAil. ON PflOPEfHY VALUES 22"1.. SA"/., .~~~I.~i_~~I~~. Plymount, Minnesola la ~y~1I Seal lie, TRAil ---. 73% 7,I'Y.. 44% 40% 32"10 i , I I '1'.. 9% 30% 0, C alilornta ----- '?~~9~!:. ~~.~ ....... Tallahassee, Floljda POSITIVE EFFECT NO EFFECT '1"1" 6'1'" ~I:)''l. NcnEASE VALUE NEGATIVE EFFECT NO OPINION % 3% 0"/" :1% I OTIIERS NOT SPECIFIED CITY SURVEY OF ADJACENT IJOMEOWNERS: EFFECT OF mAIl. ON PflOI'EnTY VAUJES Ar 'EN ) x A RAI L-TRAI LS AND SAFE COMMU N ITI;E S ",\ "~ -,' ~> '. _..t· .. . MI· IS --)',' . !f~' '" , ' " ./-:;,IjIOÄ:',::I.:~t!'to -',,. ~.. TR1\IIS". . ..,d".,. . - ~ . CONSE~VANCY ,'·-r-It ~' .' -> , RAI L-TRAI LS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES The Experience on 372 Trails e RAll.S -to - lRAllS CDNSEIlVAIICY Written by Tammy Tracy & Hugh Morris Rails-to- Trails Conservancy in cooperation with National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program January 1998 This report was conducted by Rails-to- Trails Conservancy to document the extent of crime on rail-trails and review such crime in a broader perspective. The pUrPose of Rails~to-Trails Conservancy is to enrich America's communities and countryside by creating a nationwide network of public trails from fonner rail lines and connecting corridors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rails-to- Trails Conservancy is grateful to all the trail managers who responded to our survey. The information provided made this study possible. Thanks to Andy Clarke, Barbara Richey, and Susan Doherty for their invaluable assistance in getting this report through edits, revisions and production. © Copyright 1998 by Rails-to- Trails Conservancy May not be reproduced without permission from Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 1100 Seventeenth Street, Nw, Washington. DC 20036, (202) 331-9696. CONTENTS Previous Research ... ........................... ............................................................_.. 1 ........................................................2 Introduction ......... ...................... Methodology ..................... _................... _..................................... -............. 3 Study Findings.................. _........................................... _.............. _..............4 Major Crimes ___ .__..___._._____....________.._.______._.._____ 4 Minor Crimes ............. ....................................................................... 7 Recommendations Trail Design _____.._. _________...._..______...._._____.__...____10 Trail Patrols ..._._.______.._..____._.__._..__:._.____.___.__.___._ tl Trail Patrol Case Studies _______...__.________..._________.._____.__.12 Rail·Trails as Safe Places _____.___.______.._________.._____________14 Conclusions ... ...... ... ... ...... ....... .... .... ... ........... ........ ...................................... 15 Appendix (A) Letters froml.aw Enforcement Officials ___.._______..._.___.16 (B) Letter from the President of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail__ 24 TABLES Table I: Comparison of Incidence Rate of Major Crimes on Rail·Trails to U.S. Population, 1995·1996. _............... ......:................._._.............._....:........ .-... 5 Table 2: Comparison of Incidence Rate of Minor Crimes on Rail-Trails to U.S. Population. 1995-1996. ........... ......_. .._.... ...............................:_..._.__....._.. 8 Table 3 National Crime Statistics by Location ________.._____________._____.. 14 FIGU RES Figure I: Percent of Major Crimes Reported on Trails ____._.__._________._____.7 INTRODUCTION At it's peak, the U.S. railroad network extended for almost 300,000 miles. More than half of this remarkable system has since become super- fluous and in the latter half of the 20th century mare than 2,000 miles of track annually have been abandoned or left unused by the railroad companies. Since the early 1960's, efforts to preserve this part of our national industrial heritage have taken hold in community after comrnunity and rnore than 10.000 miles of former rail line have been opened as multi-use trails. In every state except Hawaii. people are bicycling, walking, running, in-line-skating, snow-mobiling and horseback riding on rnore than 950 rail-trails and there are plans for an additional 1,200 rail-trails stretching a further 18,000 miles. . .. converting '. on abandoned rail corridor. to a trail tends to reduce crime by cleaning up the landscape and attracti ng people who use the trail for recr~ation and transportation. ...... While rail-trails are hugely popular and súccessful once they are open, during the development phase trail promoters often have to answer a wide range of concerns that local residents may have about the impact of the pro- posed trail on their community. Stories of trails attracting drug dealers, murderers and rapists are perpetuated by trail opponents with only a handful of newspaper head- lines to back up their assertions rather than empirical research. Despite nurnerous studies that have concluded rail-trails do not generate crime, concerns persist and fear of the unknown continues to provide fertile ground for trail opponents. The research that has been conducted. along with anecdotal evidence. suggests that converting an abandoned rail corridor to a trail actually tends to reduce crime by cleaning up the landscape and attracting people who use the trail for recreation and transportation. Recognizing the need to address these concerns, Rails- to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) conducted a survey of all rail-trail managers in an effort to document the level of crime on trails and identify the mitigation measures used by trail designers and managers. The objectives of this study were threefold: 1) to document the levels of crime on urban, suburban and rural rail-trails with current statistics and comprehensive data, 2) to· examine trail rnanagement strate- gies that can mitigate crime and improve trail safety, and 3) to put crime on trails in perspective. A summary of past studies, our methodology, results, recommenda- tions and several case studies follow. RAil-TRAILS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH Four separate studies conducted between 1979 and 1997 concluded that rail-trails do not increase crime. I A study of the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle, Washington rdied on interviews with local police officers and residents adjacent to the 12-mile urban rail-tïdil. The study fouod that incidents of vandaHsm and burglary did not increase as a result of the trail. To the contrJ.ry, the rate of vandalism and break-ins to adjacent property was well below the nCighbor~ood average. Police said that they did not anticipate crime being a problem as long as motor vehicle use on the trail was prohibited, citing that the separation of a criminal from his/her escape vehicle as being a primary deterrent. In the Minnesota study, the Department of Natural Resources interviewed property owners near the proposed Root River TrJ.iI in southeastern Minnesota and the proposed Soo Line Trail in eastern Minnesota. The study also interviewed property owners adjacent to the existing Douglas Trail near Rochester and the Heartland Trail in northern Minnesota. The study concluded that residents adjacent to existing rail-trails experienced much less crime than was anticipated by residents near proposed rail~trail projects. A NationaL Park Service study of the 26-mile Heritage Trail in rural Iowa, the 16-mile St. Marks Tr,Ül through small communities in Florida, and the 8-mile Layfayette/Moraga Trail in suburban San Francisco found that property owners experienced relatively few problems resulting from the existence of a rail-trail. Most adjacent property owners reported that rates of vandali~m, burglary and trespassing had remained the same or decreased since the opening of the trail. The majority of property owners interviewed in the National Park Service study reported that living near a trail was better than they expected and also better than Hving near unused rail corridors. A recent survey of residents near the Mohawk- Hudson Bike-Hike trail in New York asked respon- dents to comment on twelve potential problems that could arise from the traiL The respondents ranked each potential problem on a scale of one to five, with one being "not a problem" to five being a "major problem." The items that were ranked highest as being a major problem were litter (14% of respondents), illegal motor vehicle use (12%), and disfilptive noise from the trail (12%). For these three items the percentage of users who indicated that these were not a problem at all was 41 %, 44%, and 45%, respectively. All four studies found that while some residents were apprehensive about rail-trail projects most did not experience problems after the trail's opening. In fact, many became users of the trail and the majority recognized the trail's economic and health benefits to the community. The Burke- Gilman and the National Park Service studies both , found rail-trails to have a slightly positive effect on property values in adjacent neighborhoods, further testimony to the safety and benefit of rail-trails. 2 RAil-la-TRAILs CONSERVANCY METHODOLOGY RTC used several methods of data collection far this report. In January 1997, RTC mailed surveys to the managers of all known open rail-trails (861) in the United States based on contacts maintained in RTC's database of rail-trails. This survey asked trail managers to report any crimes against persons or property committed on their trails during the years of 1995 and 1996.The survey listed several types of crime in each category for the respondent to consider. The survey also asked questions regarding the use of such safety features as lights, phones and posted _warnings. Finally, the survey asked about the -l ~',i~\k A local patroler makes his rounds on the Illinois Prairie Path. existence, mode and frequency of trail patrols. From this effort. RTC received 372 usable responses, a 43% response rate, reflecting a diverse set of trail types, lengths and geographic locations. Trail types included 36 urban, 81 suburban and 255 rural trails.2 The length of these trails ranged from one- fIfth of a mile to 145 miles. Geographic representa- tion was quite broad with 38 of the 49 states that currently have at least one rail·trail responding. In June 1997, RTC collected supplementary statistical and anecdotal infonnation on the impact of rail-trails upon local crime. Using contact infor- mation provided by survey respondents, RTC sent letters to thirty local law enforcement agencies3 with questions· regarding impact of th.e rail-trail on crime, the presence of trail users as a crime deterrent and comwrisons of crime on the trail to the crime in surrounding areas. Twelve of these agencies responded, a 40% return, with letters regarding the safety of rail-trails. Finally, in July 1997, RTC con- ducted phone interviews with several coordinators of volunteer and professional rail-trail patrols to discuss the operation of their patrols. RTC compiled information 'on the organization, objectives and success of seven urban, suburban and rural trail patrols. RAil-TRAilS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 3 STUDY FINDINGS The summarized results appear in the following four sections, major crimes, minor crimes, design strategies and trail patrols. Major crimes are, detìned for the purpose of this report, as those crimes against persons including mugging, assault, ï.lpe and murder. Minor crimes are. those against property including graffiti, littering, sign damage, motorized [fait use, trespassing and break-ins to adjacent property. Quotations from law enforcement letters are included in the text where appropriate. The complete text of the letters appears in Appendix A. Figures for the actual number of incidents of crimes against persons are reported whereas the incidents of property crimes are expressed by the number of trails reporting any occurrence during the year. This was done because of the difficulty in quantifying some of the types of minor crimes such as litter or graftìti incidents. Overall, resuLts from the study indicate that rail-trails are safe places t()r people to be. The study abo found that trail managers often employ preven~ tative design strategies and patrols to reduce the possibility of crime and improve the efficient management of the trail. MAJOR CRIMES Out of 372 trails included in this study, RTC found only eleven rail-trails in 1995 and ten rail- trails in 1996 which had experienced any type of major crime, 3% of responding trails. "Tbe trail does not encourage crime, and in fact, probab()! deters crime since there are many peoPle, tourists and local citizens using the trail for many activities at various hours of the day." - Pat Conlin. Sheriff Green County, WI These figures are very low considering the 372 trails surveyed_ cover nearly 7,000 miles of trail and more than 45 million estimated annual users.4 Letters from, law enforcement agencies support these findings. They consistently report that rai1* trails do not encourage crime; rather, several letters cited, heavy trail usage as a crime deterrent in areas of fanner isolation: "The trail has not caused any increase in the amount of crimes reported and the few reported incidents are minor in nature... We have found that the trail b1·ings in so many peoPle that it has actually led to a decrease in problems we formerly encountered such as underage drinking along the river banks, The increClsed presence of people on the trail has contributed to this problem being reduced." - Charles R. Tennant. Chief of Police, Elizabeth Township, Buena Vista, PA Following is a summary of major crimes on rail- trails by urban, suburban and rural areas as well as a_ comparison to national crime figures. Although directly comparable statistics were not available, violent crime rates from the FBI's 1995 Uniform Crime Report provide some comparison by showing the number of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in urban, suburban and rural areas,~ When compared to rates of rail-trail crime, these figures provide-a sense of how infrequently crimes on rail-trails occur. The results are presented in Table 1 and followed by discussion. 4 RAil-la-TRAilS CONSERVANCY TABLE 1 Comparisons of Incidence Rate of Major Crimes on RaiI-tr.tiIs to U.S. Crime Rates. URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL 1995 1995 1995 CRIME NationaP Rail- T rails2 National' Roil-Trails' Na~onol' Roil-Trails' Mugging 335 0.53 (1995) 102 0.00 (1995) 19 0.00 (1995) 0.30 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) Assault 531 0.58 (1995) 293 0.02 (1995) 203 0.01 (1995) 0.34 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) Forcible 43 0.04 (1995) 29 0.00 (1995) 26 0.01 (1995) Rape 0.00 (1996) 0.00 (1996) 0.01 (1996) Murder 11 0.04 (1995) 4 0.01 (1995) 5 0.01 (1995) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 1. Note: Rates per 100,000 population; FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1999. 2 Note: rates per 100.000 users; RTC survey results. ~:;¡}::' ,~<:;* ~; ,:~ . . ''JOR CRIMES'O'N\ . :";;,:' ··:f¡~),~:·o'.~·";': . BAN RAIL-TRAILS"'/»::,;;,,, .,(Wf~!~~';'Í:~;~~:;> ,-'' '?.-'- .- ~' :.:-r.\-::·;_:7^'·.:";'~~;::-:i-~::-;'~_~,';Jr(> __:::r'~~:/ -~;~, ~ . RTCfoUnà the crime rates on urban rai1-traJIs to be.."ry' ItnwçÒID .:.":'''' --:"_~:-X,,:i-',": _;"'i,"','-- , , ,',._ -:,'.- .-'- ',,': »»~:;)!/_-;,> /:'.! -:;:f~;"{i;;,j;;:0, " . for ùtban áreas. Note that one urban trail located In South ., '. 1',;:,,:';':,':;"",k':>'::,""^; __ .-.- .- ','- .>. . ",'<A,;/' .": :rilajopty Of personal crünes were experienç~:' \', :':,i,;_;;~:~;-:},'-VJ'::\')~~¡::<» '«:: .-'- .- ,',', .-, '; ~ .., .. <-' "'.:: 'Each yeu an estimated 5 million·' >;;+":'~"~:;";":":\C",:':'\ " " ,. " " ,:., ;}3~ miles. ::'>'-',.:.'.,,; ",' ~i') ";--', -,.., ~, ':;:;'jj>:-r;;~ "". " The··national urban murder rate is 11 pèr 1 . reported two murders In 1995. None of thê , 19%.' .' '.: .", . :"jX':·.."~. ': ~>i',', '''''''\'' ',', " "'''' . ; ; ,', ;i.~.':: R/~ll-Tr>f\ILS Ar~D S/....F£ (Ot<\f.ÆU.'J,TlfS 5 SUBURBAN RAil-TRAilS RTC found crime .ates on suburban trails to be even lower than on urban rail-trails.The rate of crime on rail-trails was also low compared to national statistics of overall suburban crime. . .,. An estimated 14 million people use more th~n 1,100 miles of trail on the 82 suburban trails surveyed. ... The national rate of suburban muggings is 102 per 100,000 inhabitants; none of the suburban rail-trails reported muggings for the year of 1995 and only one mugging was reported in ] 996. ...The national rate of suburban aggravated assaults is 293 per 100.000 inhabitants; three assaults occurred on three suburban rail-trails in 1995 and only two assaults occtlrred on suburban rail-t.ails in 1996. ... The national rate of suburban rape is 29 per 100,000 persons; none of the suburban rail- trails reported a rape in 1995 or 1996. T Nationally, four murders per 100,000 inhabitants occur in suhurbafl areas; there were no reports of murder on suburban rail-trails in 1995 or 1996. RURAL RAil-TRAilS Major crimes occurred with even less frequency on rural raiHrails than on urban or suburban ones.These rates are also low compared to overall rural crime rates. ... There are an estimated 26 million ant)ualusers on the 254 surveyed mral trails covering 5,282 miles. ... The national rate of mugging in rural areas is ]9 per 100,000 inhabitants: none of the mral rail-trails reported muggings in 1995 and only one reported an incident in 1996. ... The national rural rate of aggravated assault is 203 incidents per 100,000 persons; only three mral rail-trails reported three assaults in 1995 and the same number in 1996. ... Nationally, there were 26 forcible rapes per 100,000 mral inhabitants; twO rural rail-trails reported rapes in 1995 and one trail reported a rape in 1996. ... The national murder rate for rural areas is·5 per 100,000; none of the rural f'.lit-trails reported a murder over the two year period. ...... 6 RAll-TO-TRAIL1S CONSERVANCY FIGURE 1 Percent of Trails Reporting Major Crimes 1996 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Mugging . Assault Rape Murder j 0 Urban 18 Suburban . Rurall MINOR CRIMES According to OUf survey tìndings, only one- fourth of the rail-trail managers reported any type of minor crime, such as graftìti or littering and these problems were quickly corn:'cted as part of routine trail management." The data indicates the occurance of each infraction rather than the actual number of incidents. Letters from law enforcement officials attest that the act~lal volume of incidents such as graffiti, littering, sign damage and motorized lIse were minimal. In f~lCt one letter nored that litter was virtllaUy nonexistent on a se<.:tion of converted rail, but was overwhelming on portions which had not -Many trails close at d(lrk and þatrols help to clear them. been converted to trail, again highlighting the benefits of converting an abandoned rail corridor to a trJ.il: ·'My Jamily and I took part in a community clean-up day ...By the end oJ the mile and a half, we had Jound ONE piece oJ litter almost too small to have noticed. ...once you leave the path and continue where the railway line had been, the trash and graffiti are overwhelming" - Ross L. Riggs, Chief of Police Louisville, OH Moreover, RTC found that the majority of the property crimes committed on rail·trails had only a minor effect on the trail and usuál1y did not hann _ adjacent private property. The following letter indicates that trails make good neighbors. "Since the tr(lil was constructed and opened for use we have found that the, trail has not caused any inconvenience to property owners along the trail. The residents seem to enjoy having the trail near their homes." - Charles RTennant Chief of Police, Elizabeth Township, Buena Vista, PA A breakdown of the property crimes cOlnrnitted on rail-trails in urban, suburban and rural areas in ~ 996 and some comparisons to national averages foUow.7 The results are presented in Table 2 and followed by a discussion. RAil-TRAilS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 7 TABLE 2 Com parison of Incidence Rate of Minor Crimes on Rail-trails to U.S,Crime Rates & Percentage ofTrdils ReportingTypes of Crime in 1995. CRIME Nationall NationoP Roi1-Trails2 ~_~ationa~' 0.00% 820 0.01% 0.01% BURGLARY . 687 TRESP ASSI NG N/A 5% N/A 3% N/A 4% GRAFFITI N/A 26% N/A 17% N/A 12% --------- --------- , ----- ¡ LITTERING N/A 24% N/A 24% N/A I 25% SIGN N/A 22% N/A 22% N/A 23% DAMAGE MOTORIZED N/A 18% N/A 14% N/A ¡ 23% USE I 1. Note: Rates per lOO,CXXJ population; FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1995 for 1995 for burglary. 2. Note: rates per lCKJCXXI users: RTC survey results for burglary. Results for other crime types reported os percentaç:¡e of trails experiencing that type of crime. URBAN RAil-TRAilS Very few incidents directly affecting urban prope~ty owners occurred. ... . The national rate of burglary in urban areas is 1,117 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants; . none of the urban rail-trails reported burglary to adjacent homes in 1996. ... Only 5% of urban rail-trails reported trespassing ... 26% of the urban rail-trails reported graffiti. ... 24% of the urban rail-q:ails reported littering. ... 22% of the urban rail-trails reported sign damage. 'r 18% of urban rail-trails reported unauthorized motorized use. 8 RAll-TO-TRAI4S CONSERVANCY T 23% of the rural trails reportedsign-damage. . SUBURBAN RAIL-TRAI Incidents of graffiti and unautborized motórized trails than on urban ones. The number adjacent property owners was T The national rate of suburban suburban trail reported a T 3% of suburban trails reported trespassihg. T 11% of the suburban trails reported graffiti. . T 24%'ofthe trails reported littering. T 22% of the trails reported sign damage. T 14% of the suburban trails reported RU RAL RAI L-TRAI LS Rural rail-trails reported fewer incidents of. graffiti thàn both urban and . incidents occurred at about t~e same rate. Again, crimes dir~ctly affecting were rare. T The national burglary rate·in rural areas is 687 ihcidents per only three of the rural trails reported a break-itÌ to adjacent in 1996. T 4% of rural trails reported trespassihg. T 12% of rural trails reported graffiti. '!' . 25% of the rural trails reported littering. T 23% of the rural trails reported unauthorized motor use. TYT RAIL-TRAILS AND SAfE COMMUNITIES 9 RECOMMENDATIONS Although this study shows that roil-trail crime is rare, it is nonetheless a legitimate concern for residents and trail users ond should be treated accordingly. There ore several methods for addressing such concerns and minimizing the potential for cr,me. Encouraging trail use is one way to help ensure trJiI safety, as the prest:nce of other users helps to minimized undesirahle behavior. In addition, trail users should exercise common sense when using trails after dark and remain aware of their surround- ings at aU times. Several other mitigation strategies help suppress criminal behavior and lessen the impact of incidents that do oCClIr. In particular, trail design features and trail patrols are lIseful mitiga- tion strategies to keep in mind. Recommendations for their implementation are included in this sectiun, however since every rJil-trail environment is unique, trail managers should assess the need for these strategies on an individual basis. TRAI L DESIGN (;ood trail <.ksign is an effective way of promot- ing trail safety. In most cases, the design of the trail should dimin,lte o"vergro\vn vegetation and tall shruhs ill order to minimize hiding places along the trail and maintain long sight lines for users. Trail managers may also choose to place security lighting at trail heads and in parking lots to improve trail sat'Lt)". Emergency phoncs or call boxes and emer- gcncy vehicle access are also important safety features for somc trails. AdditionaJly, keeping all trail corridors clean and well-maintained increases the feeling of community ownersl1ip of the trail and will n:dllce the inddent."i of minor crimc such as litter, graffiti ami vandalism. Prohihiting motorized use of the trail will deter property crime. RTC found that several trails utilized the above design strategies in order to improve safety. The survey found that at the trail head I B'X, of the trails. installed lìghts, t 21}~1') installed phones, ;:10(( 51 % posted warnings or rules for trail users. Along the 10 RAIl-TO-TRAI\S CONSERVANCY trail, 8% of the trails installeù phones, 8% had lights and 45% posted warnings or trail rules: Unfortunately, the ùata collectecJ in this survey was too limited to explore the correlation between the existence of design features and crime rates. TRAI L PATROLS Volunteer or professional trail patrols are also benetìcial in improving trail safety. These patrols range from informal monthly clean-up and mainte- Trail patrol nwmbers are on hand at an evening event in Gainsville, Florida nal1ce crews to daily patrols that provide maps, information and emergency assistance. Th~ primary function of these patrols should be to educate trail users and to provide assistance when necessary. They should also be equipped to alert emergency Bike patrol police on the Capital Crescent Trail, Maryland services quickly if needed. Above all, the presence. of a patrol deters crime and improves users' enjoy- ment of the trail. According to survey results, the majority, of trails have some type of trail patrol. The survey found that 69% of the urban rail-trails, 67% of suburban rail-trails and 63% of rural rail-trails are patrolled in some way. Local, coùnty, and state entities, park rangers and volunteers provide these patrol services either alone or in combination. RTC found that 20% of the trails have local law enforce- ment patrols, 16% of the trails have county patrol~, 4% of die tr.ails have state patrols, 9% of the trails have park ranger patrols and 3% of the trails have volunteer patrols. The dominant modes of trail· patrol are bike (26%) and cat or truck (33%). The study found that 82% of the trails have access for emergencl' vehicles. I RAil-TRAilS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 11 TRAIL PATROL CASE STUDIES There are many methods of organizing an eHective trail patrol. De- pending on a trail's needs and available resources, a daily, weekly or monthly patrol may be appropriate. Below arc several examples of volunteer and professional patrols and contact information for their coordinators. These examples Jrc only a few ways to promote safety and improve users' enjoy- ment of iJil-trails. Trail managers should be creative in using "friends of the trail" groups, local commu- nity organizations and law enfon::ement to maintain and monitor local rail-trails.' MINUTEMAN TRAIL MASSACHUSETTS Several years ago as part of a public relations effort, the B~dford PoHce began riding bikes along the Bedford to Lexington portion of the Minute- man TraiL Approximately a yelf and a half later, they initiated a unique youth patrol, the Bedford Police Explorers to assist them. After completing first aid and CPR certitkation, the Explorers began conducting daily patrols of the trail wearing police t-shirts and carrying radios and tìrst aid kits. Both the police and Explorer progr"ams have heen well received by the community. After seeing an oftker and several Explorers clearing debris from the trail, one trail user wrote to the Bedford Police: "I was so taken by this... by clearing the bike path, now even more women, men, children of all ages and people in wheelchairs can enjoy nature in the path." Contact Officer Jeff Wardwell at the Bedford Public Safety Departmem for more information on the Explorer program. (617) 275-1212. ext. 125. NORTH AUGUSTA GREENEWAY SOUTH CAROLINA Approximately twenty professionally trained police officers voluntarily patrol the three-mile. North Augusta Greeneway in nlral South Carolina. The effort began as part of a community policing and physicl) fitness program of the North Augusta Public Safety Department. Three to four times each week, officers patrol the trail as they perform walking, jogging or biking workouts. Captain Lee Wetherington, coordinator of the patrol effort, expiained their objectives, "We try to show a presence, deter ilIegaL:lctivity and provide first aid or other assistance to trail users." The patroi is a creative way of keeping officers in condition for duty while promoting trJil safety at the same time. For additional information about the patrol, contact Capt. Wetherington at (803) 441-4254. PINEL LAS TRAIL FLORIDA The 35·mile Pine lias Trail is patrolled daily by Olle of the must extensive volunteer patrols', the Pindlas AuxiliafY Rangers. The Auxiliary Rangers serve as unit()rmed ambassadors for the Pinelhls Trail, providing tfail information, directions and bicycle safety tips. More than 25 volunteers, 18 years and older, comprise the patrol and are required to under-go background checks and extensive training on trail history, public relations, trail-riding, firs.t aid and nutrition. The majority of the volunteers patrol hy bike anu use cell phones to communicate. Because the trail has not encountered many prob- lems, an Auxiliary Ranger's primary role is one of educator rather than enforcer. For more informa- tion, contact Jerry Cumings or Tim Closterman at the Pinell"s County Park Department. (813) 393-8909. 12 RAll-TO-TRAIt!S C_ONSERVANCY YOUGH IOGH ENY RIVER TRAI L-NORTH PENNSYLVAN IA Three local trdil councils. headed by the Regional Trail Corporation, coordinate monitoring teams for the 23-mile Youghiogheny River Trail- North in southwestern Pennsylvania. Each of the trJ.il councils oversees a team of approximately twenty monitors patrolling primarily on bikes. but also by foot and by horse. Easily recognizable in their gold and black uniforms, monitors carry first aid kits and, frequently, cellular phones to report trail damage or injuries. Joe Honick, who i.nstituted this model monitoring program. explained their usefutness, "The monitors serve as the eyes and ears of the Regional Trail Corporation. They assist trail users, explain trail rules and relay users' suggestions and comments." Bob McKinley:Trail Manager of the Regional Trail Corporation reported very few incidents of . trail damage or graffiti along the traiL "There is so little vandalism, every piece seems like" a major item," he said.. The patrol program has been successful in deterring such incidents. McKinley commended the patrol efforts, "The patrols are doing a great job. Their monitoring really does make a difference." For more information on the trail's monitoring program, contact Joe Honick of the MonlYough Trail Council at (412) 829-0467. GREAT RIVER TRAI L ILLINOIS The Great River Trail Council uses several groups to patrol its 28-mile trail passing through urban, suburban and filral areas. The council coordinates local bicycle and service clubs,which have an interest in assisting with trail patrol. Clubs provide trail users with directions and look for maintenance problems. In the summer months, at least one group patrols during daylight hours and police patrol the trail after dusk. For more informa- tion, contact Patrick Marsh at the Great River Trail Cquncil, (309) 793-6300. . BALTIMORE AND ANNAPOLIS TRAI L PARK MARYlAND Approximately thfrty volunteer Trailblazers. ranging from age eleven to 78, patrol the 13-mile Baltimore and Annapolis Trail. After receiving three weekends of first aid, CPR, patrol technique and park operations training from park rangers, ~hey take to the trail by in-line skates, bike or foót. Trailblazers supplement park rangers' daily,patrols by providing infonnation to trail users, -cqrrecting un~afe trail behavior and reporting t~eir findings to the park rangers. Trailblazers are able to quickly identify and repair problem areas of litter or graffiti helping to prevent further incidents from occur- ring. For more infonnation on the organization or training of the Baltimore and Annapolis TraHblazers, contact David Dionne, Park Superintendent at the Anne Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks, (410) 222-6245. LAFAYETIE/MORAGA TRAI L CALI FORN IA Several entities monitor the 8-mile Lafayette/ Moraga Trail in the San Francisco Bay Area, includ- ing a maintenance team, the East Bay Regional Park District Public Safety Department and severa' volun· teer patrols. More than 150 equestrians, bicyclists and hikers comprise .volunteer groups who patrol the Lafayette/Moraga Trail and other parks in the area. An officer from ~e Park District provides each, group with training and organizes monthly meetings and speakers. In 1996, volunteers provided over 40,000 hours of service to the East Bay parks. ,For more information Qn these patrols, conta~t Steve Fiala' at the East Bay Regional Park District, (510) 635-0t35. i , i RAil-TRAilS AND SAf!' COMMUNITIES 13 RAIL-TRAILS AS SAFE PLACES Rail Trails are not crime-free. No place on earth can make that claim. However, when compared to the communities in which they exist, compared to highways and parking lots, and compared to many other public and private places, rail-trails have an excellent public safety record. Compared to the abandoned and forgotten corridors they recycle and ft:place, trails are a positive community development anù a crime- prevention strategy of proven value. By generating lawful activities such as walking, running, bicycling and in-line-skating, rail-trails are also bringing communities together and reintroducing neighbors to each other. Trails are actually one of the safest places to be and the incidence rate of crime on trails is minor in comparison to other locations. Table 3 lists the percentage of rapes, robberies, and assaults that occur in four locations. As these data show, a park is actually one of the safest places to be. Two to three times safer than being in a parking facility or in your own home and many more times safer than walking down the street. These data help to provide some perspective of personal safely in several types of locations in the context of overall crime rates in the lJ .S. The result being that parks are undeniably one of the safest places to be. In an attempt to add perspective to crime on trails, John Yoder, President of the Friends of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail, Ine. in Indiana has compiled crime and injury statistics for a variety of circumstances to make the point that no human activity is risk free. The entire contents' of his list can be found in Appendix B. TABLE 3 National Crime Statistics by Location --1 G:~~~/~9TI ~N~REET_ (1988) I 6.6 I 7.9 I 25.0 23.3 (1990) I 0.5 \ 3.4 35.0 30.2 ~~:::;: ~ ::I~-:¡- \ ~.~ ~~ g~~; \1 ;g \ g~ \ 1~~ ~~.~ (1991) 3.6 I 11.9 9.5 51.2 (1992) 6.4 13.6 10 1 207 (1 ;88~-1 ~ g i---ii ~ ~ ~ .. \ 30 5 ~iE~~_ __" _:~ _ L ~~_ 1~~_ _L_i~~ j~ Note Percentages do not add to 100 because not alllocotlon categories ore IIste9 Source Statistical Abstract of the United states various years - - -- - CRIME RAPE R08BERY ASSAULT 14 RAll-TO-TRAllIS CONSERVANCY Yoder concludes by asking "Does this mean we should outlaw. eliminate, or ban any of these places or activities?" Of course not! But as these statistics demonstrate, every form of human activity has some level of risk associated with it. The question in judging any activity is und.erstanding the level of risk associated with that activity and doing every- thing possible to minimize those risks. Our society accepts approximately 40.000 highway deaths every year because we believe the convenience of highway travel is worth the risk. Similarly, in 1992 there were 30 murders, 1.000 rapes, and 1,800 robberies on CONCLUSION With nearly 27,000 miles of open and proiect rail-trail, Rails-to· Trails Conser- vancy recognizl'!s that addressing trail users safety and trail neighbors concerns about crime are critical to the creation of a successful trail. This report has shown that crime on rail-trails is not a common occurrence. Past studies, our survey results, letters from law enforcement offici~ls, and comparisons to national crime figures all indicåte that rail-trails are safe places for local residents and visitors' to enjoy. While common sense and preventative measures should be used on rail-trails to ensure the lowest possible levels of crime, railøtrails remain much safer than many other environments. The findings of this' report should reassure those with apprehensions about trail projects that converting a former rail college campuses however, most pébple believe that the rewards associated with a college education are worth the risks involved. It is important not to trivialize or deny that bad things can happen on trails, however it is equally important to keep in mind that the amount of crim~ that occurs on trails as demonstrated by the survey results as well as the data in Table 3 shows that crime on trails is minimal. As wi.th any activity, appropriate safety precautions should be taken to minimize risk. corridor into a trail will have a positive rather than negative effect on their community. As the data in this report show, crime on rail- trails is minimal. This becomes all~the-more apparØ ent ~hen put in perspective with risks assodated with other activities. The ,way to minimize crime on trails is to ensure that users exercise proper safety precautions, keep the trail well maintained, and boost trail use. Crime generally does not occur in places where there are lots <if people and few hiding places. Positive-looking places tend to encourage positive behavior. Crime occurs on roads, parking lots, in shop- ping malls, office buildings, airports, and at zoos. However, no one would rationally argue that we shouldn't build any of the above because crime will occur there. The same should be true for trails. RAIL-TRAILS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 15 P "'C1 "'C1 m Z \J X > r- m ~ m /:J \,/\ "'T'1 /:J o 5 r- o {\ > r- r- > ~ m Z "'T'1 o /:J {\ m 5 m Z -i > C\ m Z {\ m \,/\ CITY OF NORTH AUGUSTA ............,..""'..___=>1"'-........"-<2' '. O.BOX5<OO 003""-<'" ,fie t.:O} üm~/~·...:=n:':''' DEPARTMENT BUENA VISTA, PA 15018 (412) 751-7329 ELIZABETH TOWNSHIP POLICE 522 ROCK RUN ROAD (412) 751-3399 FAX TENNANT,O"eloIPo ..". Floor W.,lOili DearMr.Moms, 751-7325 (4121 CHARLES A i}!<""'0-1ii''''i ç ->-~ t lTI .-'* -,~~ ~Ç.-- While we have had a few jn~taIlce~ of unaulhonzed four wheeler~ and a few bicycle mishaps which caused a police action we have had no crime 10 speak of occurring on the Grceneway or ¡hat we could attribute 10 [he Grccncway, , Mr.Hu. R.'I,,,,Tra,I,C, 1O".fl W.;hi, , I.w, re'IX'''''blo f"f p.""lling and <nfom 6 mil.. throu~h Elizabeth Town.hl DC ~ Th,th,ab<,hTown,h,pPoh«(kpa;¡mel YO"g~1' R"'<r Trail which Ira tho, Th<""1 has "u amounl ofc"mo, '.pon, ¡<"'report.dine" m,nor,nn.tu" Th.,.h... b..n ,om. probl.m, w"h v""daJj,m 1o "gn,.nd beneh.,.lon g,h.,rail.nd ,h... w< w<r< .bl< ,oa1lribu,ewJuvenil., 1~131 wet< causingtho,e probl.m,_ Th.r. w.... ,",eral reporl' b¡cvel«b.¡n~5Iol, forln<numberofp<oplorha¡ullli",n<rrail,h. numb."". iniignif,c.m you need wh informauonprovlde h"p< ."u.lly le.d'o.docr..,e in problcm, w' banhTheinc".,edp""n«ofp"'0plc 0' ,,~ " ,,' Th,,,.,,has.l,o,p.wnedn.,,bu,w.,,...IOI ".,1. W,nowh.v."v.",lbt ",.".u,,"I5_con\'.m.ncestor....nd'cecr<.m5l; ,h., "O'ebe.. to "....I o'g.n"..d fides by v local Cuuncil orGuvemmen" Theu.il b"n~, tn '"flU," ur~"lIza'i"n' ,uch., ,he Girt SCOUt< 01 ,~maO<. and b; , Th<tl'lab<,h Town,hipPohcchav.".n.dap..rolpl.n for Ihctra,1 Ih.. i,Communllvüri<n,.dPoliÜ b"".d.Off,ce"'pend'imeonth.".ilm."ingand."i,'¡ng".,lu.." Weha"fo< good communi'~tel..ion,.Offtc."..'uall,' look forward'o'h<ir'ourofdu'yonlh<'",i ..,..= -- B...danour.'p",i.ncewilhlh.'rail we se nore.,an for.nymuni'ir-alil Ylof..rhav,ngalra, ,,'abli,hed Th< Yough Rj~er Tr.it i,. ,"<C.., Ihat can only I.ad lob<ncr 'htog' for Our CUmmuni V.,.,trul ~~/ ,,---- ./ -t1i¡r,R.T.nn, Chi.fafPnli May 1, 1991 CoordtnalOr Mr. Hugh Morris, Re=h R.1i1s 10 Trails Conservancy !]OOSeventecnthSlrect, N. Wasllington, DC 20036 he followmg tnfonnalion: The North Augusta Greeneway project has been a tremendous success for the Cny 0 North Augusta and its cili:rens_ You mighl imagine thai any project such as this which anract' epublic 10 ils use will gener.ne activity for Ihe police department " M The area in which this trail runs through is a compromIse of upper mIddle level neIghborhoods, wooded secluded areas, older established neighborhoods and existing city parks. amounlof In response 10 the question, "Was the development of Ihe trail a good idea?~ I would, from a police poinl of view and a citizen's point of view, reply emphatically that it was a great idea. The trail use grows continuously and we have implemented a part-time bike patrol to ride the Greeneway as a pan of our community policing inilialive~ trOLl h.. nor Cal <njoy havln~ ,he "., pen.d for u," "...."efo"ndlhat longth,trair.There,iden"..em Si, rr"''''asconS!ruCl ,neaOlven" 'propert\'own horn., "'"I of emergency The oniy suggestion j could make wouid be 10 provide some type stations along the trail to summon police or medical help when needed. W. fa"ndth..'~, tr.,lbrlng' In ,a m.ny p<aple ,hat i farm.llv.ncounlcred.,uch a.< underage drinking.lnng Ihe Ir.,lhasconl"butedwlhi'probl.mbe,ngrcduc<d Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY i)!-:u;¿( T. Lee Wetheringlòn-;-t?aplain "'-<JOJ "'-<22' ..,..251 ~..., ~.......,......, ..,..", '- ..,.."'. ~ ..,..20:> ~.~ ~ '" '" » ~ , -< o ~ ~ » ('\ o z ~ ~ < » z " -< wouldofflo 1997 of May eue, resjxmse 10 yo I, " '" decrease 0' dnoslgnificarllncrease " The police departm, naryof,theseare.as. cnme " ~ 6V lTI0 " I , 1E " , I I , SAfm u , Do Hay 13 997 Hugh ,",orris Rails to Trails Cons@rvancy 1100 SRv@nt@@nth St. NW Washlngton, DC 20036 LO ~ Morris I cam@ to LOuisville in August of 1991 as the Chief of police. At that time, the City was compl@ting plans for the conversion of an .old railway lin.. to a walking path. I was concerned for the safety of citi2'ens du.., in part, to th.. r..lllote area that was trav",rs..d ~:,' thO' lin~. I I't.rnngly encouraged t.he placement of emergency call hOKes along the walkway. Th@ call bOK@S were nav..r installed. I am very pleased to r@port. that crime incidents along th!! walkway are lOlmo,;:t nonexi,;:t..nt. I attribute this to several factors. Primarily, the high volume of use by families along this walking path has created a community ownership of the path, police also regularly patrol the area, but it is unlike- ly that anyone will travel th@ path for more than a quarter of a mile without coming into contact with other path users. The incidents of vandalism over five years ha6 been only two s~all area6 of the àsphalt that were spray painted. Those wer.. imm..diately cleaned up by city crews. It 6hould b.. noted that the path is also along an ar@a that i6 a fr@quent loitering place for juveniles that have litt.le supervision. still, the criminal complaints along the path are almost 2'ero. £;-: TwO weeks ago, my family and I took part in a commun1ty clean- up day. My wife, one daughter, and I elected to walk the path to pick up litter. Each of us armed with a large trash bag and work glOVRS, we started out. By the end of the mile and a half, we had foun.D. ON ¡¡ pit"_,,. w~ littêL- ..l";czt 1:-00 "",_,,1.1 to" have noticed. we did encounter, howevf!r, s..veral familês walking and a police patrol car. I can only attribute the cl@anliness to the ownership that citizens have taken for this area. I should also not.. that onc.. you leave the path and continue where the railway line had been, the trash and graffi- ti ar@ overwhelming. ~I.: ~ b. fin.d this infor..ation ugeful. If :¡: can please do not hesitate to call upon me JEROLD L WITTE ChJefDapVty OFFICE Of DODGE COUNTY SHERIFF ~'Ultl:\~'" ~ - "'::;':/ STEPHEN G, FITZGERALD Sh6rilf May 19, 1997 Mr. Hugh Morns Research Coordinator 1100 Seventeenth Street 10th Floor Washington., DC D..ar totr NW This letter is in response to your request for Information on the impact of the Wild Goose State Trail and the cnmeh;;omplaint rale. Please be advised the Trail has had virtually no impact on the crime rate in Dodge County Sincerely, //ë,:(v¡;~/t0---- Jerry v:illte, Chief Deputy JW:dd '~I ili 41386-374 '" 4)386-3726 Pt1on' " 53039 w, June¡¡U, Nonh MainS! , JJO/87' , ~, Ohi, I hope that you will O:~fO'''H.'''''''~"' 'Sincerel , .0 L- .... ~s L.' R1gg i Chief of police :~ .~. " " , -I ~ " " Z Q ~ " ~ " o '3 '3 c Z -i ~ ~ -..J 20036 Mr.Morris pear ContInued Railroad CorrIdors May 13 '99Î Page 2 We do not before tne hesitate We belIeve the cievelopment of the trail waS a good ¡dea feel that the tra~l encourages more crime than ex:sted rail went In hope I have addressed a your queStIOns. Please don o contact me should you need addItional Informa~ion S¡ncerely yours ~ ;I(~ Andre Horn Captaln *' Jrf ~. ~. ~. I·, ,.r ~7; 'Service to QUA Communities vrr~II~ (Dj II vrr II IE ~ TID@llíl®® úJ. 1]1 Û; Th:J.@IT' íl Û; ;w 250 DoM"y Dri.., La".øo' CA 9'~ - COIITE"'ADfRAILARKSPUI Phone 1"51~"·~1óO F~, "'~f 9~"~ ¥ , Mo ~r. Hug!l Morrls Research Coordlnator :.00 Seventeen[h Stree 10l".h Floor WashIngtOn, DC ~" 20036 Railroad Corridors Me n your letter to Chief Ph¡l Green dated May I, 1997 you requested ntorma.tion regardlng our calls for service and type of crimes OCcurr¡ng in and around tralls and adjacent properties. I don't have speclflC numbers for you, ho"'ever. 1 ca.n sta.te ëh"t a m"Jority of calls "'e receive "bout inCldents occurring along blke p"ths, railroad rlght-of-\oIays, walking t.rails and fire tr,llls "re usually about transient types llving iind or sleeplng In bushes Inside makeshift shelters. OccòSlonally. residen[s wlll report ~'",ut~ '1'è".h"rin'J£ <::-r 'õ"_'Spl':"lC'1.\S subJect", 10;' ': "ri.n'] 'è.nc!. or c!ri"l":!"S u, a certaln area We had" continual problem and recelved many complaints about an abandoned train staëlon where tranSients would seek shelter. They ",ould bUlld f¡res causing cOnCern from local residem;:s ëhat accl-dental f¡res may start and travel onto the hillsides. This o'.111ding ..'o'-!ld also entice children ònd other lndividuals who occupied the buildlng for fun a.nd games Ho",ever, since the entrance "nei wlndows have been bordered up and secured bv a surrounding fence, we have had nO problems . Our Cr!me exper!ence along these tr"lls are Isolated. We h"ve no experienced an Incre"Se !n crime Slnce the trail was developed However, the potential for crlminal acts are always presenl bec"use [hese trai;s are remote a.reas, dense with shrubs and bushes solated from the general publlC ònci not heavlly travelled ~ (X) ;N " , -i o , -i " " ('\ o z ~ ~ " < " Z " -< Morr " Deòr , W M..,elandB , W.~k.,.h.. WI Wauke.ha Counly Hub, 140(} NorthviewRoad Wauk"sha, WI 53188 , " ""' WILLIAM KRUZIKI, Mr. Hugh Morns ReseacchCoordinaLor Ra,J"raTtail,Conservancy HOO UtI< at. "" ';as[,Ü,gtO". v.(. LOC ", ¡ have TevH!.."d your inqtnry rel.',ve to in",den!:. or come "lcJng an'; adjacent co the Glacial Dn,mlin State Park Trad Regrettably, I m<.>H youthatwedonotrecordinciderl' information'n"m."ner that would us to extract speclf1c data for i"",dents ot "orne for the 10".t10n in o I can t you that based upon our g..neral exp<>oence, 51nee ohe creation of the tr.¡l, that We have not exp"r,enceó any s,gn1f,cant problem that would ,nfer <1I"t the bicycle trail 1"',,>ther,, d>rect cr lnd..."n co"uHlurar LO cnme. To ~he besr ot my kno",l~dge, the unl has not resulted H' a s,gnif,~ant ,ncr' in ca1l5 fo 'mp ,or. is ~ha '-h","seof thet (I'P.cally ",ere nol Subsequently commun oaus(Oaoma·,..hav Although ¡ can not suppar~ it ,.nth spec.f >c da~a. my bicycle tiail mAY be of beneht (0 1..", enforcement a by au~ cO",,"llnHy residents places them HL 'Heas tha I-mmediare Iy accessible by 1a", enforcemen( of flce~s a~e ,n ~he pasHian at ~eparung ,-"c,den remain unrepaned 1{:, ~ " ar yau~ into~m.at'on, "s " pan ot' our ~urd.i. cammllnar ponc1"9 ",e are introduong b.cycle p..~~ol service not only 0" th~ t..a,l but oun"y parKs as "'ell. Our intent is to 'nCH!aS~ our pol>ce presence eas as ""ell as attempo <0 enlis< <he suppan at users io repo,~'ng hesita O. " '" , 9FFICE OF THE SHIi=!tIFF .ff.':==~~-. I. b. ...;.,..,.~;;A~-r~ ~__ _, _-1 _! Sherif{ --.,;:.... - ^ ~ /. -'-'- ~.""'.". -.",..,^,,~ . "!J:j'i:\^ 1:ftJ.,) '~;:'~':-': o dona ';. "ctd,tion"l 'nfo~mat ,on ·'1126 Thank you "0' " ~equ1 ao 14 Shouldyc>u c",,<actme Depanme¡"¡ oec nce~~ly Cou¡"¡ty 'm ;"'; , SO' ! Ins"~ec<nr .+~ \ Paltiszcyk -. Q- ~VJ ~jll,am J -"" c;"ry NW [){'20036 Mums, forcnmemformationonttle Th15 IS somewtlal an unusllal S¡tuallon Becallse ttlere was no use for ttle area before it becameanail,there were no reported incidents II r crime, Ttlere was 110 use by ttle public and no propeny to tla~e crimes commilledagainsl Since it hasbeçome a trail,lhere is basically still no property there, e"cep! as you lIoled. signs. etc And weha~e tlad no incidems ofcrime!i being committed against users oflhe uail We have had incidents of underage drinking and some drug abu!ie occur onlhe trail BuLtheseincidemsareextremel~rareandarenotct g problem/concern agamst cnme o reports A check of our records does not indicate an usersorpropertyintheyicinit we have heard hav, has been an asset to Sine' tratlhasbeenthele.lheonlycommem been all positive Fromourprospective.thetrai tie communi, myoffic, runtlerassiSlance. pleasecont ,- VefJ7l1Jly your~. ;(..1' , Ruben H'Huntley niefofPolic' MayS. I')') Hugh Moms ResearchCoordinalOr Rails to Trails llOOSeventeenthSt 10th Floor Washington. D. reque' you " ] am writlllg III respon Jim Mayer Riverwalk Øol><rtH.HunUq- ,.",.j/"'"'' '" nbeof " ;;0 >- , -1 ~ >- ~ > Z " V'o > m " o j; j; C Z -< ~ -0 , CIl,o!jahn\toWl\.Penn,yl_:uli. Police Department' t'ubJ'êS.lcl}'ßuiI,JiI" -«II \1"sh¡nø"H1S'.~"' .I~I\J,-'''}...-n r. 1~')(I¡ "¡+~'.\·20~~ "1-I-'''·!O~6 (~.X) " II. Durtee July 13 Page 2 01schatging ruea,","· fa he purposes of d lette to the City Council In f"ct, thAt compl,,;nt ;,'as a ("port of a loud nO se from a resident near the bike path and the invest gatlon concluded tha ids had set otf fi[ec[ac~ [ ~t a ~e~rby beach Secona, .there ace fa "en responses to [epo inappropriate conduc These are entitled "Disorderly Conduct" Drunkenness·, ·Public Complaints·, "Noise", etc., and See",. tc hav" alcoho or other drugs as a common theme. A cu""ory look a those cases reveals a strong likelihood that they a~e related to special events (concerts, festivals etc.) held adj,,·cent to the path on be"c!'..,. and in parks 0' I revi,,"'ed the patrO"l strategy of the Bllrl'ngton Police Department and found that most of the patro is done on bikes by non-police personnel who work ln a Summer pro<¡ram that existed before the path and 1S not an expens1ve prOpOS1t10n. These patrols are primarily a communita~ion link to re<¡ular officers who also occasionally do bike patrol themselves ; 0' ~ The .Stowe path has been in operatior¡ for mo"e than four years and durin<¡ that time o,lly 44 complaints, 25 of which have beer¡ larcenies from vehic)es, have been reported. This is an amazin<¡ly low number tor SUCh a popular path, but ~he number at larcenies caused me to look a little closer. I visited the path a couple of days before our meetin<¡ and learned tha·t the thefts occurred in a couple of fairly remote parkin9 lots ju~t 0ff the path. The police explained that <¡roups of thieves have been victimizin<¡ tourists' cars in parkin<¡ lots fa years Jt happens primarily at ski areaS and nc many acal 1S fully suppa v I received from them problems. Srcl.;f [<'Ed(ff~ The Bu n<¡ton Police Department e path and I have attached a letter ésting to the minor nature at crime Stowe I ~- ~, TO I:EE/'A"lD5 OFFDRUC5 South Bur]¡ngtol1 Police DepaI1meJ 57) norse! S\f~Cl South !J"d".~"\" Vrrmo'HU540 O",¡ Plarwe Regiona o " Herb Durfee, Sta Chittenden County P. O. BOx 106 Ess",x Junction, VT " /~'···v /,. ., . N " .'«' " .. "', \~:J' ,,~~.::': ::: ~i::: July Planning Comm Durtee In preparation for the July 15, 1991 South Burlington Clty Council meeting, which inCluded a discussion and vote Phase II of the fletreatlon Path, I looked at Same data and made inquiries of the police in Burlington and Stowe about their experience with the> r bi~e paths A summaty of ,",hat found is listed belo,", . According to offlcial records of the Burlington police Depactment there were 71 police responses to the Bu r 1 ing ton Bi~e pa th du ring the 27 months endi n9 June 30,1991. Adjusting those numbers for winter monthS ([emoving the 10 months when there wete no complaints) the averðge foe the 17 remainin9 month is 4.2 responses per month, compared to a citywide mci..n of 0V" [ 3,200 ?" [",<,nth The bi~e ?a th ,n BurlingtOn,therefore,iSthes~-oo-f:iC¡;;f caiTs'uove" the last two yea making it one of safest places in Burlington ccording to Chief Kevin Scully Bu[11ngton , , analysis the bike F,rst, one tltle of compla1nt IlSted by the compute in Burlington is "DiSCha"ging firearms or f1rewor~s Unlawfully" One South Burlington Bike Path opponent sho[tened the category title to " ", compla1ntS themselves need furthe these appear not to'be related to look"d- at twO sp"cific categorie , Some 0 path. ~~.. }: .i ~.. ¡'~j tv o ;CO þ , 4 o .:, ~ ). ~- n o z ~ < > " -( H. D..rfee page 4 J..ly 23, l'J fot cyclis10s and pedestrians and 10he potential for less cr overall in the communities. In terms of public safety system of bike paths for the county is a great idea 6?~ Brian R. Searles Chief of Police BRS,mc4 lots " resta"rants and motels, but the thefts in the near the path are just an extension of that activity. I think that this phenomenon is not important to Chittenden County paths as they ~il genetally be useó by residents and not tourists There is 1'10 evidence of a significant problem this in Burlington. H. Durfee July 23, Page) '0 need not be ·Ur.timely suffer The Stowe Police do 1'10 rout~ne patroll1ng or the Stowe Bike Path. The po~",-~tment sa:t~_ t_h~_t 1b~_path has made Stowe safer as pedestriar.s and cy.clists do not have to be on Route lOB ~i.th the neavy traffic People from South Burlington have called me and expressed concerns and many of them have mentior.ed the potential for the crim.. of rape to occur On the proposed bike~ay I looked specifically for reports of rape or sex..,a assault on the paths in Stowe and Burlingtor. and ~aS reli.eved to~learn that there have been no reports in either place. " ttenden Co '"" The other numbers are so low that they analyzed but I did look at one entitled Death" and learr.ed that a gentlemen did heart attack while using the stowe path cr1me in B"rl1ngtor. bike paths paths proposed for Ch healthy way of linking to have a positive affec Crime and the fe of crime do not flourish in an environment of high energy and healthy interaction among abiding community members. Thus, the quality of life 1S enhanced in 5everal ways including an enhancement of individual physical fitness, a safer mode of transpoc io been 1'10 increase in attributable to the My posit10n lS that bike County commur.ities provide a neighborhoods and are likely overall safety of the public '" » -C¡ ~ » r ~ » z Q ~ ».. m ('\ o "> "> C Z -j m "'" ~ There has which is Stowe deo Norma The developmel1t of COflstitutlon Trail was ",n outStandIng supported by the both the Clty of BloomingtOn and Tow~ of There have been minimal negative remarks regarding t~he development of t:hiS trail There are plans for fc:ture developmen enJoyed b which CaD be considered a resource both Bloomington and Normal constitution Trai by the populace 0 Sincere~~ T' ò'hy . ~LJ~ chief of YOlice TML:mjm CITY OF BLOOMINGTON " , " , Mr Hugl1 MorT Research coordl~atOr Rð!ls to Trails Conservancy 1100 seventeenth Street, NW Washlngton, DC GO " '" Ma, J FLoor co o your letter ot May 1, 1997 and your law enforcement lnvolvemenr in vacated blke. hiking and walklng trails MorriS " Deat- highly bike I am wrltlng l~ respo~se questions regarding loca rall lines being used fa Bloomington and 5 sister city have ca lIed Consr itU':lon Trai ~ . I t runs residential and rural areas It is of the populace of both cities for runnlng, and walklr.g ThiS tra 1S not visible from city streets for over ha of the layout, and much of Ü ca.nnot be piltrolled by an officer US1ng conventional methods However, we do periodically put our Blke Patrol officers on Const:itutlon Trail. This is done primarilY as a public relations maneuver, because rhere 15 verY t~le Cr1me creared on or near the crall due to lés cons~ruc Our clLizens use this tra twenty"four hours day and have met with very little c~ime on this trall. We have seen some of the neighboring resldents have improved the development of their properties adJacent to the tra11 admlnistration of this nv te cr:me and would in fact, it has had was rst constructed, the a cOncern the trail would ra~e of this City '1owever cr1me rate When the trail department had add to ~he cr1me nO impact on the "-' "-' :;0 » r , --i o .:.¡ " » r-:_ ~ ('\ o z ~ m " < » z " -< As 1'0\1 are well aware well-construc~ed eral through both bUSiness used by a cross seetlon rlding, roller bladlng MIDLAND COUNTY . OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF ---=- ~ am responding JOHN S. REDER, SHERIFF 2727"OOD6n11!:1!T·"IDU.ND,"'!CHÞG.O.N_·TE~EPHOHE~"7 I3_ f.o.x «517) 131.-Mn 1997 MayS. " J. M.y or elte Rails 10 Trails Conservancy 1100 Seventeenth Street, NW JOth Floor Wa~hin~I"n. O( D" 200Jti yuu to Mr. Morris When the Rails 10 Trails projed. was fint being developed in Midland Cuunty, the concerns you described were brought up htreatso. Th. Th. Happily, J can report to yuu Ihal we have no major problell15 on our Rail Trails. development of this park has been a very positive experience for the entire community. park receives a lot of use frum the public. . In 1995, the Midland Sherirrs Office responded to eight calls on the Rail Trail. ~one of these fe!iponses required a formal report. In 19%, the Sherirrs Office re¡ponded to eight calls, one of which required a ticket for minor in posses.sion of tobacco pro ducts. 101997 threugh the first of May, we háve had no calls for service on the Rail Trail. In conclusion, I would say that crime has NOT been a factur on or near the Rail Trail. The development of this park has been a very positive uperience for Midland County and its residents. :>, or """,y;() {)~ ohn S. Reder J r such a!; lIems of IheTrai misuse The incidentsttlat we tlave had are for the most pa go-cart or motorcycle being driveoon the TniJ. .. n" I m. do not hesitate tu cunt.act and please I hope this letter meets your need furlher3.'isislanct'. JSRlsb n \,1 :~i CITY OF BAY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT - - ~ " -¡ ,. Gary G, Heel, Deputy Chief Bay City Police Department 501 ThirdSt Bay City, MI 48708 May 12. 1997 Rails to:rrails Cooservaney '100 Seventeenth Street. NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 OearSirlMadam This is in regards to your request for in'ormation on our Bay Hamplon Rail-Trai Upon checking our criminai We we couid only find one complaInt associated with the Rail TraiL The complaint is listed as an "assault and attempted larceny." see all ached C#97-02216 Due to the limitations on our complaint iracking system any complaints generated adjacent to the <Rail Trail would be extremely difficult to identify. But as a 'requent walker of the RaiiTrail I can provide some personalobservalions. Ihaveobserved some mioor graffiti 0f1 the park benches and the Rail Trail wall<way. There is the occasional brol<en bottle on the walkway I have not observed any peripheral damage 10 adjacent property Criminal acûvity on the Rail Trail is extremely minor and infrequent II I can be 0' any further assistaoce piease feel free 10 contact me z:af Gary G Heel. Deputy Chief Suppan Sel'Vlces Divisioo ¡¡"I;j '" » ~ .:, ~ » ~ » z Q '" .~. m (\ o ;; ;; C Z --j m ~ IV .... IS ., OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Ptltrick}. COli/ill. S/¡,.,-iff J. ¡'Hie/Nul Web}" C¡'¡efDl'p"I1' May3,!99 Mr.HughMorris ResearchCoordina!Qr I!OOSevenlhStreel.NW IOtbFloor Washington,DC 20036 DearMr,Morri ¡ œceived your [ener today mqumng about the Sugar River Slate Park Trail which IS In Green County, Wisconsin. I am pleased 10 say thaI there is alma'l no crime associated with ourtrai and it is a vel)' popular lOuristattraction II is one ofol1r mOSI pO' advertised a[uactioll~ whidlcovers many municipalili The trail does nO( encoUTage crime. and in fact, probably deters crime smce there are many pe:ople,lOurisls and JocaJ citizensusillg thctrail for many activitiesalV ariol.ls hours of the day. The development oflhe Irail waS such a good idea. ¡he COlJmy hasjust recently acquired anoth, trail in addition lOollrotherexistioglrajl, the Cheese COl1I)lry RecrealionalTrail, I have ellclosed illfonnation for our ordinances COllcerning Ihe Cheese COUIlUy RecrealiollaJ Trail along with a brochure and other correspondence, Sorry 10 say, I do not have any infonnalioll on the State Trail al hand If you wan!. I can acquire some and forv.'ard_ I usually have some, bill mUSl have recenllyran OUI o conlaCI me r" If you need anything, please feel Sin5'l;ely, Uf /¡ ^ .'{'<- C>vd..-. Pat Conlin Sheriff -,~ 81-:' (},h S"c., P,O, 13", ~-.\ ~\"m"., \X'I ~_\~¡,(, (,01(_ \~¡¡_'¡.,O() 1:,<,(,1)1(·.1211-1 IV ~ '" >- , -i o .:, H >- ~ ~ (\ o z ~ m H < >- Z " -< f:; I: r: ~. ApPENDIX B: A LOOK AT EVERYDAY RISKS BYTHE PRESIDENT OF THE PUMPKINVINE NATURE TRAIL. Many rail·trail opponents claim that these trails are unsafe for the users and the adjacent landowners. As "proof," they gather anecdotes about crime on trails. Second, they assert that these crimes prove all trails are unsafe. Third, they draw the conclusion that your trail will also be crime ridden and should not be built. I believe this line of argument employs a double standard of safety and risk. Those who attack the safety of trails would never think of applying the same type of risk analysis to other forms of transportation, recreation or life in general. It's a neat logical trick: by demanding perfect safety (i.e., no risks) in an imperfect and risky world, they create an artificial and impossibly high standard of'safety that trail makers can never meet. Trail opponents don't require promises of perfect safety in other areas of life, or they wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. They ignore all the risks involved in walking, riding in a car or crossing the .supennarket parking lot while waving a few anecdotes about crimes on trails. I've gathered some statistics ovèr the years on risks and safety that might help make the point. Dogs, sometimes called man's best friend, provide companionship to millions. Yet in 1995,3.5 million dog bites were reported to American insurance carriers, with the companies spending $1 billion on the claims (South Bend Tribune, Oct. 6, 1996). Should we, therefore, outlaw dogs? Escalators carry millions of people safely each year. Yet in Boston, 300 people require emergency room treatment every year from injuries received while riding on escalators (NBC Dateline, Nov. 29, 1995). Should we, therefore, eliminate escalators? A trip to the grocery store is a usually routine. Yet in one recent year, shopping cart accidents resulted in 25.000 trips to the emergency room (68 per day), including two deaths. Two thousand children were hospital- ized (NBC Today Show, March 20, 1996; data from a study by Dr. Gary Smith, Children's Hospital. Columbus, Ohio). Shouid we, therefore, I;>an shopping carts? Regular exercise can significantly reduce the' chances of dying prematurely from heart disease and other ailments. Yet in 1992 many forms of recreation resulted the following number of emergency room trips: table tennis-I.455: horseshoes-4,423: billiards-5,835; bowling-24,36t; golf-37.556; in-line skates-83,000; volleyball- 90.125: swingsets-I02,232; football-229,689; baseball-285.593; bicycIes-649.536 (Newsweek,]une 21,1994. data from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission). No question: let's definitely ban that dangerous table tennis game. Farmers use the latest equipment to produce our food. Yet in Indiana, 28 people die in an average year in farm accidents. Farmers die at more than four times the average r~te of all other workers from work-related accidents, according to the National S~fety Council. (AP story in the Goshen News. I did not record the date.) Explain that, Farm Bureau. Government sources estimate that air bags in motor vehicles have saved 2,700 lives. Yet at the same time they have killed 87 people-48 adults and 39 children (NBC Nightly News. Nov. 17. 1997). Trains are one of the most efficient ways to move freight. Yet a vehicle-train crash occurs .about once every 90 minutes in the U.S. Two motorists are killed daily in these crashes. (Goshen News. July 13, 1994; data from Indiana Operation Lifesaver.) RAil-TRAilS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 25 We send our sons and daughlers to college fur higher education. Yet colleges are awash in criminal behavior. About 2,400 U.S_ t:'olleges reported their statistics on t:'ampus èrime to the Chronicle of Higher Edneation in responds to the 1990 tederallaw, the Student Right-to·Know and Campus Securiry Act of 1990. The report states that in the reporting academic year (1991-1992) there were 7,500 incidents of violent crime on their campuses. That incluues.30 murders, 1,000 rapes and more than 1,800 robberies. However, they also reported that these violent crimes, thank goodness, were the exception when compared to property crimes, e.g., there were 32,127 burglaries and 8,981 motor vehicle thefts in the same period. (I know 1 feel better with that qualification.) (From the Chronicle of Higher Education, )an. 20, 1993. p. A32.) And, of course, the most glaring source of risky hehavior-the highways. In 1993,53,717 motor vehicles were involved in .35,747 fatal crashes, resulting in 40,115 deaths (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). Does this statistic mean we should, therefore, ban motor vehicles or highways or both? Every form of human activity involves risks. The question is whether the risks are acceptable in light of the rewarùs. Our society, with some bazaar logic, rationalizes away or accepts 40,000 deaths each year from motor vehicles beC;lllse it bdieves the rewards are acceptable. Most people believe the rewards of college are worth the risk of occasional criminal behavior, and most people believe the risk of going up the escalator is worth the risk of getting your foot caught in the mechanism. Once established, trails have proven to be as safe as the sur- rounding community through which they pass. The rewards of recreation and non motorized transportation they provide far outweigh the risks. While it is important not to trivialize or deny that bad things can happen on trails, it is equally important to examine the logic behind the anecdotes. Are trail opponents willing to apply their let's-close-the-trails logic to other activities, e.g., close all highways because 40,000 people are killed each year; close all colleges because there were 1,000 rapes? If not, then they are using a double standard to analyze risks-a selective use of statistics to discredit what is a relatively safe activity. Two tìnal points. First, we need to educate trail users about elementary safety precautions. We should caution people about jogging alone on an isolated trail, just as we would caution against jogging alone on an isolated country road or the mall parking lot for that matter. Second, if there are safety problems on trails, we need to fix them. That's what we do with highways. If there's a dangerous highway curve, we straighten it. If a certain highway intersection has frequent acddents, we redesign it or put up stoplights. But, we don't close the road when we discover a problem, and we don't stop huilding more of them. Inste,ad, we improve them. Why would it be any different for trails? John D. Yoder, President Friends of the Pumpkin vine Nature Trail, Ioe. 26 RAIL-TO-TRA LS CONSERVANCY ENDNOTES: , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.. Living Along Trails: What People Expect and Find Saint f"Jul, MN. 1980. M()ore, Roger L, et a1. The Impacts of Rail-Trails:A Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1992. Seattle Engineering Department and Office for Planning. Evaluation a/the Burke-Gilman Trail's Effects on Proper~y Values and Crime. Seattle,WA: Seattle Engineering Department, May, 1987. Schenectady County Department of Planning. The Mohawk"Hudson Bike-Hike Trail: Its Impact on Adjouining Residential Properties. Schenectady, New York, 1997. 2These numbers reflect condensed data. Some survey respondents indicated two or more trail location types or omitted the answer to this question altogether. Thus the original results fell, into seven categories: urban, suburban, rural, urban/suburban, suburban/rural, urban/suburban/rural and blank. To facilitate data analysis, we placed crimes from the latter four categories into urban, suburban and filral categories using weighted distributions. 3 All law enforcement agencies for which contact information was provided in primary survey were con- tacted. ~ Estimate of annual users based on extrapolation of trails reporting number of users by area type on a users per mile basis. 5 At the time of the rail-trail crime study, the FBI had only released the preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 1996, therefore the 1995 Uniform Crime Report was used as a comparison for both the 1995 and 1996 rail- trail crime rates. 6 The Uniform Crime Report refers to mugging as robbery, "the taking or attempting to take anything of vall~e from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear." 7 The Uniform Crime Report measures vandalism by arrest rather than known incidents. Thus only comparisons to burglary were used. PHOTO CREDITS Front Cover: Karen-Lee Ryan (Background). Patrick Kraich (trail patrol) Page 3: Jean Mooring Page 7: Karen Stewart Page 10: from Trails for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Karen-Lee Ryan. Page 132. Page 11: Karen Stewart, Patrick Kraich Back Cover: R. Leidelmeyer RAIL-TRAilS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Methods This Impacts of Rail-Trails srudy was the f¡r.¡t extensive study to examine the be:nefits and impacts of rail-trails and the first, to our knowledge, to systernatically examine both the trail users and nearby propet1y owners of the same trails. It was a cooperative effot1 of the National Park Service and Penn State University canied out in 1990 and 1991. It's purpose: was to furnish infonnation to assist in the planning, development, and management of rail-trails, public recreation trails consaucted on the beds of unused railroads rights-of-way. The study's objectives wert: to: 1) Explort: the be:nefits of rail-trails to their surrounding communities and measUrt: the total direct economic impact of trail use; 2) Examine what effects rail-trails have on adjacent and nearby property values; 3) Detmnine the types and extent of trail-rt:lated problems, if any, experienced by trail neighbors; and 4) Develop a profile of rail-trail users. This report summarizes the srudy's methods and findings. A sample of three diverse rail-trails from across the U.S. was studied: The Heritage Trail, a 26-mile trail surfaced in crushed limestone which traverses rural fannland in eastern Iowa; the SI. Marks Trail, a 16-mile paved trail be:ginning in the outslcins ofTallahassee, Florida and passing through small communities and fort:sts nearly to the Gulf of Mexico; and the Lafayettc/Moraga Trail, a 7.6-mile paved trail 25 miles cast of San Francisco, California which travels almost exclusively through developed suburban an:as. At the ¡jrne of the study, the Heritage Trail was eight years old, the SI. Marks two, and the LafayettelMoraga was fout1een years old. Users were systematically surveyed and counted on each trail from March, 1990 through February. 1991 and were then sent follow-up mail surveys. A sample of residential landowners owning propet1y immediately adjacent to the trails and a sample of those: owning propcny within one-quaner mile pf the trails (one-half mile in Iowa) wert: also survcyed by mail, and real CStatc professionals in communitics along thc trails wcrc intcrviewed by phonc. Usablc mail surveys Wcf'c obtained from 1,705 trail users and 663 propct1y owncrs, and in tcrvicws with 71 rca.ltors and appraisers wcrcconducted. Major findings from thc analysis of thcsc responscs and counts arc summarized at thc conclusion of this cxecutivc summary. Study Findings Trail Users and Use I) Dcmographically, the samples of rail- trail uscrs wcrc much likc the populations of the communi tics through which the trails passed. 2) Thc study trails werc quite heavily used, with most uscrs living nearby and visiting fn:q uent]y. This pattcrn was most pronounced on the suburban LafayettelMoraga Trail. 3) The study did not find a "typical" mix of activities that might be: cxpected on rail-trails. Although bicycling and walk.ing wert: thcmost common activities on all thc study trails, thcy occurred in very differcnt proportions on cach. 4) Having no motorized vchicles allowcd was the most desirable trail charactcristic expressed by the users of each trail. Other impot1ant characteristics were: natural surroundings, quiet settings, safc road crossings, smooth trail surfaccs, and good maintenancc. 5) Users reponed no serious complaints with any of the trails. Insufficient drinking water and restrOOm facilities were the biggest concerns overall, with rough trail surfaces and reckless behavior of other users reponed as problems on the Lafayenc/Moraga Trail. Economic Ben£jits of Rail-Trails I) Use of the sample trails generated significant levels of economic activity. These C{;onomic benefits were from rwomajor SOlll'l.:es: total trip-related expendirurcs and additional expendirurcs made by users on durable goods related to their trail activities. 2) Users spent an average of $9.21, $11.02, and $3.97 per person per day as a result of their trail visits to the Heritage, Sl. Marks, and Lafaywc/Moraga Trails, respC{;tively. This resulted in a total annual C{;onomic impact of over $1.2 million in each case. Expendirurcs on durable goods generated an additional $130 to $250 per user annually depending on the trail. 3) The amount of "new money" brought into the local trail county(s) by trail visitors from outside the county(s) was $630,000, $400,000 and $294,000 annually for the Heritage, SI. Marks, and Lafayette/Moraga Trails, respectively. 4) Restaunmt and auto-related expendirures were the largest categories of trip-related expenses and visitors that spent at least one night in the local area were the biggest spenders. Equipment (such as bicycles) was the largest category of durable expendirurc. Landowner anti Properry Characlerislics 1) Property size and distance from homes to trail varied from trail to trail as expected with the largest propen:ies and distances berween homes and the trail occurring along the rural Heritage Trail and the smallest properties and those closest to the trail occurring along the suburban Lafayettcl Moraga. Relatcilly, it was far more likely for a landowner's property to be severed by the Heritage Trail than by the other two. 2) The vast majority oflandowners were trail users and visited the trails frequently. Problems b:perienced by Landowners 1) Overall, trail neighbors had experienced relatively few problems as a result of the trails during the past rwelve months, but the types and frequencies of these problems varied from trail to trail. 2) The problems reported by the most landowners were: unleashed and roaming pets, illegal mOlor vehicle use, and liner on or near their property. The problems that wc:rc most likely to have increased for adjacent owners since the opening of the trail were: noise from the trail,loss of privacy ,and illegal motor vehicle use. 3) The majority of owners reported that there had been no increase in probleÌns since the trails had been established, that living near the trails was bener than they had expected it to be, and that living near the trails was bencr than living near the unused railroad lines before the trails wc:rc constructed. Although owners along the Heritage Trail were the least positive and those along the Lafayette/Moraga the most positive, the majority sampled along each trail was satisfied with having the trail as a neighbor. Rail-Trails' Effecrs on Properry Values 1) Landowners along all three trails reponed that their proximity to the trails had not adversely affected the desirability or values of their propen:ies, and along the suburban Lafayette/ Moraga Trail, the majority of owners felt the II ~ presence of the trail would make their properties sell more easily and at inc:rcasW values. 2) Of those who purchased property along the trails after the trails had been consuucted, the majority reponed that the trails either had no effect on the property's appeal or added to its appeal. 3) The vast majority of real estate professionals interviewed felt the trails had no negative effect on property sales and no effect on property values adjacent to ar ncar the trails. However, those who felt the trails increased property values oumumbered those reporting decreased values. This positive effect was most pronounced on the Lafayenc/Moraga Trail and for ncarby, as opposed to adjacent. property. Other Benefits of Rail-Trails I) Trail users and landowners alike reponed that the trails benefited their communities in many ways. Health and fimess and recreation opportunities were considered to be the most important benefits of the trails by the landowners. The trail users felt the trails were mostimponant in providing health and fimess. aesthetic beauty, and undeveloped open space. Study Conclusions and Implications I) Rail-trails can provide a wide range of benefits to users, local landowners, and trail communities. They arc not single use. single benefit resources. Residents and visitors enjoy the benefits of trail use, aesthetic beauty, protected open space. and in some instances higherproperty resale values, while local communities enjoy bolstered economies and increased community pride among other benefits. These benefits should be presented as a package when discussing the merits of rail-trails with the diverse constituencies affected by proposed trails. 2) Levels of economic impact varied considerably across the three study trails. This was due principally to the fact that the Lafayettc/ Moraga Trail was used almost exclusively for shan aips by ncarby residents while the other two trails attracted more visitors from beyond the local neighborhoods. If economic benefits arc an important community objective. marl::eting efforts should be developed aimed at attracting out-of-town visitors and getting many of them to make overnight stays. 3) The study rail-trails were found to have a dedicated core of users who visited frequently and were committed to "their" trails. This finding represents an opponunity for managers of existing trails and planners of new trails to tap into a potentially rich source of trail supponcrs and volunteers for assistance on a number of appropriate planning and management activities. 4) Although negative aspects of living adjacent to rail-trails were reponed by some landowners, the rates of occurrence and seriousness of problems were relatively low and advantages ofliving near the trails were reponed as well. This fmding should be encouraging to trail planners and advocates. While all existing and potential problems need to be identified and addressed quick! y. trail planners and advocates should not be timid about presenting the positive impacts of rail-trails to landowners along the proposed trails and putting them in contact with their peers along existing trails. ItI Summary and Comparison of the Study Trails Hcril.agc SL M.art.·S L.af.ayc~Or.ag l INscripliøft · Lcnglh. miles 26 16 7.6 · Surf..,. Compoclcd limes""", Asphalt paved AspIu.1tpaved · Year csublishod 1982 1988 1976 · Nearest MctrOpOliun Area Dubuque:. IA T allahass<c. FL -East Bay- Mc=polilon Aru · Popul.uon 62.000 82.000 2 million in the · DislonCC from trail 2 miles Bc¡iN at city OUI.W:rts metropolitan &rU · F... ch.arSed S5/year or SIlvis!' SO SO · OpcraCnS aseney Dubuque County Consc:rvaJ..Jon Florida Dqoonmcm or NaruraJ Easl Bay Regional Par\'.. District Baed RCIOUI"CCS · Traillandscapc: Open ramùand to rocky. SmaIl toWIU and undeveloped Developed suburban IIre.&S wooded river valley ror<st land Trail Uu, SMrw] · Survey =¡xms< ('10) 89 71 g3 · Usable surveys 329 600 776 · CalculaLod yearly (visits) 135.000 170.000 400.000 · Major uses ('10) Bieycling 65 81 20 . Walking 29 9 63 . JOUing 3 4 12 · MaleIFc:male ('10) 561<14 51/49 43/57 · Mean qe (yun) 46 3g 50 Income. undo:r S40.ooo ('10) 55 56 21 Collese graduolCS ('10) 40 66 68 · Race. while ('10) 98 93 94 · Reporting a daabili<y ('10) 7 7 7 · Tra.i1 vi:lits in last ycu . (modian) 7 10 100 · Miles from home (med.ian) 7 8 1.5 · '10 who lived 20 miles or more from trail 31 18 4 Ti.-n!: ~ 0:1 tn.i.] (:v=-~~ mimllcs ) 150 141 68 ;'djau.ulll.ørbJ l..A..ttJ,ow,." SUr'J1'rJ · Survey =¡xms< ('10) 75 58 71 · U¡able rurveys 107 226 330 · Mal<lfema1e ('10) 54/46 41/59 561<14 · Mean qe (yun) 50 53 54 · Averale disuncc from home 10 trail (rect) 2434 1822 890 · Land owned (-"cage acres) 101 6 0.5 '10 with propc:nies ==<1 by !rail 20 2 0 Trail used by household =bcr in Iu, year ('10) 88 76 99 Days used by household in las! year (avenge) 47 67 141 TraiJ B~II~fib Hizhesl benefiu pc:r=ived by · Hc.a1th and fitness · Hc.a1th and fitness · Hc.a1th and fitness trail u.sen · Ac.sthc:uc bc.aury · Acstheùc bc.&u<y · AcItheùc beau')' · Pruervmg open space · Pracrving open space · Presemng open IJII"< · Communi')' ¡ride · Rcae&.Ùon oppmuniLics · Communi')' pride · Hizhcsl benefits pc:r=ived by · Hc..a1th and fitness · Health and fimess Hea11h and fttness · landowners · Rcae.aLional opportunities · Reacation opportunitic.s · Rcacalion opportunities I IV r Summary and Comparison of the Study Trails (Continued) Heritage SL Mark's Wayenr./Mornga r",¡¡ VUT PnrqâDlIS No molDriud Ydúcles · No molOriud Ydúclcs Most impoNn' Inil · No malDriud .chicles · · · N&IUnI sunoundinrs , cha'acs.c:risùcs · Good maintenance · Good nWnt=anCC NasunI ....,.,undinp · QWc' oeainrs · NamrallUlTOundings · lAd: of cIrinkin¡ WI'" · lAd: of cIrinkin¡ WI'" · lAd: of cIrinkin¡ WI'" I · Trail eluiracu:ristics per- · · Roum trailsurfocc: cci.ed u problems · Loci: of ralroOmS · lAd: of ralroOmS · Roum trail surface · Loci: of ..mea · Reddcss beha.ia: of users · Loci: of ratroomS ÚUtIlDwlllr Pnr~fJÔ"'1&S · Landown<:r's personal support for trail when proposed 37 - V~ supporti.. (%) 17 47 - V~ opposed (%) 39 7 7 · An.irudc: about living near trail now c::ompcrcd ED miLial ~on - Much bc1I<r (%) 27 33 28 . Much wane (%) 2 5 1 · Currc:nt utisf&e1ion with tra.iJ - V~ Iltisfied (%) 27 47 54 . V~ disllúsfied (%) 15 11 6 · MOSl c:ommonly rcpon.ed · m.ral maIOI' .ehicle use (39) · m.ral maIOI' .ehiele use (39) · l!nIeashedIn>aminr pas (43) problems (% of all ownen · Can pcl:ed onIncar property · Liucr (21) · Noise from trail (27) rcponin¡) (24) · l.Dil<rinr on/rKla propcny · Liucr (27) · Li,.., (21) (20) · Most frequently occurring · Dlega.! motor vehicle use · Can pcl:ed onIncar property · DoS """""" oron--r ¡ro¡:>my problems (average limt.S ITL (2.1) (5.t) (8.8) wt year for all owners) · Liua (2.1 ) · l.D1I of pri.""Y (3.9) · Ccs puked an/nuJ propcny · Can pcl:ed onIncar property · Dlcral motor .ehicl. we (6.5) (2.0) (3.0) · Noise from trail (6.0) · Problems thai ha.. dccTca.s<:<! · Do¡ """"'. (100) · Vandalism (95) · Animals harassed (96) ~ not clw1Zed li:ncc before · Bur¡lary (94) · Bur¡lary (95) · Bur¡lary (96) trail opened (% of ad ¡accn' · Animals hara.s~ (94) · Rude users (94) · U..... osI: '" use p/Ione. owners rqxnin¡ improve.- Users ask to use phone. · U..... uk '" lISe phone. boùtroom, etc. (96) ma1t or no ch.a:nge) ba1hroom. etc. (94) ba1hroom. etc. (93) · TtapoUÙIJ (95) · Drllnl¡. problems (94) · Dleral_ .ehicle.... (95) · Prob1cms most likely ID have i:ncn:ucd since before D'ai] · Loss of pri.""Y (38) · me¡al motor .ehiele.... (35) · Noise from trail (36) opened (% of adjaocnl · Dlc8al maIOI' .ehicl. use (32) · Loss of pri.""Y (23) · l.Dil<rinr on/neor property owncn rqxnin¡ more of . · Can pcl:ed onIncar property · Noise from trail (21) (30) problem now) (25) · Liucr(l9) · Loss of prÎ¥""Y (25) · No... from trail (24) · Con puked <JnJMar property (17) E.~OAØ.úc l~t · Ava-alc trip expenditure S9.21 ·SII.02 S3.97 . (S per person per day) · Tow tripslyc&r 135.000 170.000 400,000 · Tow amualexpcndi= by users SI.243,350 SI.873.400 SI.s88.ooo v Summary and Comparison or the Study Trails (Continued) Heritage SL Marl<'s l.Júayel1C/Moraga "å/litWI"'¡ T,y £qc,.Jßn 1"'-""'. 0 A......u...._.:J ...a·hnnJ uacd by ovcmi¡ht YÏlÌIon - HoccI/Molcl (~) 53 28 0 · FricndrlRelarivCl (~) 24 39 100 _ Camppound (~) 15 14 0 0 Major åira:t c:xpendi= ~ by all viA"'" (averase S/pcrson/clay) - R............. S2.99 S3.94 SO.7S · G.. and oil 2.011 3.72 133 · Lodgin¡ 1-46 0.44 0..28 · ~ of direct c:xpenditurCI made in county(.) tnill iJ Ioca1ed in 66 42 41 0 Major dira:t expc:ndi= made in counl)l by viJilOn 10 =1)' (SlpcnonIday) - RcstI1D'C1ts S5.21 S4.70 SI.J4 - Gas and oil 2.14 2.42 0.82 - Lod¡in¡ 2.56 1.9S 0.00 - Rel&iJ purcIwcJ 136 2.27 337 · A vcr_Be total c.xpcndirures made in tnill =1)'(.) by visiton 10 COunl)l (SIpenon/ day) S13,22 S15.18 S6.86 £qc..JItwn. ... DMrabI< GOO<Ú · Aye:r~'"'C areocr.:: :pc::n in last year wiIhin the county t!w ..as influenced by tnill exa..a.x (S) - Equiprnc<11-bik... CIC. S 68 .67 SI27.05 $41.25 - Aooeuories 21.88 34.87 19.75 - CJothin¡ 21.25 28.25 48.80 Other 7.67 535 3.69 · T olal spent in county S119.47 St95.52 S113.49 · Tow amouru rpcnt in Wt year t!w .... influenced by tnill a.iAa1œ (avenlle pc: SI73.99 S2S0.64 S132.69 penon) Ejf,aelllll-.l E.øøu · Adjacen. 0""""" opínKm a..b;)ut cfTcct of trail on ruaJe value: · No effa:t(~) 73- 74 44 - lncnucd value (~) 14 16 53 · Real ....... profcuionals surveyed 20 25 26 · Real"",' and oppraiJcn' conclusion about effect of the trail on odjacen. raideruW property - No effect (~) 82 80 52 · lncnucd value (~) 12 20 24 V1 '- Pcrsons to Contact for More Information Rogcr 1. Moore Departmcnt of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Managcmcnt North Carolina Statc Univcr>ity Ralcigh, NC 27695 (919) 515-3698 Hcritagc Trail: Roben Walton, Executivc Director Dubuque County Conscrvation Board 13768 Swiss Vallcy Road Pcosta, 1A 52068 (319) 556-6745 Alan R. Gracfc School of HOlCI, Rcstaurant and Rccreation Managcmcnt 203 Hcndcrson Building South Thc Pcnnsylvania Statc Univcrsity Univcrsity Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-1851 SI. Marks Trail: Richard J. Gitelson School of Hotel, Rcstaurant and Recreauon Managcmcnt 203 Hcndcrson Building South Thc Pcnnsylvania Statc University Univcrsity Park, PA 16802 (8]4) 865-1851 Mary Annc Koos, Statc Trails Coordinator Division of Rccreation and Paries Burcau of Local Recreauon Scrviccs 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 585 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 (904) 487-4784 LafaycnelMoraga Trail: Elizabeth Porter Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Program National Park Service 782 P.O. Box 37127 BOO N. Capitol Street, Stilte 490 Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 (202) 343-3766 Stcve Fiala, Trails Coordinator Specialist East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Oaks Coun P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 (510) 635-0135, x2602 . U.S C.OVUNMtm' P'IJN11NG oma THE IMPACT OF THE BRUSH CREEK TRAIL ON PROPERTY VALUES AND CRIME SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 13, 1992 THE Jèl1PACT OF THE BR'CSH CREEK TR.~.JL O~ PROPERTY \'Þ.Lï;ES A~D CRJ:\1E èl1JCHELLE ~íJLLER èllL"R?HY E~YJRO\.-èllE~T.""L 3TL"D¡E5 ":'"~D rL.:'"~~]~G S~~~IOR PRO}~CT SO~OèlP. 5T..; IE 'l::',IYERS¡TY .-\PR1:' ::;, 2 9~:: TABLE OF CO:\TE:\TS Pacre o 1. PURPOSE .1 ~ TRAIL PROFILE .1 3 METHODOLOGY . 1 - --.. __ ___ -0 .. -- -- --" -- 4. SURVEY 0;:: RES1DE~TS ALOt"C THE BRl'SH CREEK TRAIL. .3 :>. SURVEY OF APARn1:E~T & !l10BILE HO!\.1E PARK ~1A~AGERS .10 6 5l:R\'EY OF REAL ESTATE AGE~TS. .10 /. 5U~\'EY OF LA \\' E~FORCE.\·1E~T AGE\:CIES .13 S 5CR\'EY OF PROPERTY \'ALLES J'\ OTHER CJTIES .13 S. SURïEY OF CR1~1E 5TAT¡5TJC51~ OTHER CITIES .14 10. CO~CLL'SJO~'j5 B1BLJOCRAPHY A?PE~DIX A LIST OF MAPS Figure Paoe o CITY OF SA:\'T A ROSA SITE MAP . .W ., DETAIL 1',,1AP OF THE BRL'SH CREEK TRAIL . i\' .. '. : .", \ .\ il " .. ,I ., i! E I' ".J'O",þ .. I I, J! If I I' . FIGURE ". .. . ". . . .. '. , . '.' .- - .. ", ~ ,- '. "{,:.: .' " - ~. ANJoiI.OEl Sï.:..TE ~A;;K - . .I ] :f' I J:'" , ".~ . I'; , \ j :fI ~[t \ ,: . .;- I. ,. .J :~;.\L >.~.., ~. -~-:~ .' . ," .' . "" :' ~" '. . .- .- '. ,. '. - - . .. ~ .-.. . '. ..... . - . .,. . þ ,- . . - . '. ",~'.. - .. - .. ". - LEGEND BRUSH CREEK TRAIL ......... .. . . -. ,'- .. , 1:._ , ,_. 012 ~ " \ a._, \~;_. N 6 SCALE IN MILES 1 SITE MAP iij I :r V) ~ Q:: I:> . -.--.... ~_.._._o -, tz: NORMANDY S7. 1 tN. r ~ :It: ,¡J l,J I NHCOHA./).I. P AI'<I( ~UWN _J' , , Plmav(1'.A C'! ·2 2 P ¡ I.(AVE~A DA E CREEK ..... O' 500' 1000' - S CAL.E IN FEET FIGURE 2 BRUSH CREEK TRAIL SURVEY AREA PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to dete;mine what effect, if any, a bicycle/pedestrian trajJ has on prope;ty values and crime rates. Concerns by local property owners that proposed traiis may negatively affect property vahJes or increase crime prompted this survey. Due to its 9 year existence, the Brush Creek Trail, built a]ong Bn.:sh Creek in Santa Rosa's Rincon Va]]ey, was selected as the focus of this survey. - - - -.--. -- -- - --.-.- TRAIL PROFILE In 1962, the Sonoma County \'\'ater Ager¡cy constructed a flood control reservoir in Rincon VaDey and channelized Brush Creek, aòding a gravel se,,'ice access road along t:-,e length of the creek. In 1983, the City of Sar¡ta Rosa constructed a 1.25 miJe, 10 foot ":;Òe asphalt bicycle path from ~":o:l.tecito Bou}e"2.:-è to Hi£Dv;av 12, 2.ic::g the io:-me: gravel 2~cess :-oaè. .....o' ..... .... ~ ............... ,; -... 1· .0;0-',..,'" +;. ho :;;.- ;¡,...o;-. .0 '~-.l..o~ . - ". ::> t t " t "1 ~it" _.......:'.:-'~cx, .I::""' .c. .e} "'-o~lI.y-..~\ e ... m_.::: -._ --...:n....a.¡¡::i._J.: ~oJo.c..n 0 ~ne Tal. \\.. ... Foperty Jines as dose as one foot to the trail. The trail is maintained by the City of Santa Rosa' Public Works Departmer¡t, whereas the creek is --'--.i"eo' b\' t'n' e Sono"'- Cou"'" \'\'-r·o- '<=",,~., ':'''~Q':'':';._..':'. .. I .:. .:....c. ..¡.} c. _.. hO..........\. :\1::1 tlODOLOGY Iz: this survey, Gë:.ta ";as cDl1e:ted by èoo!" to doc!" inte:--~'ieh's \\yith residents adjacent to the Br:.:sh Creek TraiJ. Se'."en:y-iive resiÒeT'.ts were surveyed on ho\,,' long; they had ]j\'eà in the neigh:?orhooè.; ho',,· ofre:". they use the trail; 1 how the trail has affected their overall qualÜy of life; what effect the trail would have on selling their homes; what effect the trail had in their decision to 'buy their homes; what type of fence they had behind their homes; how the trail has affected .their privacy; and what problems, if any, they have had wiili crime caused by trail users. Additional]y, three telephone interviews were conducted with apartment and mobiJe home park managers near the trail; thirty-one real estate agents with listings adjace!lt to trails! creeks; and four Jaw enforcement agencies concerning crime statistics along trails! creeks. Apartment and mobile home park managers were asked to respond on the effects of the Brush Creek Trail on crime incidents on their properties. Real estate agents were asked to respond if a natural creek, modified creek. or a public trail had any effect on the marketability and value of homes adjace!lt to trails! creeks. Fina]]}', fifteen cities ,,'ere contacted by telephone in and outside of California, for information on surveys regarding the effect of traiJs on property ,"alues and crime. Five trail surveys were receiveå and are ir:duåed in the text of this sur\'e\'. 2 Sl'RVEY OF RESIDE\'TS WHO OW\' HO\1ES AD.JACE\T TO THE BRCSH CREEK TRAIL Methodology: (Questions 1 through 10) A door to door survey was conducted O\'er two weekends in Yfarch, 1992, of homeowners immediately adjacent to the Brush Creek Trail. Seventy-five residents responded to the interview. Objective: The objective of survey questions 1, 2, and 3 \\'as to determine ho\\' long residents have lived i~ the neighborhood, how often th~y us~ the trail, and their perception of the quality of ]jfe Jj\'ing n~arby the Brush Creek Trail. ....- - --- .. - - ." . - - .. - -- - -- --...." -- - - Results: Questions 1,2, and 3 -------.--.-. 1. Ho\\: long 'ha~'e you Jj\'ed in this neighborhood? a. Jess than 1 \'ear b. 1 to :; vears c. o\'er:; \'ears '00 1 901 801 70 l 60 j S~ I ;~ ~ 20 j 10 i o 57.::! EI b c 3 2. How many times a month do you use the Brush Creek Trail' a. 4 times or less b. 4 to 10 times c. 10 to 20 times d. over 20 e. ne\'er 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 j 3D 20 10 'J o ' 33.3 e b ,.. ~ d e 3. In generaL do ~'ou iee~ that the presence oi the Brus]1 Creek T:aiJ has a. inGeased the quaJit~' oj Jiie in the neighborhood b. decre2s~d tht' quality of life in the neighborhooò c had no ejjeel l~:1 the qualit\· oi ]jje in the neishborhood d. dl1 nOl ).;no\\· 1~~ ) 80 ~ 70 64 60., < 5C -j :q 20 1 0 ~ o 1 e b c d 4 Objective: The objecti\'e oj st,¡~\i'Y questions 4, 5. and 6 \\'as to determine if the Brush Creek Trail had aJ1\" effect on the percei\'ed marketabiJjty and value of homes adjacent to the B.ush Creek Trail. Results: Questions -t, 5, and 6 4. Ii you were to sell vour homte toda\', do vou think the Brush Creek Trail would . "- a. make the home sJight]y easier to sell b. make the home si!::nifkant]v easier to se ] c. ha\"e no efiect on ~e ]jng t]{e home d make the home slightly more diffjcul,t to sell e. make the home significant]\' more difficuJt to se]] .' . 10ë J- 90 ..J 80 1 :~l 503 40 , _0 J ~ ~ 20 "' J 10., " o - ._- ----- - - _. . - "- .--- .._- --- -- 49.3 27 e b c d e 5 5. If you were to selJ )'our hor.1e today, do you think the Brush Creek TraiJ 'would a. make the home se1! for slightJy more b. make the home se]J for significantJy more c. ha\'e no eifect on the selJing price of the home d. make the home sell for sJightJy Jess e. make the home selJ for significantly Jess 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 69.3 3D 8 5.7 t:I 1 3 e c: é. \1\'hen \'01..1 bought \'our home, did the Brush Creek TraiJ . '. a. s1ightJy inf]uence )'our decision b. ha\-e no effect in \"0i..lT decision c. cause slight :ni~f.:i\·:ngs d. cause signifjcan~ ::¡isgi\"ings 100 , 90 j 801 70 -:. 6D ~ 50 l ;~ j' 20 10 o 1 74.7 53 o 8 b c: d 6 Objective: The objectives of survey questions 7 and 8, were to determine what type of fence homeowners had behind their house and how the trail affected their pri v ac)'. Results: Questions i and'S 7. What type of fence, if any, do you have behind your house? a. solid fence b. see through fence c. landscaping d. no fence 100 j 90 . . .. BO :~ ~ so 1 401 301 20 j 1 D ~ D . - . -- - -- -.- ". .- --- - -'.- - 53 o c o d e b S. How do you fee] the Brush Creek Trai] affects your sense of privacy? 2.. decreases privacy sjjghtly b. decreases privacy significantly c. has no effect on princy d. increases privacy slight]y e. increases privac}' significantly 100 J 90 : 80 ~ 70 J J 60 i So ..., i ~~ ~ 10 -i o i 53.3 o d o e B b c 7 Objective: The objective of survey question 9, was to determine if the traiì had any effect on crime as experienced by homeowners. Results: In question 9(b), twenty percent of the residents who answered yes to this question had directly experienced crime from a trail user. Twelve residents had experienced vandalism (see additional comments below graph for types of vandalism experienced), with two incidents of arson involving adolescents playing with matches, and one burglary. 9. Have you directly experienced any crime where someone using the Brush Creek Trail was involved? a. no b.yes If yes, what type of crime? (See additional comments below) 1 00 ~ - -.- - 90 BO 80 70 J I :~ j 401 30 ~ 20 10 - ~ o ' e ADDITIONAL COMMEJ\:TS TO QUESTION 9(b) Types of vandalism: Response Number of responses · "Kids threw mud at house." "Kids threw rocks in pooL" "Kid thre\-,· rock, broke tile On roof.·' 'Xids broke window.'· 1 1 · · · 1 · "Kids thre\-\' eggs." · "Kids broke fence." · ,"Kids shot paint balls on fence/house." 2 ~ :J ~ :J 1 8 Objective: The objective of question 10, was lo determine if residents had any additiona1 comments not mentioned in the survey regarding the Brush Creek Trail. Results: In question 10(b), sixty-seven percent of property owners had additional comments. (See additional comments below graph) 10. Do you have any additional comments not mentioned in this survey regarding the Brush Creek Trail? a. no b. yes If Yes, what additional comments (See additional comments below) . T_ ..____ .0- -=-~. ,;þ. ....,...,. ---,. - .~.- - "=" ."'" -.- 100 90 80 70 60 SO 40 ¡ 30 20 10 o 66.7 EI b ADDmONAL COMMENTS TO QUESTION lOCb) Listed in order of most common response. Some respondents had more th2...'1 one comment to the foJ!owjng question, "Do you have any additional CO!l1.."rlents not mentioned in this sun'ey regarding the Bru.sh Creek Trail?" Response Number of Responses · "Like it, glad it's there." "Use it for exercise and walking the dog." "Like to watch the wild life." "Glad no home is behind mine." "Good for the com:7lunity, an :lSSet." "Needs to be lighted at night.·· "Too many kids loitering." 11 9 6 5 4 3 3 · · · · · · ' 9 · "Like to see it continued to Montgomery Vil1age." 3 · "Enjoy watching people walk by." ~ .:> · "Didn't want it at first, like it now." 2 · "People need to clean up after their dogs." 2 · "Safe place to see neighbors." 2 · "Remove it." 1 · "CJose it at night." 1 · "Afraid to go into tunnel under Highway 12." 1 · "Too much noise." 1 · "Concerned about spraying." 1 · "Like to see more trees along trail." 1 · "Don't take out blackberries." 1 SURVEY OF APARTMENT AND MOBILE HOME MANAGERS NEAR THE TRAIL Objective: The objective of this survey was to determine if the residents in apartments and the mobile home park near the Brush Creek Trail had experienced any crime related to users of the trail. Methoddogy: A telephone survey was conducted of managers in two apartment complexes and one mobile home park. Managers '-"'ere asked if complaints were made by residents regarding Brush Creek TT;,i1. Results: One apartment manager revealed that one apartment had been burglarized last summer bv a trail user. The other aDr.rtment man¡¡'O'oer ~ . . revec.led that residents never cOll".plain nor has any crime occurred due to the Brush Creek Trai1. The same results were expressed b:' Òe mobi1e home pc.rk assistant r:1ar..ager, ..:ho commented that the adult l'!".:JbiJe home park residents love the trail. Sl.iRVEY OF REAL ESTATE AGENTS Objective: The objective of this survey was to determi;<e if ¡¡, Tlatural creek, TTtodified creek, or a public trail had anv effect on the :nc.rketabilitv and selli:1g p:-ice of hornes¿ aàjacent to a natur~] creek, modified creek, or public trail. Methodology: Due to the limited number of real estate agents having recent sales along the Brush Creek TraiJ, additional real estate ë.ge:ïts were sUTyeyeà in a.r:.¿ arol1:-:d Sa.nta Rosa having experienc~ \\-ith sinÜlar trail/creek proper:ies. These properties were located along the Santa Rosa Creek, Copeland Creek in Rohnert Park and Lynch Creek ir. Petabma. A t:tal of thirty-o:le real estate agents ,vere contacted to participate in this te¡ephon~ survev. 1 0 Results: Questions 1,2,3, and 4 1. In your experience with home sales immediately adjacent to a natural creek, the creek wiJl . a. make the home sell for slightly more b. make the home sell for significantly more c. have no effect on the selling price of the home d. make the home sell for slightly less e. make the home sell for significantly less 100 90 80 74.2 70 60 50 40 3D 20 10 0 0 e b -~- ~.=-",,-- . .... -'-. , .,- ..- -,,~. -",.."-- -.~ -=.- 25.8 c o d o e 2. b your experiel'\ce with home sales immediately adjacent to a modified creek, (channeìized with rock rip rap).the creek will a. mÙe the home sell for slightly more b. make the home sell for significantJy more c. ha-,e no effect on the selling price of the hOl':'le d. r.lake the home sell for slightly Jess e. make the home sell for significantly Jess 100 , 904 ~~ ~ 603 50 42 40 30 20 10 o 48.3 I I I EJ o b c d o e 1 1 3. In your experience with home sales immediately adjacent to a public trail, the trail wi ] a. make the home sel1 for slightly more b. make the home sel1 for significantly more c. have no effect on the sel1ing price of the home d. make the home sel1 for slightly less e. make the home sell for significantly less 1DD 9D 8D 7D 6D SD 4D 3D 2D 1 1D 1 D . 48.4 8 c d o e 4. When you are trying to sell a home adjacent to a trail and creek, do you use the trail and creek as selling points? a. yes b. no c. sometimes 10D 3 9D 1 80 ~. 7D 61.2 6D :~ j 3D 1 201 10 o e b 12 SURVEY OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Objective: The objective of this survey was to determine whether the presence of a trail/creek affects the crime rate in the area. Methodology: Telephone interviews were conducted with the following law enforcement agencies with their respective neighborhood trails/creeks. 1. Santa Rosa - Brush Creek Trail 2. Rohnert Park - Copeland Creek Trail 1. PetaJuma - Lynch Creek Trail Results: All the agencies compile their crime data by districts. For each district, a number is assigned that indicates the total number of specific crimes in a given year. The crime data is not street specific. Therefore, by using this"method,-there"ïs-no-wã:rf6 aeterminê if tlíe Brush- Crèek-lrail, Copeland Creek Trail, or the Lvnch Creek Trail was used to commit crimes. SURVEY OF PROPER1ì' V AWES IN OTHER CITIES Objective: The objective of this survey was to determine if trails/creeks in other cities had any effects on the marketability and selling price of homes adjacent to a trai1. Methodology: Fifteen cities were contacted by telephone in and outside of California, for information on sun'eys regarding the effect of trails OT'. proper~ value. There were five respondents. Results: The fi\'e traiJ surveys received were from Dubuque, Iowa; TaHah2.sse, Florida; Lafayette, California; Seattle,Washington; and Plymount, Minnesota. The foHowing results grouped under "other" were not specified in the surveys. In surveys along the 26 mile, 9 year old, Heritage Trail in Iowa, seventy- three percent of the residents reported that the tralJ had no effect on their propert~· values. Fourteen percent felt the trail wou]d increase the value of their homes and thirteen percent stated other. Eighty-two percent of the rea] eState agents concluded the trai] would have no effect on property vaiues, twelve percent reported increased property values and six percent reported other. Along the 16 mile, 3 year old, S1. Marks Trail in Florida, seventy-four percent of the homeowners surveyed felt the rrai] had no effect on their property values, whereas sixteen percent fe]t their property values had increased with ten percen! reporting other. Eighty percent of the real estate 13 agents surveyed conduded property values were not effected, whereas twenty percent felt the value of the home increased with the trail. Along the 7.6 mile, 15 year old, Lafayette/Moraga Trail, forty-four percent of the residents stated the trail had no effect, fifty-three percent stated their homes would increase in value, whereas three percent stated other. Fifty- two percent of the realtors surveyed conduded the trail would have no effect on property values, twenty-four percent felt the value of the home increased with the trail and twenty-four percent reported other. In a survey of homeowners along the 12 mile, 14 year old, Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle, Washington, forty percent of the residents reported the trail had no effect, twenty-two percent reported a positive effect, eight percent felt their property value increased, whereas thirty percent had no opinion. Forty-three percent of the' realtors concluded the trail had no effect, thirty- two percent stated a positive effect and twenty-five percent concluded the trail would have a negative impact on property values. In a survey of homeowners along the mile, 18 year old, Luce Line trail in Minnesota, thirty-two percent felt the trail had no effect, fifty-eight percent reported a positive effect, nine percent reported a negative effect and one percent reported other. (See Appendix A for chart) SURVEY OF CRIME STATISTICS IN OTHER CITIES Objective: The objective of this survey 'was to determi;1e if trails/-=reeks i::-. other cities had any effects on the crime rates to adjacent homeo,,\'r.ers. Methodology: Fifteen cities were contacted by telephone in and outside of California, for information on surveys regarciir.g the efiect of trails on crime. Results: Tne five traiJ surveys received v¡ere .from Dubuque, Iowa; Tallahassee, Florida; Lafayette, California; Seattle, \Vashi:1gton; ar.d Ply:nount, MÍ:1nesota. The following results grouped under "other" were . not specified in the surveys. The most commonly reported problems by homeowners along the 26 mile Heritage Trail in Iowa included il1egal motor -:e:-.ic1e use, th;rty-r.iy¡e percent; cars parked near or on property, twenty-four percent; htter, twenty- one percent; with sixteen percent reporting other. Along the 16 mile St. Marks Trail, thirty-nine percent 01 the homeowners reporteq illegal motor use; twenty-nine percent, !itter; twenty percent 14 reported loitering ~ear or on prope:-ty; \\'ith tVo.1elve percent reporting other. Along the 7.6 mile Lafayette/Moraga Trail, forty-three percent of the homeowners reported problems from unleashed pets; twentycseven percent, noise from the trail; twenty-seven percent, litter; with three reporting other. The existence of the Burke-Gilman Trail has had little, if any, effect on crime and vandalism to homeowners. Law enforcement officers who patrol the trail stated that there is not a greater incidence of burglaries or vandalism of homes along the trail. Eighty-five percent of the Luce-Line rail-trail homeowners have not experienced major problems with the trail. 6£ the fifteen percent experiencing problems, cO!Tlplai:1ts en,countered have Qeen litter; loss of privac)' and trespassing. CONCLUSION The purpose of this survey was :0 determi:1e what effect, if any, a bicycle/pedestrian trail has on property values and crime to adjacent properties. This survey does not support c:laims that trails adjacent to reside:1ces cause an increase in criT:1e. Most of these crimes that can be directly attributed to the Brush Creek Trail involved vandalism by adolescents. CO:1siderir:g the trail has been opeT\ for 9 years, the number aT\d t\'DeS of c:ri::<e polled in this s\.:rvev are minor in nature. This survey .. ~.. . fir.ds that the Br'..lsh Creek Trail does not cause aT\ increase i:1 cime. These ::e3ults are addirional1y si..lp?oned by other trail sur\·eys out 0: the area, as mentioneà in the text of ~hi.s su:-vev. Þ.dditionally, this survey does not support claims that trails adjacent to residences cause a negative impact on property values. To the cO:1trary, the ~riding opinion in this surve:' by residents is that property values were ;~ T\ot 'effected at all, or if anything, increased due to the Brush Creek Trail. The s\.,¡:vevs froni other e.re?s further support this finàjng. . ~ .. '-' Perha!',s the most overwhelming opinion bv residents along the Brush - '-'...... C,eek Trail is that the trail/creek has a positive efieet on the quality of life in the "c> ·""bo.'noOl' .... .... ¡:.l¡'¡ ,. 1 5 BIBUOGRAPHy Mazour, Leonard P. 1988. "Converted Railroad Trails: The Impact on Adjacent Property." A Masters Thesis. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State Urúversity, Department of Landscape Ardùtecture. Moore, Graefe, et al. 1992. "The Impacts of Rails-Trails: A Study of the Uses and Property Owners From Three Trails." Pennsylvarúa State University. Seattle Office for Planrúng. May 1987. "Evaluation of Burke-Gilman Trail's Effect on Property Values arrà Crime." Seattle, WA: Seattle Office for Planning. ^ )IX ^ PPEN SURVEY OF ADJACENT IIOMEOWNEns: EFFECT OF HlA), SPECIFIED OTltERS NOT )"1.. QO/.. ]"1.. % I ON PROf'EnTY VAUlES NO OPINION NEGATIVE EFFECT NO EFFECT( INCREASE VAI.UE 30% 9% 41'>1.. 6'Y.. ~I:I'Y", n'y.. I . I I 73% l·I'Y.. 4<1% 40% 32% POSITIVE EFFECT 22"1.. 50"1... TRAil .-.-......-... i Herilage 1·..·..--....., j SI. Malks . o. i lalayelle/Mo,aga I .. !,~lJfke·Gilmiln ¡ Lucs line CITY ----. Oubuquit,lowa Tallahassee, Flo,ida l al~y~II~~..~ ,~I~~O~~I~ S.alU.,Washjn~lon Plymount. Minnesola SURVEY OF REAL TOnS: EFFECT OF TIIAII ON pnOpEIHY VALUE S POSITIVE EFFECT TRAil CITY IIOT SPECIFIED --- OTItERS ... NO OplNIOII 6°/" ........ 24% IIEGATlVE EFFECT I I I I i ........... 25";" I I I ; , , . , INCREASE VALUE 12"/. 20"'" 2.1°/.. EFFECT· ! "j" ·..f·· ··1-- ¡ '1" ! 110 02% 00% 52'"/.. 43°/.. ..... .._..-....... -,- ltefÍlage ¡ ..-................................................... ·§·~:··~~·~~·~...................I..........."..... _~!"!:'r.!'!I...!.~...!...9.¡¡............................ Butko-Gilman ¡ 320;.. l~~;ä~ï~~'" i .........,."....... p.~':J.~u_~~.!:!~~~__. !.~!!~.~~~.~.~~.~:.t~~~.I.~~... .~~I~y~II.!,..9.~).~ ~'.~!.... S!aUl·,..w..~~hI"9.I..I1.... Plrmounl, Mlnnøsola . On March 15, the City Council moved that the Stevens Creek Trail will be multiuse from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Rd.: - The trail will run along the east side of McClellan Ranch, away from the meadow and the nature trail . Councilmembers opined that they would like to reduce automobile traffic into the park 2 I . On May 5, the Parks and Recreation Commission moved to recommend that pedestrian access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park be provided at San Fernando and Scenic Circle after the trail and other park improvements are installed · The Commission made this recommendation contingent upon City patrol of the trail and an operation plan that provided staff to open and close the gates daily . On May 5, the Commission also recommended that parking be free in Stevens Creek Corridor Park 4 2 · The Commission asked staff to prepare a plan to address security concerns before forwarding the recommendation to Council · The purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the proposed operation plan A complete operation plan for S evens Cree Corridor Park will be written over the next two years as the project is fully developed, and is intended to address a wide variety of issues from reserving picnic areas to recycling 6 3 To address current resident concerns for after-hour access, we will consider issues relevant to patrol and parking in adjacent neighborhoods ,.. ==.- Automobile access will be provided at three points - northern and southern ends of the park and midway at San Fernando [''1-- .--- 00 =-- [:]=:.:::...... .-...-- I ~----"" If --- ---- -== - ........::::..- ¡! I i' ': (;,/1 /·.",}/:)/{:S ,." "-=~..- - - ' , ;..{" STEVENS CREEK TRAIL ._.2-m ¡"",--I.\,,~:"~ 'L_! 1-, - '~/'--""" )1 : I --;<'Jr' -- -- :T - IT":'";" __ ,...'.::-'.... 8 4 · To encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips to the park, the Commission recommended two pedestrian/bicycle access points midway along the 1.IS-mile Corridor length 9 On the east side, the pedestrian/bicycle trail at San F emando is intended to safely separate neighbors walking into the park from the vehicle traffic in the driveway to the barbeque area 5 6 · We will not be addressing every operating detail relevant to the future of Stevens Creek Corridor Park tonight, but will be addressing the security concerns of the neighborhood 14 7 Staffing at Stevens Creek Corridor Park would need to be seven days a week (as it currently is with Blackberry Farm and the Golf Course) Staff is recommending that the Stevens Creek Corridor Park be staffed with a position that combines the authority of the code enforcement officer with the responsibilities of a maintenance worker, i.e. a "ranger" 8 · We estimate that it will take the equivalent of 84 person hours per week to address patrol, security, and light maintenance 17 . We currently have a Code Enforcement division that works throughout the City dealing with issues that do not require the Sheriffs attention . Sworn officers are called in if problems beyond the scope of code enforcement are encountered 18 9 · By far, the most complicated aspect of the project will be managing parking and keeping park and trail-related parking out of the neighborhoods 20 10 · The primary change in the operation of Blackberry Farm is that its capacity will be reduced from 4,000 to 800 picnickers · The parking will be proportionately reduced 21 BLACKBERRY FARM OPERATIONAL OPTIONS TOTAL~!IIom IS FROMALLOPEIl.ATIONI ,H TOr EXPENIS TOTALPII.OI'IT S OM~OPt!ll"'TIOfII "1 ~, ¡;;:=- EmJ::::::.-- ~ DQQ TOTAL EmJ~=':::- H TOTAL E:; TQTALPROFIT(LCHlS) TOTALPIIOPIT(t.OSS¡ TOTALPROFIT(LCnI) TOT.....PROFIT(LOSIJ AF'1ER_OYI!MENTS 111000 .-rTE1It"'!IIOVI!/EflTS DDO AI"T15I1._IIOVEIllENTI 1 DOO N'TEIIIIPIIIOVI!_ts JnOQQ "TIOo_.........._.......____._,Mo~_þ_.____..._F.........._..t\",,:II 22 11 Alternative A3 Parking increased at Stevens Creek Blvd. lot to 125 spaces ·235 fixed parking spac or 355 festival style at San Fernando ·31 spaces at McClellan with overflow on Simms property Legend ,'"c>.....'__,_ 1";::'- -../:::::::-<- ~- '"' --- ). ._-,..... <~ --- ic=- G__ - I - --- 'I -=..- " I y..;., ¡.t.} -- I -- , :T~ -~.' -" ,_.'.""". mæifrT'€~:i8C'~E~~ M.&.XIMUM CAPACfTY·WITH FEE 23 ". . The picnic grounds will close down completely in 2007 for construction, and at that time, regular customers in our data base will be made aware of pending changes in operation 24 12 · The intent of parking management is to balance the amount of space within a natural area given over to automobiles, while minimizing overflow parking problems 26 13 For at least the first two years of operation, it is recommended that all barbeque use on weekends be by reservation only. This is to tightly control the amount of parking overflow that might occur: · All ofthe customers in our database will be notified of this change for weekend operation · A reservation will entitle a user to a limited amount of parking - to be detennined ·Our marketing will emphasize the redevelopment of Blackberry Farm as an environmental center · W e will encourage carpooling and, for those groups unable to fit within the automobile allowance, we will provide and charge for shuttles 27 · Controlling the number of cars allowed into the corridor by reservation on the weekends should prevent overflow into the neighborhoods · If we are not successful in our management, we will make adjustments 28 14 · The entry point at Scenic is intended for bicycle and pedestrian access, and will not be advertised · Anyone arriving by car would be more conveniently served at one of the parking points 29 Should summer weekends become a problem, the gate could be locked during that time and posted "closed on weekends - May through .~ September" ~:¡~"'..' ;~~~::~:,'¿: "~.:"'.>,">-r:~J~~,.., :: ,. J .%~J.;"i'd"'> .'~.'.';':' ·V"'" ~/;:j I..··^~š:l,;~i;é:,ft~:~~ 15 . The Commission has recommended the access at Scenic, but has also asked us to explain how we would manage it and discuss the plan with the neighbors before forwarding it to the Council . If the Commission concurs with the recommendations in this report, we will forward them on to the City Council for their consideration J1 16 !~1 æt~-:; I m______J .".~ . CUPEIQ1NO PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR'S REPORT TO THE CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Agenda Date: July 7, 2005 Item 6.A.: Response to Commission's Request for Operation and Patrol Plan for Stevens Creek Corridor Park Background On May 5, the Parks and Recreation Commission moved to recommend that pedestrian access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park continue to be provided via a gate at Scenic Circle after the trail and other park improvements are installed. The gate at Scenic Circle was added in the fall of 2000; prior to that time, the chain link fence around Blackberry Farm was frequently cut. The gate was opened and closed daily by a neighbor until January 2005, when the neighborhood decided to close and lock the gate. The Commission made its future access recommendation contingent upon City patrol of the trail and an operation plan that provided staff to open and close the Scenic gate daily. On May 5, the Commission also recommended that parking be free in Stevens Creek Corridor Park. It was the Commission's concern that a charge for parking inside the park might drive parking into the surrounding neighborhoods. Operations Plan The operations plan for Stevens Creek Corridor Park will be written over the next two years as the project is fully developed, and is intended to address a wide variety of issues from reserving picnic areas to recycling. For the purposes of addressing current resident concerns for use of the Scenic gate for access, we will consider issues relevant to patrol and parking in adjacent neighborhoods. There are three entrance points to Stevens Creek Corridor Park for vehicles. They are at Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road and San Fernando Avenue. The entrance at San Fernando serves the barbeque area and includes 300 parking spaces. To encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips to the park, the Commission recommended two pedestrian/bicycle access points midway along the 1.15-mile Corridor length. On the east side, the pedestrian/bicycle trail at San Fernando is intended to safely separate neighbors walking into the park from the vehicle traffic in the driveway to the barbeque area. On the east side, the Commission recommended a walkway along the very edge of the golf course. This was not a controversial decision. Printed on Recycled Paper Director's Report to Parks and Recreation Commission July 7, 2005 Page 2 of5 On the west side, a pedestrianlbicycle access has historically been used by the neighborhood at Scenic Circle. This shortcut through the park has been used by youth walking to school. Prior to the gate's installation, a hole was regularly cut into the fence. By agreement with the neighborhood in 2000, a gate was installed. The neighbors locked the gate nightly for security purposes and opened it in the morning allowing the student shortcuts. This practice continued for over four years. The neighbors on Scenic Circle are now objecting to continued park access citing increased crime, noise and traffic as concerns. Because the Commission has asked that we address these concerns, we will discuss them at the meeting. We will forward your comments with your recommendation in a report to the City Council on July 19. We will not be addressing every operating detail relevant to the future of Stevens Creek Corridor Park, on July 19, but will be addressing the security concerns of the neighborhood. Specific Issues The issues raised by the Scenic neighbors are not different from issues discussed in trail studies addressing operation and security. Several studies are included within your packet. There is a significant body of research on trails that suggests that unlawful activity occurring in abandoned areas ceases when law-abiding citizens frequent those areas. Specific concerns raised recently in public meetings include: burglary, vandalism, noise, littering, disorderly conduct (partying), and parking in the neighborhoods. Current Conditions Currently, the neighborhood between Scenic Boulevard and Scenic Circle experiences a very low rate of unlawful activity. Attached is data received from the Sheriffs Department on calls received from Scenic Boulevard, Scenic Court and Scenic Circle from 1998 through January 2005. As stated previously in this report, the gate at Scenic Circle was installed in 2000. The attached crime data includes statistics from two years before the gate was installed (when an opening was often cut into the fence by vandals), and the time after 2000 when the gate was provided so that it could be open during the day primarily for school children to cut through the park on their way to the tri-school area. In January 2005, the neighbors put a lock on the gate and it has remained closed. Director's Report to Parks and Recreation Commission July 7, 2005 Page 3 of 5 A summary of the number of calls received and the number of calls resulting in reportable crime is below: Crime Report Summary - Data Provided by Sheriff's Office Scenic Boulevard Total Calls Calls Resulting In Reportable Crime 1998 16 2 1999 21 2 2000 2 I 2001 15 4 2002 21 3 2003 15 5 2004 15 6 2005 3 I TOTAL -108 24 Scenic Court 1998 0 0 1999 4 2 2000 0 0 2001 3 0 2002 I 0 2003 3 0 2004 I 0 2005 0 0 TOTAL -12 2 Scenic Circle 1998 8 0 1999 6 0 2000 2 0 2001 3 0 2002 I 0 2003 0 0 2004 3 2- 2005 I 0 TOTAL -24 2 -Two incidents are listed in the attached backup data as being at Scenic, at cross-street Scenic - these incidents should have been reported as being at Scenic Circle. Director's Report to Parks and Recreation Commission July 7, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Captain John Hirokawa, who serves as our Chief of Police, will be at the meeting to discuss any questions the Commission may have about unlawful activity occurring in this neighborhood. Literature Search The most frequently experienced crimes relative to trails are litter and vandalism (particularly graffiti). Another common problem is motorized activity on trails. These issues are most effectively resolved with patrol. Staff is recommending that the Stevens Creek Corridor Park be staffed with a new type of position that combines the authority of the code enforcement officer with the responsibilities of a maintenance worker, i.e. a "ranger". Parks that have trails often have ranger positions. Staffing at Stevens Creek Corridor Park would need to be seven-days-a- week (as it currently is with Blackberry Farm and the Golf Course). We recommend that the gate be opened at 7 a.m. and closed by 8 p.m., or dusk, whichever is earlier. We estimate that it will take the equivalent of 84 person hours per week to address patrol, security, and light maintenance. We do not believe that it will be difficult to address the patrol issues in the park; we currently have a Code Enforcement division that works throughout the City dealing with issues that do not require the Sheriffs attention. Sworn officers are called in if problems beyond the scope of code enforcement are encountered. Parking By far, the most complicated aspect of the project will be managing parking and keeping park and trail related parking out of the neighborhoods. We recognize that this is a major issue. The primary change in the operation of Blackberry Farm is that its capacity will be reduced from 4,000 to 800 picnickers. The parking will be proportionately reduced. The picnic grounds will close down completely in 2007 for construction, and at that time, regular customers in our data base will be made aware of pending changes in operation. Prior to reopening the picnic grounds, we will again contact everyone in the customer database to let them know that use of the barbeque area will be by reservation only on weekends. To manage parking, reservations will have a specific number of parking spaces assigned to them. Weare proposing a system like that in state campgrounds have where a campsite entitles you to a limited number of vehicles (usually two). If you wish to bring more vehicles in, you need to reserve additional camp sites. The intent of parking management is to balance the amount of space within a natural area given over to automobiles. For at least the first two years of operation, it is recommended that all barbeque use on weekends be by reservation only. This is to tightly control the amount of parking overflow that might occur: All of the customers in our database will be notified of this change for weekend operation A reservation will entitle a user to a limited amount of parking - to be determined Director's Report to Parks and Recreation Commission July 7, 2005 Page 5 of5 Our marketing will emphasize the redevelopment of Blackberry Farm as an environmental center We will encourage carpooling and, for those groups unable to fit within the automobile allowance, we will provide and charge for shuttles Controlling the number of cars allowed into the corridor by reservation on the weekends should prevent overflow into the neighborhoods. Ifwe are not successful in our management, we will make adjustments. Scenic Gate Concern From our analysis and knowledge of park use patterns to date, we do not believe that a problem will be created for the Scenic Circle neighborhood. The entry point at Scenic is intended for bicycle and pedestrian access, and will not be advertised. Anyone arriving by car would be more conveniently served at one of the parking points. Should summer weekends become a problem, the gate could be locked during that time and posted "closed on weekends - May through September". All of the circulation and parking decisions for the park have been made at this point, except for the Scenic gate. The Commission has recommended the access at Scenic, but has also asked us to explain how we would manage it and discuss the plan with the neighbors before forwarding it to the Council. Should the Council detennine that it is advantageous to provide a pedestrianlbicycle access midway on the west side, we would want to provide adequate money to construct a bridge that is wheelchair accessible and designed to pennit the I DO-year flood. We have two more grant opportunities coming up in October. If the Council detennines that it wants this improvement to be built with this project, we will need to estimate the cost, and apply for funding in the next few months. Submitted by: ''yJ¡G/-wl-- Therfse"Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Administration