Land Acquisition for the Fall Kill Greenway and Waterfront Walkway in Dutchess County, New York

Bridget Deemer

Diana Kobland

May 6, 2003

Image from: http://geologyandgeography.vassar.edu/fallkill/recommendations.html

Objective:

To review current land acquisition issues in the City of Poughkeepsie and discuss potential organizations and landowners that may support future acquisitions for the Greenways in the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Poughkeepsie, and the Town of Hyde Park.

Outline:

I. Our Project

II. Methods of Land Acquisitions

III. Types of Landowner Support

IV. Present Support for the Greenway Projects

V. Case Study

VI. Available Support

VII. Conclusion

Introduction

As Vassar College students of Professor Mary Ann Cunningham’s Geography 355: Environment and Land-Use Planning class, we devoted a semester long project to studying greenway development in the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Poughkeepsie, and the Town of Hyde Park, in Dutchess County, New York. The components of our specific project involved: (1) investigating public and private land acquisition issues in the City of Poughkeepsie for the proposed Fall Kill Greenway and Waterfront Walkway, (2) researching various organizations that can offer support for greenway projects, and (3) mapping significant public and non-residential private land parcels in the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Poughkeepsie, and the Town of Hyde Park to see how the City’s plan will fit with the larger framework of the Fall Kill Greenway.

Our background research of greenway case studies identified various land acquisition scenarios and provided greenway user information. We interviewed the City Planner of Poughkeepsie and learned about the specific acquisition issues that face the City’s team of greenway planners. In the following paper we outline what we learned about the present greenway projects (referring to both the proposed Fall Kill Greenway and the Waterfront Walkway) in the City of Poughkeepsie. We show how various organizations could potentially benefit the greenway development by providing financial or service-oriented support. As college students with a limited knowledge base but a semester’s worth of research, we suggest that the city communicate with the community and the various organizations so that together they can build support and clarify the motivations behind the greenway. We hope that a dialogue between the community and the planners will facilitate and speed up the development process. We also hope that the greenway planners can use our map, which outlines significant parcels of public land and private land in the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Poughkeepsie, and the Town of Hyde Park that could have interest in greenways, to predict a greenway trail route that maximizes the use of such parcels. The map also shows that the Fall Kill Greenway can potentially link to the Valkill Estate as it moves north out of the City boundary to Hyde Park.

Land Acquisition

For the purposes of our project, we divided land use into two types, public and private. Within the private sector, there are commercial, residential, industrial, mixed-use, and other types of landowners. As indicated by the City Planner, Todd Dreyer, acquiring public land for greenway development is the easiest of all possible forms of land acquisition in the City of Poughkeepsie (pers. comm. 3.27.03). No easements are necessary for acquiring public land. However, because the land is public, designated uses are also a public concern. Currently, the City of Poughkeepsie does not have a formula or criteria for developing greenway projects on public land (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.28.03). There are, however, both formal and informal mechanisms for commentary on such land use changes. For example, the Waterfront Walkway developed on land owned by the Poughkeepsie Urban Renewal Agency involved no public forum or specific processes for its instalment (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.28.03). However, two advisory committees, the Waterfront Advisory and the Shade Tree Commission, chose to involve themselves in the project. Other, less formal, commentary from the public may also influence government decisions on changing public land uses (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.28.03).

Several methods of acquiring private land for greenway development also exist in the City of Poughkeepsie. The most desirable method of land acquisition is a conservation easement. This is a compromise in which the owner of the land sells or donates specific property rights for a portion of his/her land to another party, in this case the City of Poughkeepsie (Easement 2003). The easement outlines the rights of both the owner and the City, specifying that the owner may alter the easement area if they consult the City, but that these potential alterations must not interfere with the easement’s intended use as a walkway (Easement 2003). Steps involved in the conservation easement are outlined in Appendix A. The conservation easement safeguards the property’s development rights in perpetuity, and, in many cases, defines appropriate land use. Additionally, the landowner that donates an easement may save substantially on estate and income taxes (Partigan 1985, Westchester 2003, Twomey no date). Studies have shown that property values of land adjacent or attached to greenways often increase (Fuller et al 2003 in this volume, American Trails no date). See Appendix B for a table that outlines more advantages and disadvantages of conservation easements.

Voluntary purchase is another desirable form of private land acquisition. In this scenario a landowner would voluntarily sell a portion of his/her land to the city of Poughkeepsie for use in a greenway. The last resort for a government to acquire private land is eminent domain. If a landowner refuses to sell or donate an easement the jurisdiction has the power to take the property with “just compensation,” (Haney 2003).

Specific Land Acquisition Issues for Dutchess County’s Greenways

As aforementioned, private land includes residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and others such as farms, land trusts, schools, and churches, to name the most common types. Commercial landowners that serve the public, such as restaurant owners and shopkeepers, may favour greenway development near their property to attract customers and clients. We can look at the Waterfront Walkway development team’s experiences to gain insights into land acquisition issues for the rest of the Walkway and for the Fall Kill Greenway. The City of Poughkeepsie made an easement agreement with one commercial property, Adolpho’s Restaurant, for use in the Waterfront Walkway (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 3.27.03). The desirable waterfront location of Adolpho’s Restaurant, in combination with its proximity to a Walkway, may increase their business.

The neighboring property to Adolpho’s Restaurant, across the Fall Kill, belongs to Central Hudson (see map). The Waterfront Walkway currently reaches the mouth of the Fall Kill at the Hudson River. One option could be to continue the walkway along the waterfront, across a small bridge over the Fall Kill, onto Central Hudson’s land. Central Hudson is not opposed to the idea of a walkway (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.1.03). However, they do not want to relinquish the permanent rights of their land, because such a commitment will prevent potential future use of the land (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.1.03). The development team is then faced with determining other best-fit routes involving landowners willing to contribute to an easement or using public land.

The Fall Kill Greenway, which could be a separate entity from the Waterfront Walkway, as of now is proposed to follow public land and sidewalks as much as possible (pers. comm. Todd Dryer 3.27.03). The map we created shows significant public and non-residential private landowners that may have interest in a greenway passing on or through their property. We organized properties into the following categories: commercial, historic, public (federally, state, or locally owned), and maybe. The “private with possible public interest” category is property with landowners that might approve of a greenway developed on or near their property because of special interest in such a project and includes land trusts, restaurants, community oriented organizations, colleges, and religious organizations. Private land of this type may be easier to acquire due to the mission of the owner. Cooperation may be somewhat unpredictable, but we think parcels in the maybe category have special reason to participate in the greenway. Land trusts in the area of the proposed Fall Kill Greenway include the Winnakee Land Trust and Scenic Hudson Land Trusts in Hyde Park as well as smaller parcels within the city along the Fall Kill (see map). Since land trusts are nonprofit organizations generally dedicated to protecting recreational, natural, scientific and other such resources, mapping a best fit route for the greenway could possibly include land trust parcels. Land trusts may be an excellent partner in easement acquisition for a greenway.

Only one historic site exists within the boundaries of the area we mapped. The Young Morse Historic Site, on the southern boundary, may have interest in a greenway or waterfront walkway near their property should the Waterfront Walkway continue that far south along the Hudson. As Apodaca et al (in this volume) have shown, this area is already considered in another Heritage Trail project involving additional Historic Sites near the property.

Significant commercial properties we identified on the map, such as the Hudson River State Hospital (which is currently in ownership transition) and the Poughkeepsie Shopping Center, may be indifferent to or in support of a greenway. We hope that such properties will be considered in a best-fit greenway route through the mapped area.

Residential parcels are those left unmarked along the trail outlined in the map. We did not include residential parcels as a type of private land desirable for greenway development for several reasons. Since residential parcels are generally smaller in size, especially within the city limits, acquiring portions of the land for a greenway would involve numerous conservation easements for a small area of land. Residential landowners may be less willing to donate/sell their land to a conservation easement for a greenway to pass through their property due to numerous concerns (Berglund et al 2003 in this volume). While their concerns may not be justified by fact or previous cases, they involve real fears whether they are xenophobic, economic, environmental or otherwise (Haney 2003).

Creating a map that outlines significant public and non-residential private landowners that may favor a greenway near their land reminds us that the proposed greenway projects are just that-still proposals. We hope that our map will benefit the greenway development by outlining a best-fit trail scenario to help the proposals come to fruition.

Present Support for the Greenway Projects

As of this writing, the proposed greenway projects seem to be a combined effort of volunteers, students, and city planners. We are unaware of a written mission statement for the proposed Fall Kill Greenway. A mission statement may be a valuable asset to a greenway project. Such a statement may be as simple as choosing a trail concept and establishing goals (Haney 2003). We expect that once involvement with the community increases, together a Greenway support team could create a mission statement, which may address the specific goals of the greenway. Currently, the city’s greenway planners have not spoken to residential landowners about the greenway (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 4.1.03). While the development and implementation of a survey method would require a large amount of work, we found it to be a key step in the development process. Polling residents and inspecting and inventorying the property for the greenway are two key steps in developing a proposed trail (Haney 2003, 2). Slow trail development gives opponents opportunity to rally support against the trail (Haney 2003, 2). Thus, in the interest of reducing opponents who could further delay the trail development, we urge recruiting community support to speed up the proposed greenway development. Stepping into the community and surveying residents could be a first step in rallying support.

As of now, we sense that momentum for the project comes from a variety of interests geared towards enhancing the local economy. The city planner emphasized the economic value of catering to the tourist industry for the greenways (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 3.27.03). User surveys of existing greenways have shown that a higher percentage of users live less than five miles from the trail than those that live greater than eleven miles (Appendix C). We hope that emphasizing the greenways ability to enhance the city’s overall quality of life can increase community investment in the project. Many aspects related to quality of life, such as conditions of people’s health and fitness, natural areas present, accessibility to recreation, and residents’ pride in community, are enhanced by greenway development (Appendix D).

We suggest that the greenway planners focus on addressing tourists’ needs after the needs of the local community are met. While tourist activity in the Hudson Valley tends to be seasonal, it is the local residents who could use the greenway daily for recreation, transportation, and enjoyment year round.

Greenways Built on Community Support

Raleigh’s Capital Hill Area Greenway, in organizing support from both the Sierra Club and community residents, is an excellent model for Poughkeepsie. The city council organized the Raleigh Greenway Commission to which they appointed 15 community residents. This group was responsible for involving local citizens in the planning and acquisition of a greenway. While the government purchased the initial acquisitions, private landowners donated the majority of land now in the greenway, an indication of the project’s success.

Raleigh’s greenway project, like the City of Poughkeepsie, is also financially constrained. However, the Capital Area takes more than half their annual funding from grants ($104,000). Maintenance and construction costs are kept low because volunteers perform many of these tasks. Administrative costs are also kept low because other city departments handle aspects of the program as an extension of their present duties.

Available Support

As we are college students enthusiastic about a greenway in the City of Poughkeepsie and eventually in Dutchess County, we want the proposal to work. Raleigh’s success story on building a greenway from community support, donations, and grants inspired us to research numerous regional and national organizations that we think can help build momentum in the community about the already existing plans for the Waterfront Walkway and the Fall Kill Greenway. In the following sections we provide background on the organizations and how we think they can offer support, be it financial, volunteer, or otherwise.

Many readers of this paper may be familiar with Scenic Hudson, which has a local office in the City of Poughkeepsie. Scenic Hudson has already protected over 18,000 acres of land in the state of New York during their four decades of operation (Scenic Hudson). One of the organization’s specific goals is the reclamation of urban waterfronts—Poughkeepsie’s waterfront revitalization program could be a perfect candidate for Scenic Hudson’s support. According to its goals, which are both environmental and community oriented, the focus is on empowering residents and a diverse group of volunteers (Scenic Hudson). Perhaps Scenic Hudson can create partnerships with local citizen groups, businesses, and government to encourage community planning and environmental awareness about the greenway projects.

The New York Public Interest Resource Group (NYPIRG) has a watershed protection project whose main purpose is to obtain sufficient buffer lands around reservoirs and tributaries for the successful protection of water quality. The program’s web page cites the implementation of sound land use policies as a necessary component in the protection of New York’s water quality. A greenway in Dutchess County, whether it is by the waterfront or along the Fall Kill, would create an integral buffer zone and protect the water quality of the Fall Kill and the Hudson River. While NYPIRG has set priority areas in the New York City area, perhaps its project could be used as both a model and a resource in acquiring buffer lands within the city of Poughkeepsie.

The Hudson River Foundation, whose mission is to make science integral to decision making regarding the Hudson River and its watersheds, could help maintain interest in Poughkeepsie’s greenway projects. The Foundation supports programs that communicate and educate policy makers, the scientific community, and the public on environmental issues surrounding the river as well as initiatives to enhance the management of the ecosystems in the river’s watersheds (Hudson River Foundation 2003). In 2002, the Foundation’s Hudson River Improvement Fund awarded about $90,000 for projects focused on access to the waterfront, habitat, and education (Hudson River Foundation 2003). The greenway projects could easily fall into the categories of programs that this foundation would readily support.

The Institute for Ecosystem Studies, located close by in Millbrook, NY, may be interested in promoting the ecological value of the greenway. The Institute’s mission is to create, disseminate, and apply ecological knowledge (Institute no date). Many of the institute’s staff members have extensive experience incorporating urban ecology into urban development projects. IES staff may be able to contribute their knowledge of urban hydrology and stream morphology to study how a greenway along the Fall Kill could serve as a buffer zone between human and riparian habitats.

The Family Partnership Center, located in the Town of Poughkeepsie, houses agencies that offer services to the community, ranging from organizations that promote community and voluntarism to ones that provide lunch to homeless and needy people of the community. Peter Leonard, the Director of Field Work at Vassar College, works closely with the Center. He affirmed that both the City and the Town could advertise the Fall Kill Greenway Project at the Family Partnership Center (pers. comm. Peter Leonard 4.16.03). However, Leonard did not feel that flyers would be the best way to solicit community involvement, advising that “people are not inspired by information but by imagination” (pers. comm. 4.16.03). Flyers could be the City’s “easy way out” but if the City’s true goal is to involve everyone they may need to provide a more creative and personalized incentive for these constituents. Leonard believed that art was quite possibly the most powerful tool the community could easily utilize to motivate such a broad constituency (pers. comm. 4.16.03). A commitment to involve the center would require hard work and creativity but we believe it would also be a worthwhile investment. The people that visit the Center may build a truly diverse community support team for the Greenway Project to help more fully meet the needs of the City and Town of Poughkeepsie.

Lastly, Clearwater, The Trust for Public Land, the Sierra Club, and local bike enthusiast groups are other organizations that might offer resources to an environmentally aware greenway project in Poughkeepsie.

We have also researched several grant-based and technical support opportunities for Poughkeepsie’s greenways. The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, part of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991, has already allocated $257,000 in funds to the City of Poughkeepsie for waterfront improvements at Waryas Park (Press Release 2002). In addition to the Bond Act, the Greenway Act offers other funding opportunities that Poughkeepsie may still be eligible to apply. The Hudson River Valley Greenway Council awards matching planning grants, up to $10,000 for single municipality projects, to communities who vote to become a Greenway Community (Mantello 2002, 4). To become a Greenway Community the local governing body must first pass a resolution that states the community’s agreement, in general terms, with the five “Greenway Criteria” as stated in the Greenway Act (McHenry 2002, 1). We suspect that involving the community will speed up the greenway development process and open up more grant money opportunities.

In addition to the Communities Grant Program, the Hudson River Valley Council also awards grants to communities that adopt a regional or subregional Greenway Compact plan. (Mantello 2002, 4). The Greenway Compact Grant Program provides 50% matching grants, on a reimbursement basis, for municipalities that develop, approve, and implement a regional compact strategy that is consistent with the Greenway criteria and the Greenway Act (Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council no date b). There are three phases of funding under this program: (1) Compact development and approval; (2) community Compact adoption; and (3) Compact implementation (Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council no date b). By increasing community involvement, greenway planners will open up the time to develop a compact and receive money for it at each stage of its development.

The Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley, Inc. is another public benefit corporation created by the Greenway Act of 1991. The Conservancy provides two grant programs: (1) a projects grant program; and (2) a trails grant program, as well as technical assistance to municipalities and nonprofit organizations, all of which could apply to Poughkeepsie (Hudson River Valley Greenway 2003).

The New York State Environmental Protection Fund, available annually, is another valuable potential resource for the Poughkeepsie Greenway (pers. comm. Todd Dreyer 3.27.03). The Fund provides mechanisms for open space conservation and land acquisition (NYS DEC 2003, 1). We hope that interested members of the community can use our paper and these outlines organizations as a resource when seeking additional support for the Greenways.

Conclusion

Various methods exist for acquiring public and private land for greenway development. Public land in the City of Poughkeepsie is easier to obtain than private land for greenway development since no easement is needed. However, various types of private land other than residential, such as commercial or mixed-use, may have interest in a greenway. The map we created outlines significant parcels of public land and non-residential private land in the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Poughkeepsie, and the Town of Hyde Park that could have interest in greenways. We hope that the Fall Kill Greenway planners can use our map to predict a greenway trail route that maximizes the use of such parcels.

Greenways can enhance the local urban area not just economically through tourism, but also through the value of preserving ecology and the environment by conserving additional land. Various organizations that support environmental conservation can provide economic and service oriented support for the Greenways.

We believe that, as of now, the preliminary Fall Kill Greenway design needs support and community involvement to build momentum in getting off the ground. In our opinion, and as the Capital Area Greenway in Raleigh shows, involving both community and organizational support for the Greenway projects will help build the necessary momentum for the continuation of the Waterfront Walkway and construction of the Fall Kill Greenway. We hope that with such involvement the Greenway team can clarify the motivations behind the project and help it come to fruition.

Figure 1. Public lands and lands whose owners have some public participation.

Lands shown are those in proximity to possible greenway routes along the Fall Kill and the Hudson River. Many of the larger private land owners may be amenable to cooperation with greenway development as its benefits to the community are demonstrated.

Bibliography

American Trails. (no date). “Property Values and Landowner Concerns.” website: http://americantrails.org/resources/adjacent/BandOproperty.html

Apodaca, C., B. Hughes and M. Trauten. 2003. “Poughkeepsie Heritage Trail South: Connecting historic sites of Southern Poughkeepsie.” Geography 355 Report. NY: Vassar College. (in this volume).

Berglund, T., M. MacPherson and L. Schinasi. 2003. “Liability and Maintenance Issues for Greenway Trails.” Geography 355 Report. NY: Vassar College. (in this volume).

Fuller, N., L. Gloster, N. Handelman, and E. Loose. 2003. “A Socio-economic and Geologic Survey of Successful U.S. Greenway Projects.” Geography 355 Report. NY: Vassar College. (in this volume).

Furuseth, Owen J., Robert E. Altman. 1991. “Who’s on the Greenway – Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Locational Characteristics of Greenway Users.” Environmental Management 15: 329-336.

Haney, Douglas C. 2003. “Lessons Learned in a Rails-to-Trails Conversion.” American Planning Association PAS Memo.

Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research. (no date). website: http://www.hudsonriver.org/. Accessed: April 2003.

Hudson River Valley Greenway. 2003. “Funding Available from the Greenway.” website: http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/funding.htm

Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council. (no date a). “Guidelines and Application for the Hudson River Valley Greenway Water Trail Grant Program.”

website: http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/watertrgrant.pdf Accessed: April 2003.

Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council. (no date b). “Guidelines and Application for the Greenway Compact Grant Program.” website:

http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/compgrant.pdf Accessed: April 2003.

Institute of Ecosystem Studies. (no date). “Mission Statement.” website: http://www.ecostudies.org/about.html. Accessed: April 2003.

Jackson, Arthur. 1982. “The Capital Area Greenway program: private land goes public [system of linear parks constructed primarily along the major creeks and streams that pass through the city of Raleigh, N.C.].” Carolina Planning 8: 32-4.

Lindsey, Greg. 1998. “A Note on the Use of Urban Greenways.” Teresa A. Bennett ed. Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University.

Mantello, Carmella R. and Barbara Kendall. 2002. “Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 2002 Hudson River Valley Greenway Projects Grant Application and Instructions.” website: http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/2002%20Bond%20Act1.pdf

McHenry, Barnabas and Carmella R. Mantello. 2002. “Guidelines and Application for the Greenway Communities Grant Program.” Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council. website: http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/funding/commgrant.pdf

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. “Environmental Protection Fund.” website: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/opensp/opepf14.html

New York Public Interest Research Group. (no date). “Watershed Protection Project Land Acquisition Program.” website: http://www.nypirg.org/enviro/water/acquisition.html Accessed: April 2003.

Ohm, Brian W. 2000. “The Purchase of Scenic Easements and Wisconsin’s Great River Road.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66: 177.

Partigan, John C. 1985. “New York’s Conservation Easement Statute: The Property Interest and Its Real Property and Federal Income Tax Consequences.” Albany Law Review 49: 430-477.

Press Release. May 3, 2002. “Governor: Waterfront Improvements in Dutchess County.” website: http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year02/may3_6_02.htm

Scenic Hudson. (no date). “About Us.” website: http://www.scenichudson.org/ Accessed: April 2003.

Shafer, C. Scott, Bong Koo Lee, Shawn Turner. (2000). “A Tale of Three Greenway Trails: User Perceptions Related to Quality of Life.” Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 163-178.

Trust For Public Land. 2002. “National Programs.” website: http://www.tpl.org/tier2_cl.cfm?folder_id=173

Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley, LLP. (no date). “Conservation Easements May Save Donors Both Current Income and Future Estate Taxes.” website: http://suffolklaw.com/RealEstateConservationEasements.htm Accessed: April, 2003.

Westchester Land Trust. 2003. “How to Preserve Your Property by Creating a Conservation Easement.” website: http://www.westchesterlandtrust.org/wlt10270.htm

Wright, John B. 1993. “Conservation easements: an analysis of donated development rights.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59: 487(7).

Appendix A

Steps in the conservation easement process:

1. Initial meeting with landowner
2. Landowner consults advisers
3. Title information
4. Baseline study and qualification
5. Negotiate easement restrictions
6. Easement appraisal- tax benefits
7. Notify local planning board
8. Easement finalized
9. Easement deed filed
10. Stewardship- monitoring and enforcement

Source:

Wright, John B. 1993. “Conservation easements: an analysis of donated development rights.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59: 487(7).

Appendix B

Evaluating Donated Conservation Easements

Advantages	Disadvantages
Voluntary: acceptable compared with government regulations	Voluntary: landowner can choose not to donate
Financial compensation: federal income, estate, capital gains tax relief for donor	Financial compensation: vulnerable to changes in tax laws, many landowners have no tax shelter needs
Creative technique: flexible designs possible	Complex: long learning period for proper use
Negotiation-based	Training needed in negotiation skills
Permanence: perpetual easements	Permanence: perpetual monitoring and enforcement responsibility and expense
Nonbureaucratic application mostly by land trusts	Lack of coordination of land trust efforts with local comprehensive plans
Open space protection as primary purpose	Possible obstruction of needed development
Record: 1,000,000 acres under donated easements	Record: not widely used in some regions of the U.S.

Source:

Wright, John B. 1993. “Conservation easements: an analysis of donated development rights.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59: 487(7).

Appendix C

Table 1: Distance Users Travel to Use the Capital Area Greenway

McAlpine Greenway: Distance From User’s Residence
Less than 1 mile	18.0%
1 to 5 miles	52.0%
6 to 10 miles	21.0%
Over 10 miles	9.0%

Table 2: Distance Users Travel to Use the McAlpine Greenway

Capital Area Greenway: Distance From User’s Residence
Less than .99 miles	16.0%
1 to 1.99 miles	10.7%
2 to 4.99 miles	32.0%
5 to 10.99 miles	31.7%
Over 11 miles	9.6%

Source:

Furuseth, Owen J., Robert E. Altman. “Whos on the Greenway – Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Locational Characteristics of Greenway Users.” Environmental Management 15: 329-336.

Table 3: Distance Users Travel to Use the Canal Towpath and Monon Trail

Distance from residence to trail	Canal Towpath (% of sample)	Monon Trail (% of sample)
< ¼ mile	25	7
¼- ½ mile	24	13
½ - 1 mile	15	9
1-3 miles	19	36
4-5 miles	8	22
6-10 miles	3	7
> 10 miles	3	6

Source:

Lindsey, Greg. 1998. “A Note on the Use of Urban Greenways.” Teresa A. Bennett ed.

Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, Indiana University.

Appendix D

Quality of Life Items Ranked by Greenway Users on Three Different Trails

Quality of life item	Overall sample			Brays Bayou			Shoal Creek			Buffalo Bayou
	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Mean	S.D.	Rank
Natural areas present	4.38	0.70	2	4.14	0.76	2	4.57	0.67	1	4.50	0.56	1
Access to public transportation	3.18	0.79	152	3.29	0.81	15	3.20	0.76	15	3.01	0.79	15
Amount of pollution	3.55	0.94	11	3.53	0.89	10	3.71	0.92	11	3.41	0.99	12
New business development	2.89	0.77	19	2.86	0.81	20	2.85	0.74	19	2.96	0.74	18
Opportunity for other transportation use	3.87	0.95	8	3.99	0.87	6	3.97	0.92	8	3.61	1.03	9
Accessibility to shopping areas	3.0	0.82	17	3.21	0.82	16	2.99	0.81	17	2.74	0.74	20
Social interaction among residents	3.9	0.79	7	3.87	0.74	8	4.15	0.72	7	3.69	0.84	8
Conditions of people’s health and fitness	4.48	0.56	1	4.47	0.57	1	4.53	0.57	2	4.46	0.52	2
Time spent for shopping	2.89	0.75	19	2.96	0.75	18	2.85	0.81	19	2.85	0.71	19
Accessibility to work/school	3.38	0.91	13	3.48	0.90	12	3.38	0.90	13	3.27	0.94	13
Cost of transportation	3.21	0.9	14	3.31	0.85	14	3.27	0.91	14	3.03	0.93	14
Residents’ pride in community	4.14	0.77	5	4.03	0.76	5	4.35	0.74	6	4.06	0.78	5
Time spent on commuting	3.08	0.82	16	3.16	0.79	17	3.03	0.83	16	3.01	0.85	15
Diversity in types of industry	2.95	0.80	18	2.93	0.82	19	2.94	0.82	18	2.99	0.75	17
Accessibility to recreation	4.33	0.70	3	4.16	0.76	4	4.53	0.57	2	4.33	0.69	3
Land use patterns	4.27	0.70	4	4.14	0.68	2	4.48	0.66	4	4.23	0.71	4
Equity among different residents	3.74	0.86	10	3.75	0.79	9	3.91	0.92	9	3.56	0.84	10
Place for wildlife	3.78	0.96	9	3.52	1.04	11	3.91	0.96	9	3.98	0.80	7
Economic growth	3.49	0.84	12	3.40	0.85	13	3.52	0.81	12	3.56	0.85	10
Features contributing to community identity	4.12	0.79	6	3.97	0.78	7	4.43	0.61	5	4.02	0.87	6

*Mean values were calculated based on a five-point scale where 1: poorly, 2: fairly well, 3: well, 4: very well, 5: extremely well.

Source:

Shafer, C. Scott, Bong Koo Lee, Shawn Turner. (2000). “A Tale of Three Greenway Trails: User Perceptions Related to Quality of Life.” Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 163-178.