Charles M. Nelson, Associate Professor Jenni S. Lee, Ph. D. Student Michael D. Nelson, Research Assistant Christine Vogt, Professor Dept. of Community Sustainability, MSU

Trails Do a Community Good! Promote health and fitness Provide transportation Link communities, neighbors, schools & businesses Place-based attraction for recreational visitors Pride point for local community Fun, family friendly activity Relatively easy to maintain Attract many community, state and federal partners Multi-purpose in many instances

Trails and their Users in MI Motorized trails Snowmobile Off-road vehicles (ORV) Non-motorized trails Hiking/Walking Run Backpacking (camping and hiking) Bicycling Road, hard surface trail and mountain bicycling Equestrian Cross country skiing

Michigan’s Motorized Trail Network Snowmobiling State of Michigan program 6,400 miles with half on private land with permission In Northern 2/3 of MI with a little along coast in SW MI Clear dedicated operations funding from registration, trail permit & gas tax $ Nelson 2010 Statewide Study cuments/dnr/SNOWMOBIL E-RPT_322022_7.pdf. cuments/dnr/SNOWMOBIL E-RPT_322022_7.pdf

Michigan’s Motorized Trail Network ORV Riding State of Michigan program 3,600 miles with all on public lands, mostly state forests in northern 2/3 of MI UP state forest road system another 4,000+ miles Clear dedicated operations funding from ORV license & trail permit $ Nelson 2010 Statewide ORV study uments/dnr/ORV2010ReportFi nal_327707_7.pdf uments/dnr/ORV2010ReportFi nal_327707_7.pdf

Michigan’s Non-Motorized Trail Network Mix of federal, state & local programs 3,000 + miles mostly on publicly owned lands Statewide moderately connected system Significant overlap with state snowmobile system on rail-trails in N 2/3 of MI No clear operations funding system with no user pay, no statewide dedicated sources A few trails have dedicated endowments from major donors No license/permit program = no easy way to assess use/users Nelson and Vogt have conducted trail use/user assessments for local and state governments on 14 different non-motorized trail systems since 2000 Reports on previous studies found at:

Non-Motorized Trail Use

Current Project Partnership Emmet County Michigan DNR Top of Michigan Trails Council MSU Center for Economic and Community Development MSU Extension Assess Memorial Day Saturday – Labor Day 2014 use and users

Study Use/Users on 3 Trails Little Traverse Wheelway (LTW) Bay Harbor-Harbor Springs NW State Trail (NWST) Petoskey-Alanson

North Central State Trail (NCST) Indian River Cheboygan

North Central State Trail Topinabee – Depot and Park Wolverine – Rondo Road Access/Sturgeon River Bridge

Observe Use/Administer Survey Count all users going one direction for 3 hour period Request survey participation every 5 minutes

Representative Sample Days/Times Three sites on LTW Harbor Springs, Petoskey, Bay Harbor One site on NWST at DNR Fisheries Interpretive Center in Oden Four sites on NCST Cheboygan, Topinabee, Indian River, Rondo Rd. Access 4 weekend days + 8 weekdays per site across 4 time periods 8-11AM; 11AM-2PM; 2-5PM; 5-8PM Sample rain, shine, warm, cold Accurate reflection of use and users Extra sampling on NWST as only one site to insure adequate representation

LTW Use Estimates Memorial Day Saturday – Labor Day 2014 Weekend use (Saturday, Sunday, holidays) 18,383 uses Weekday use 41,242 uses Total use 59,625 uses Type of use 70% bicycling, 30% foot, <1% in-line skate Type of user 80%Adults, 20%Children

NWST Use Estimates Memorial Saturday – Labor Day 2014 Weekend use (Saturday, Sunday, holidays) 3,447 uses Weekday use 5,860 uses Total use 9,307 uses Type of use 87% bicycling, 12% foot, 1% in-line skate Type of user 76%Adults, 24%Children

NCST Use Estimates Memorial Saturday – Labor Day 2014 Weekend use (Saturday, Sunday, holidays) 6,107 uses Weekday use 10,978 uses Total use 17,085 uses Type of use 63% bicycling, 37% foot, 0% in-line skate Type of user 64%Adults, 36%Children

Survey Results A total of 810 trail users requested to complete survey Response from 461 for a 57% response rate Three primary reasons for non-response In midst of vigorous exercise, don’t want to stop Especially road bicyclists and runners Did survey earlier in the summer – Frequent users Not interested Age influences ability to read survey, especially during trail use Often didn’t have near vision glasses, turned into interview for survey administrators

Survey Data Analysis Un-weighted data Provides information per trail use experience Spending Origin Activity motivation Time on trail Distance traveled Weighted data Provides information per user without frequency of use bias Weight by reciprocal of use during summer (1/# summer uses) Opinions on trail improvements Demographics Market segmentation information

Origin of LTW Trail Uses and Previous Night Lodging Origin of trail uses on LTW 82% Primary residence MI, 18% out-of state 32% Emmet County, 15% Charlevoix County, 53% elsewhere 26% own a second home 33% 2nd homes in Emmet Co., 26% Charlevoix Co., 42% elsewhere Previous night lodging for LTW uses 53% principal home, 14% 2 nd home, 13% motel/hotel, 9% friends/relatives, 6% public campground, 2% private campground, 2% elsewhere

Origin of NWST Trail Uses and Previous Night Lodging Origin of trail uses on NWST 90% Primary residence MI, 10% out-of state 38% Emmet County, 12% Charlevoix County, 50% elsewhere 22% own a second home 43% 2nd homes in Emmet Co., 7% Charlevoix Co., 50% elsewhere Previous night lodging for NWST uses 66% principal home, 12% motel/hotel, 8% 2 nd home, 8% friends/relatives, 4% public campground, 1% private campground, 2% elsewhere

Origin of NCST Trail Uses and Previous Night Lodging Origin of trail uses on NCST 93% Primary residence MI, 7% out-of state 65% Cheboygan County, 1% Emmet, 34% elsewhere 18% own a second home 44% 2nd homes in Cheboygan Co., 6% Emmet Co., 50% elsewhere Previous night lodging for NCST uses 56% principal home, 14% motel/hotel, 12% 2 nd home, 8% friends/relatives, 7% public campground, 2% private campground

Purposes of Trail Uses Purpose of trail visitAll LTW (a) Most imp. LTW All NWST (a) Most imp. NWST All NCST (a) Most imp. NCST Recreation64%50%72%57%51%41% Normal exercise Training level exercise Transportation TotalNA100NA100NA100 (a) Multiple purposes for trail use commonly reported

Distance and Means to Access Trail Median distance to trail from last night’s lodging 5 miles 1 miles Means of Accessing TrailLTWNWSTNCST Drove vehicle47%48%30% Bicycle Foot Public transit<100 Other101 Total100

Activities During Trail Uses ActivitiesActivities (a)Most Important Activity LTWNWSTNCSTLTWNWSTNCST Bicycle Walking Eat in restaurant Socialize Run/jog Shop Walk pet In-line skate100<100 Other (b) Nature observation (b) Total (a) multiple ans. possible on activities NA 100

Spending During Trail Uses CategoryLTWNWSTNCST % Uses with spending during trail use 51%46%54% Mean spending of those who spent during trail use $40.29$28.57$21.87 Median spending of those who spent during trail use $25.00$20.00$10.00 Estimated local spending for all trail uses during study period using median spending $760,219$85,624$92,259 % of spenders who spent more in the area due to the trail 37%32%

Characteristics of Trail Uses CharacteristicsLTWNWSTNCST Median length of trail use in hours2 hours Mean size of trail use group2.2 people2.4 people % of trail use groups with one member40% 33% % of group members female50%47%51% % of group members age 40 or younger37%31%49% Mean satisfaction rating of trail use experience with 9=highly satisfied and 1=highly dissatisfied

How Distinct Users 1 st Learned of Trail MethodLTWNWSTNCST Live here/know about it30%17%30% Saw trail once in the area Friends/relatives Local/state map10158 Internet833 Service employee at hotel, restaurant, etc.333 Participation in trail event242 Media (TV, newspaper, etc.)176 Total100

Use of Trail During Past Year and Sense of Security on Trail LTW Mean distinct summer user 5.9 uses annually Rated sense of security of 8.5 on a scale of 9=highly secure to 1=highly insecure NWST Mean distinct summer user 6.4 uses annually Rated sense of security of 8.6 on a scale of 9=highly secure to 1=highly insecure NCST Mean distinct summer user 8.0 uses annually Rated sense of security of 8.4 on a scale of 9=highly secure to 1=highly insecure

One Most Important Improvement ImprovementLTWNWSTNCST More drinking fountains More separation from roads14217 More signage/trail maps1370 Better trail surface13555 More benches107 More restrooms82214 More trailheads/access points580 More bike maintenance stations (a) other on NCST questionnaire 263 (a) More bike racks/stands (a) other on NCST questionnaire 05 Better security000 Total100

Use of Nearby Trails in Past Year Area Trails/SegmentsLTWNWSTNCST LTW100% 44% NWST Petoskey to Alanson NCST Indian River - Cheboygan NCST Wolverine – Indian River NCST Gaylord - WolverineNA 27 NCST Cheboygan – Mackinaw CityNA 29 NEST Alpena - CheboyganNA 8

Ownership of Trail Equipment EquipmentLTWNWSTNCST Bicycle98%100%97% Kayak X-C skis Canoe10822 Snowmobile8525 ORV858 Horse322 Electric Assist Bicycle000

Distinct User Demographics Demographic CharacteristicsLTWNWSTNCST MI residents83%88%90% Female51%42%37% Mean age50 years53 years51 years Age range20-80 years20-85 years19-80 years

Considerations Across Trails Adults are the majority of users during summer Recreation and fitness are both important purposes Bicycling is the most common summer trail use In-line skating has almost disappeared 81 thousand summertime trail uses Almost a million dollars in local spending in study period during trail experiences Often dependent on opportunity to spend Important quality of life asset for residents, second home owners and tourists Many important ways to first learn about trails Strong sense of personal security on trails

LTW Considerations Busiest trail with use levels comparable to similarly built southern MI trails with greater population base Key improvements suggested by distinct users More drinking fountains More separation from roads (northern end) More signage/maps (lots of tourists) Improved trail surface (variable across Emmet Co.) More benches No electric assist bicycles seen or ownership reported

NWST Considerations Newest trail with smoothest surface and moderate use Being discovered as opened in summer 2013 Use likely to rise substantially in future Highest level of satisfaction with trail uses Highest sense of security for distinct users Key improvements suggested by distinct users More restrooms More separation from roads (difficult as railroad grade) More drinking fountains

NCST Considerations Highest % of foot use, child use and transportation use Indian River and Topinabee trailheads, trail is the local transportation method of choice Shopping/eating opportunities with great beach/park at Topinabee Rondo Road BAS, an isolated trail through the woods More of a river access than trailhead with no place to spend Cheboygan trailhead First rate snowmobile trailhead, but less welcoming of summer users No place to spend Key improvements suggested by distinct users Improved trail surface (not likely to pave due to importance of snowmobile use and funding) More restrooms, drinking fountains and benches

Conclusion Trails are substantial asset to region, genuinely appreciated Use trails to attract visitors in every season Asset to better connect region through trail use and users Community Events along trail Fund raisers for community causes Link land to water trails Modified triathlons When considering improvements, site low maintenance facilities that provide reasonable levels of comfort Keep all users in mind, novices to expert, resident to visitor