BTS Navigation Bar

NTL Menu


Analysis of economic impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail




Click HERE for graphic.



                  ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE
                      NORTHERN CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL


                               JUNE 1994


                             Prepared for:

                     Maryland Greenways Commission
               Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                      Tawes State Office Building
                          Annapolis, Maryland

                             Prepared by:

                            PKF Consulting



Click HERE for graphic.


May 16, 1994                                 2121 Eisenhower Avenue    
                                             Suite 500
                                             Alexandria VA 22314
Ms. Teresa Moore
Executive Director                           Telephone (703) 684-5589
Maryland Greenways Commission                Telefax (704) 684-5598
Department of Natural Resources
D-3
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401


Dear Ms. Moore:

We are pleased to present our findings and conclusions regarding our
assessment of the current direct, indirect and induced economic
impacts resulting from the establishment of the Northern Central Rail
Trail (NCRT) in Baltimore County, Maryland.  Our study was undertaken
in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our correspondence
dated August 23, 1993, and agreed upon on October 20, 1993.

Pursuant to the work plan, we have conducted a thorough and focused
investigation regarding the influence that the NCRT has on tourism,
property values, commercial uses, local resident expenditures, public
sector expenditures and the qualitative factors in users and nearby
property owners quality of life.

As indicated in our proposal, PKF utilized a variety of data gathering
techniques.  Our findings and conclusions are based on the results of
three surveys - one distributed directly to users of the NCRT, a
second to property owners in and around the area and a third to local
business establishments that may be impacted by the presence of the
Trail.  In addition, numerous interviews, online data sources, and
other information sources were used to obtain the necessary data and
qualifiers used as the basis of this report.  The data obtained was
then synthesized and evaluated through the use of the IMPLAN input-
output economic model; final economic modeling is a result of this
approach.

              Member, Pannell Kerr Forster International



The quantitative findings expressed herein are not based on
hypothetical models, rather proven techniques and objective data
gathering by PKF's staff.  Qualitative factors are expressed in this
report as an aggregation of responses from the various survey
questions directly related to each topic.  The following report
constitutes a summary of our findings.

We express our appreciation to you, your associates, government
officials and the Park's personnel for the cooperation extended to us
during the course of our engagement.


                              Sincerely,
                              PKF Consulting


                              Walter C. Williams
                              Senior Vice President



                           Acknowledgements

PKF Consulting would like to express its appreciation for the
assistance, knowledge, and contributions that were provided to us by:

Ms. Teresa Moore, Executive Director, Maryland Greenways Commission

Mr. Edward T. McMahon, Director, American Greenways Program

Mr. David Burwell, Rails to Trails Conservancy

Mr. Earl Copenhaver, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Mike Browning, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. William Hughey, Baltimore County Planning and Zoning Department

Additionally, we would like to thank the numerous other staff and
personnel at Maryland Department of Natural Resources who assisted PKF
Consulting during the course of this engagement.



                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  Page
PREFACE

SECTION I:     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   I-1

SECTION II:    THE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . .  II-1

SECTION III:   TRENDS IN MARYLAND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION. . .   III-1

SECTION IV:    BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
               NORTHERN CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL


  Physical and Locational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1
  Northern Central Rail Trail Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 3
  Demographic and Climactic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 4
  Qualitative Values of the Northern Central Rail Trail. . . . . IV- 5
  Survey Results and Analysis Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 6
  Aggregate Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 9
  Methodology and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19
  Survey Area Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-23
  Northern Central Rail Trail Historical Attendance. . . . . . . IV-27
  Northern Central Rail Trail Monthly Attendance Analysis. . . . IV-28
  Northern Central Rail Trail Road Access Points . . . . . . . . IV-39
  Average Temperature Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40
  Northern Central Rail Trail Entrance Corridors . . . . . . . . IV-41
  Economic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-43
  Impacts on Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-48

APPENDICES

  A.  ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES
  B.  BIBLIOGRAPHY



                               PREFACE:

PKF's approach to study the economic impacts of the Northern Central
Rail Trail (NCRT) involved the investigation of seven subject
categories: tourism, property values, commercial uses, local resident
expenditures, public sector expenditures, qualitative factors, and
overall benefits.  As expressed in the methodology section of this
report, a major contributor toward the conclusions of this study was
the use of three surveys to directly assess residents', trail users',
and businesses' attitudes toward the resource.  Accordingly, the basis
of this report summary is the presentation of the survey questions
with aggregate responses.  In addition, appropriate cross tabulations
and extrapolations are presented within the body of the text.



                               Section I


                           Executive Summary



                                                                   I-1

                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

America's concern for the environment and enhanced understanding of
our recreational needs has brought about a recent evolution in open
space preservation.  This evolution, or "revolution" in land
conservation/recreation planning has created a broad interest in the
development of greenways.  This report addresses this evolution at
three distinct levels:

   -  First, a national perspective on greenways is provided by Edward
      T. McMahon, Director of the American Greenways Program.

   -  Second, a synopsis of greenway initiatives in the state of
      Maryland is provided by Ms. Teresa Moore, Executive Director,
      Maryland Greenways Commission.

   -  Lastly, an analysis of the Northern Central Rail Trail Greenway
      in Baltimore County, Maryland conducted by PKF Consulting
      reveals the economic and qualitative impacts of a new greenway
      resource.

Based upon our analysis, we are of the opinion that the Northern
Central Rail Trail (NCRT) provides a number of substantial economic
and qualitative benefits to the people of Maryland.  Perhaps the most
significant economic finding of this study is that while the 1993
budget to provide the Trail to the public was $191,893, the direct
economic inputs to the State via tax revenue alone were $303,750. 
Additionally, we estimate the Trail supports 264 jobs statewide.  The
value of goods purchased because of the NCRT for 1993 is estimated to
total in excess of $3,380,000.

The attractiveness and demand for use of the Trail can best be
illustrated by the tremendous growth in the Trail's use, from under
10,000 visitors per annum in 1984 to over 450,000 in 1993 - equating
to a compound annual attendance growth rite of 53 percent per year. 
Coinciding with this expression of interest were a number of key
survey findings, such as:

   -  93.72 percent of the survey respondents felt the Northern
      Central Rail.  Trail is a good use of State funds.

   -  Two-thirds of respondents liked greenways better than
      traditional, more confined parks.



                                                                   I-2

   -  Over 95 percent of respondents view the Trail as an asset to
      their community.

   -  Less than 2 percent of respondents felt unsafe on the Trail.

   -  Nearly two-thirds of respondents felt the trail enhances nearby
      property values.

The NCRT is clearly recognized by residents as an asset for the
region, especially the local community.  As the survey findings
demonstrate, nearly 100 percent of the Trail's users come from
Baltimore County, and as a percentage of Trail users nearly 80 percent
use the Trail at least once per week.

While some greenways have diverse attendance segments and can
significantly increase tourism, others like the (NCRT) are used
primarily as a passive recreation resource (walking, biking) primarily
by local residents.  Not only did the surveys indicate this, but the
visitor logs from Monkton Station from 1989-1993 all support this
finding.  The reason for the NCRT's use primarily by residents can be
attributed to both its location (in a suburban to rural bedroom market
for Baltimore), it's relatively new presence in the market (10 years),
limited signage to the resource from major travel corridors, and lack
of commercial development along its length.

Consequently, there are relatively few establishments to capture
tourism dollars.  However, this market is beginning to grow as is
shown by the emergence of tourist related businesses at Monkton
Station and elsewhere along the trail.  The NCRT's recognition as a
local resource is a remarkable accomplishment.  Before it was
redeveloped as a greenway, the rail corridor was a "magnet" for
illegal dumping, vandalism, and illicit uses by adolescents and
others.  Now, as a prized local resource, the NCRT is "policed' by
residents and problems along the corridor have decreased dramatically.

With regard to user expenditures detailed in the economic impacts
section of this report, Trail users who had purchased goods for use on
the Trail spent an average of $203 in 1993.  Similarly, users who
purchased soft goods (food etc.) before or after using the Trail spent
an average of $6.30 per visit.



                                                                   I-3

To understand the Trail's success one must recognize the forces that
have led to its popularity.  Two general areas of interest lead:
safety and passive recreation.  The interest in safety for walkers,
runners and especially bicyclists (who together make up almost 98
percent of the Trail's users) reflects a lack of other safe areas to
congregate.  To that end, the NCRT fills a critical gap for the
surrounding region.  Tied into this need are some basic trends:

1) An aging population - in six more years, at the turn of the century
over 40 percent of the U.S. population will be over 60 years of age -
and already Baltimore County has the second oldest population per
capita of any county in the U.S. (Dade County, Florida is number one.)

2) More bicycles are sold in the United States than are automobiles. 
Nearly all respondents mentioned there are relatively few places near
their homes where bicyclists can safely ride.

3) The most popular recreation activity in the United States is
walking; over 100 million Americans participate in this activity 2 to
3 times per week.

4) Current land development and housing patterns remain focused
outside urban core areas and center on rural and suburban areas. 
These areas provide relatively inexpensive land, good travel
corridors, better schools, support facilities (shopping areas) and
less crime than more urban settings.

Knowing these facts it is no small wonder why the Trail is so popular. 
That popularity is not limited to Maryland; presently the section of
the former Northern Central rail corridor that runs from the
Maryland/Pennsylvania state line north toward York, Pennsylvania is
also being redeveloped as a trail corridor.  As the rail corridor was
redeveloped as a greenway a new life has been given to the historic
hamlets along its route, and a new generation of businesses are
beginning to establish a relationship with the Trail.  Even some
smaller, local businesses such as bike shops, with sales of just over
$1,000,000 per year estimate that one quarter of their business comes
from users of the Northern Central.

Worth noting are ongoing negotiations between the Maryland Department 


                                                                   I-4

of Natural Resources (DNR) and MCI Telecommunications Company.  At the
time of this writing MCI is offering DNR $200,000 to be used for
improvements to the trail as specified by DNR ($26,316 per mile used). 
MCI is making this offer in agreement for a non-exclusive perpetual
license agreement to use 7.6 miles of the NCRT corridor right-of-way
for fiber optics routing.  These ongoing discussions (near completion)
emphasize another intrinsic value long touted for greenways - as
infrastructure corridors.



                              Section II


                       The National Perspective



                                  by


                           Edward T. McMahon


                 Director, American Greenways Program



                                                                  II-1

                             Introduction

   The United States's first national park was created at Yellowstone,
Wyoming, in 1872, to preserve the site's unique geysers and other
natural features.  Since then, the park system has expanded to include
many other areas noted for their extraordinary natural and cultural
resources.

   Over the past century, America has invested enormous sums of money
in our federal and state parks, forests, and preserves.  While we have
the finest national park system in the world, most of these parks tend
to be far from where people live and are limited in their ability to
meet the growing diversity of America's recreation and conservation
needs.  Increasingly, outdoor recreation occurs close to home, in or
near the cities and suburbs where 80 percent of Americans live and
work.  As a result, in 1987, the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors recommended the establishment of a national "network of
greenways to provide people with access to open spaces close to where
they live, and to link together the rural and urban open space in the
American landscape."

   The Commission also called for a "prairie fire of local action" to
implement the greenway concept. Today, this prairie fire has ignited,
and greenways are being developed in hundreds of communities across
the country.



                                                                  11-2

What is a greenway?

   greenway (gren'-wa) n. 1. A linear open space established along
   either a natural corridor, such as a riverfront, stream valley, or
   ridgeline, or overland along a railroad right-of-way converted to
   recreational use, a canal, a scenic road, or other route. 2. Any
   natural or landscaped course for pedestrian or bicycle passage. 3.
   An open-space connector linking parks, nature reserves, cultural
   features, or historic sites with each other and with populated
   areas. 4. Locally, certain strip or linear parks designated as a
   parkway or greenbelt. [American neologism: green + way; origin
   obscure.]

   Greenways are corridors of protected open space managed for
conservation and recreation purposes.  Greenways typically follow
linear landscape features such as rivers, streams, and ridgelines. 
They are also being created along canals, abandoned railroad lines,
utility corridors, country roads, and other manmade features. 
Greenways are, of course, not new.  The concept grew out of the work
of landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead, who coined the phrase
"parkway" in 1865, and was the designer of some of the nation's first
linear parks.  It evolved with the development of the Appalachian
Trail in 1921, the urban parkways of the 1930's, and the post-World
War II greenbelt concept.  The term itself was not used until at least
1959 and did not come into widespread use until the 1970's.

   In his book Greenways for America, author Charles Little identifies
five major types of greenway.  These are:

   1. Urban riverside greenways, usually created as part of (or
instead of) a redevelopment program along neglected, often run-down,
city waterfronts.

   2. Recreational greenways, featuring paths and trails of various
kinds, often of relatively long distance, based on natural corridors,
as well as man-made features such as abandoned railbeds, canals, or
other public rights-of-way.

   3. Ecologically significant natural corridors, usually along rivers
and streams and, sometimes ridgelines, to provide for wildlife
migration and habitat protection as well as nature study.



                                                                  II-3

   4. Scenic and historic routes, usually along a road or highway (or
sometimes a waterway), the most representative of which make an effort
to provide pedestrian access along the route or at least places to
alight from a car.

   5. Comprehensive greenway systems or networks, usually based on
natural landforms such as valleys and ridges, but sometimes simply an
opportunistic assemblage of greenways and open space of various kinds
to create an alternative municipal or regional green infrastructure.

What benefits do greenways provide?

   Greenways can provide a multitude of benefits for people, wildlife
and the economy.  More expansive and flexible than traditional, more
confined parks, greenways can provide a kind of community trail system
for the linear forms of outdoor recreation Americans are engaged in
today, such as: hiking, jogging, bicycling, rollerblading, horseback
riding, cross country skiing, or just plain strolling.

   However, greenway benefits are not limited to recreation.  They can
provide lifelines for wildlife moving from one isolated natural area
to another; they can help preserve biodiversity and wildlife areas by
protecting environmentally sensitive land along rivers, streams, and
wetlands.  They can protect water quality by providing a buffer
against urban run-off and non-point source pollution.  Greenways can
soften and direct urban growth, and they can act as outdoor
classrooms: a close to home way to get children out of school and into
nature.

   Greenways can also stimulate the economy by providing an array of
economic and quality of life benefits.  Numerous studies demonstrate
that linear parks can increase nearby property values, which can in
turn increase local tax revenues.  Spending by residents on greenway-
related activities helps support recreation-oriented businesses and
employment, as well as other businesses that are patronized by
greenway users.  Greenways often provide new business opportunities
and locations for commercial activities like bed and breakfast
establishments, and bike and canoe rental shops.  Greenways are often 



                                                                  11-4

major tourist attractions which generate expenditures on lodging,
food, and recreation-oriented services.  Finally, greenways can reduce
public expenditures by lowering the costs associated with flooding and
other natural hazards.

   In summary, greenways are a cost-effective, multi-purpose concept
that allows public agencies to link existing parks, historic sites,
and natural areas with numerous environmental, recreational, and
economic benefits.

Where are greenways?

   Greenways can be found in all states and regions of the country. 
Today there are an estimated 3000 greenways already in existence
across the United States.  These vary from large multi-state greenways
like the Appalachian Trail or Blue Ridge Parkway, to extensive
riverfront promenades like the Riverfront Park in Battle Creek,
Michigan, to small streamside parks like the Happy Creek Greenway in
Front Royal, Virginia.

   Greenways vary in size, scope, and nature.  Some are ecological
corridors with little or no public access; others, like the Pinellas
Trail in Tampa, Florida, attract millions of visitors each year.  The
scope and widespread nature of greenways is illustrated by the
following statistics.

   -  Rails-Trails - The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy reports that,
nationwide, 572 abandoned railroad lines totaling almost 7000 linear
miles have been converted into multipurpose parks for cyclists and
pedestrians.

   -  Waterfronts - The Waterfront Center maintains files on over 1000
waterfront promenades and linear parks located along rivers and
harbors in the United States.  Many of these waterfront parks are
known for their role in attracting tourists and fostering related
economic development.  For example, the San Antonio Riverwalk is the
leading tourist attraction in the state of Texas.  The Augusta Canal
Project has leveraged more than $100 million in new waterfront
development from a public investment of $8 million in a riverfront
walkway and park.



                                                                  11-5

   -  Save Our Streams - The Izaak Walton League reports that there
are over 2000 Save Our Streams projects around the country involving
streamside restoration, water quality monitoring, and riverside clean-
up.

   -  Wild and Scenic Rivers - There are currently 152 federally
designated wild and scenic rivers in 34 states, totaling 10,516 miles.

   -  ISTEA - The Surface Transportation Policy Project reports that a
total of $389 million has been spent in the last 3 years on 869
projects involving greenways, rail trails, and other bicycle and
pedestrian facilities around the country.

   Nationwide, ISTEA Enhancement Funding for Non-motorized           
   Transportation Facilities
 
                       (All Figures in Millions)

Facility Type               Federal   Match    Total    No. of
                            Share     Share             Projects
Rails-Trails                $ 94.4    $39.0    $133.4     224
Greenway Trails*            $106.3    $38.7    $145.0     366
Other Bicycle and           $ 77.9    $32.8    $110.7     279
Pedestrian Facilities**
Total                       $278.6    $110.5   $389.1     869
                              
*Greenway Trails includes sidepaths and off-road trail and bikeway
facilities that are not Rail-Trails.  **Other Bicycle & Pedestrian
Facilities includes on-road bicycle facilities, overpasses,
underpasses, pedestrian sidewalks, plazas, etc.

   - National Park Service - In 1993, the Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service provided.
technical assistance to 130 greenway projects in 46 states.  These
projects ranged from the development-of a regional bikeway system for
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to creating 280 miles of trails and 7 new
riverfront parks in New York State.



                                                                  II-6

   -  Maryland Greenways - The Maryland Greenway Atlas, prepared by
the Maryland Greenway Commission, identifies 131 existing and proposed
greenway projects in the State of Maryland.  Existing greenways in
Maryland range from the 184-mile long C&O Canal National Historical
Park to the 1200-acre Gwynns Falls Greenway in the City of Baltimore.

Have other studies been done on the impact of greenways?
   A number of studies have been conducted that examine the impact and
benefits of greenways and open space.  The results of these studies
reinforce the findings of the Northern Central Rail Trail Study. 
Other major studies include the following:

   (1)  The Impact A of Rail-Trails, by the Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance Program, National Park Service, 1992.  This
study of users on three rails-to-trails projects found that users
spent an average of $3.97 to $11.02 per day, generating an annual
impact of $1.2 million or more on each trail.  The survey documented
that both local users and visitors or tourists also spend as much as
$250 per year on trail-related purchases such as bike equipment,
clothing, shoes or boots, books, and accessories.  The trails
attracted spending by non-county residents ranging from $294 000 to
$630,000 each year.

   (2)  Does Farmland Protection Pay?  The Cost of Community Services
in Three Massachusetts Towns, American Farmland Trust, Northeastern
Office, Northampton, Mass., 1992.  This study found that open space
and farmland make a greater net contribution to three towns' revenues
than other types of property.  While farms and open space account for
relatively smaller amounts of tax revenue - and would be unable to
sustain the tax base alone - they also make far fewer demands for
services.  For every $1 collected in property taxes, farms and open
spaces require only 33 cents in services.  Commercial and industrial
development cost slightly more, at 41 cents per $1 of tax revenue. 
Residential development was a clear loser, costing the communities an
average of $1.12 for every $1 of tax generated.  The fiscal impact
analysis included a full accounting of revenues and expenses for the
towns of Agwam, Deerfield, and Gill.



                                                                  II-7

   (3)  A Look at Visitors on Wisconsin's Elroy-Sparta Bike Trail,
University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1988.  Exurban and rural trails
with historic or natural characteristics that encourage "vacation"-
style trips generate more revenue per use than urban and suburban
trails used for light recreation and commuting.  Studies of
Wisconsin's Elroy-Sparta Trail and Sugar River Trail found that
spending by out-of-state visitors for lodging, bike rentals, bus
shuttle service, and restaurant meals was roughly twice as high as for
in-state visitors.  A survey of trail users in Minnesota found that
users who traveled less than 25 miles to the trail spent an average of
just $.61 to $2.68 per day, while those traveling 25 miles or more
spent up to $53.20 per day on average.

   (4)  The Illinois Statewide Trail User Study, North Central Forest
Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Chicago.  This survey of
3,400 users of 19 Illinois trails found a range of spending from just
46 cents per trip on Thorn Creek Trail in south suburban Cook County
to more than $200 on the River to River (Horse) Trail in the Shawnee
National Forest.  Average spending for non-horse-related trail use was
$2.89 per trail user.  Users said they used the trails often, with 60
percent visiting at least 10 times a year and more than 40 percent
estimating their usage as "virtually every week."  The survey also
documented another measure of trail value:  more than 68 percent of
those surveyed said they would pay a $5 per year fee to help maintain
the trail and develop new trails.

   (5)  Urban Open Space: An Investment that Pays, The Neighborhood
Open Space Coalition, New York City, 1990.  One of the most vivid
examples of how a greenway can boost property values comes from the
famous landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead, who tracked
property values around Central Park in New York before and after its
construction.  The city's investment of $13.9 million in land
acquisition and construction paid off handsomely.  Growth in property
values in nearby wards far outpaced the growth in similar wards else-
where, skyrocketing from a total value of $26.5 million in 1856 to
$236 million in 1873.  The increase in tax revenue over what it would
likely have been without the park was $5.2 million, providing a net
revenue gain of $4.4 million after paying interest on the cost of park
construction.



                                                                  II-8

   The Central Park scenario was hardly isolated.  The park-like 
Commonwealth Avenue development in Boston (1859-1890) preserved a
threatened stretch of the Charles River and created an elegant new
residential district.  Kansas City's park and boulevard system, begun
in 1895, created the core of a boulevard system that helped boost
assessed value of nearby properties by 44 percent.  And in Elizabeth,
New Jersey, construction of Warinanco Park helped produce a 632
percent increase in value between 1922 and 1939 for properties within,
1,300 feet of the park, while the overall increase in Elizabeth
property values was just 257 percent.  That new tax revenue paid for
the park in just five years.

The green space premium

   Numerous studies have documented that green space continues to
support higher values for nearby real estate.  In urban, suburban, and
rural areas, properties near trails, forest preserves, rivers, or
protected corridors consistently show equal or higher property values
than more distant properties and are often easier to sell.

   (6)  Boulder Greenbelt, Colorado - Estimated Premium: $4.20-$10.20
decrease per foot from greenway.  The taxpayers in Boulder, Colorado,
decided in 1967 to invest in a network of parks and open space, with
an emphasis on the creation of a greenbelt around the city.  The
17,000-acre system helped contain the city's development patterns and
proved a potent multiplier of property values.  A 1978 study found
that property values were highest next to the greenbelt and declined
with distance from it, at an average rate of $4.20 per foot, with one
neighborhood showing a $10.20 per foot falloff.  The largest value
increases were for houses with views of or immediate access to the
greenbelt.

   (7)  Burke-Gilman Trail, Seattle, Washington - Estimated Premium:
6.5 percent two blocks from the trail.  A survey of real estate agents
with experience along the 12.1 mile Burke-Gilman Trail found that
properties two blocks from the trail are easier to sell than other
homes and carry a price premium of about 6.2 percent.  Agents were
mixed about homes immediately adjacent to the trail, with 42 percent
saying they are easier to sell, 30 percent saying sales are more
difficult, and 27 percent seeing no effect.  A survey of



                                                                  II-9

homeowners found that 75 percent of owners who had bought property
adjacent to the trail after it opened felt the home would be easier to
sell, and 48 percent expected a value premium.  Only 4 percent felt
their homes would sell for less.  Of owners who bought before the
trail opened, 33 percent expected sales to be easier, and 15 percent
expected a value premium.  About 48 percent thought the location would
have no effect or couldn't predict the effect, and 8.5 percent felt
the property would sell for less.   Crime and other problems along the
trail were minimal.  No respondents felt the trail should be closed.

   Source:  The Effect of the Burke-Gilman Trail   Upon Property
Values of Adjacent and Nearby Properties and Upon the Property Crime
Rate in the Vicinity of the Trail, Seattle Engineering Department,
1986.

   (8)  Illinois Prairie Path - Estimated Premium: "Definitely
enhances value of adjacent real estate."  An informal 1985 survey of
40 experienced real estate professionals found that all agreed that
the 40-mile Illinois Prairie Path made properties easier to sell and
often created a price premium.  Based in Glen Ellyn and Wheaton, the
agents said they often advertise the proximity of the path when
selling such properties.

   Source:  "Old Plank Trail - Community Impacts," Openlands Project,
   Chicago, 1985.

   (9)  Santa Ana River Corridor, California - Estimated Premium: $139
million to $201 million in property values.  A partially completed
trail on the Santa Ana River southeast of Los Angeles was estimated to
have a positive effect on property values within one-eighth mile of
the trail.  Based on similar studies of value premiums next to parks
and trails, a conservative premium of 6.5 percent was estimated for
the proposed trail extension.  Counting only private, taxpaying
properties on 6,050 acres in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernadino
Counties, total property values were estimated at $2.15 billion (low
estimate) to $3.1 billion (high), yielding increases of $139 million
to $201 million.

   Source:  Santa Ana River Corridor Master Plan.

   (10)  Pennypack Park, Philadelphia - Estimated Premium: 33 percent
at 40 feet; 9 percent at 1,000 feet.  A 1,300-acre linear park along
the Pennypack River in northeast Philadelphia was estimated in 1974 to
increase property values by as much as 33 percent, depending on
distance from the park.  The study targeted 336 properties in 16 


                                                                 II-10

different developments and used multiple regression analysis to
account for variables such as age of homes, corner locations, and type
of house.  Houses 40 feet from the park had values 33 percent above
similar houses outside of the park's influence.  Values at 1,000 feet
were 9 percent higher, and at 2,500 feet had a 4.2 percent premium.

   Source:  Urban Open Space: An Investment that Pays, The
Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, New York, 1990, based on "The
Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Values," T.R. Hammer, R.
E. Coughlin, and E. T. Horn, Journal of American Planning Association,
1974.



                              Section III


              Trends in Maryland Open Space Preservation


                                  By


                           Ms.  Teresa Moore


           Executive Director, Maryland Greenways Commission



                                                                 III-1

              TRENDS IN MARYLAND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION

Maryland has a distinguished history of land conservation, evidenced
today by the more than 800,000 acres of land set aside for parks,
recreation, wildlife, agriculture and natural resource management. 
Approximately one-seventh of the state's six million acres are under
some form of long-term protection:

   -  330,000 acres protected by state government

   -  84,000 acres protected by federal government

   -  140,000 acres protected by local government

   -  100,000 acres protected under state agricultural easements

   -  30,228 acres protected under local agricultural easements

   -  25,000-30,000 acres protected by transfer of development rights

   -  30,386 acres protected by environmental trust easements

   -  64,424 acres protected by private land trusts

While these efforts are impressive and illustrate the range of public
and private efforts to preserve land in Maryland, the rate that land
is being converted to residential and commercial uses continues to
dwarf land preservation activity.  As the Baltimore-Washington
corridor reaches build-out, many outlying counties are now
experiencing a rapid consumption of land and an unsettling adjustment
to a suburban environment that often lacks character and a comforting
sense of place.  This phenomenon is causing many to give careful
consideration to the amount and types of open space needed to preserve
not only ecological diversity but to maintain some of the natural and
cultural qualities that make an area distinct.

The state's land conservation goals have historically been determined
through a formula based on population.  Recently, however, the
Maryland Office of Planning determined that while this method was
adequate for estimating recreational open space needs, it was not
adequate for setting land preservation goals necessary to provide
natural resource protection.  In addition to population increases, the
rate at which open land is being converted for residential and
commercial uses must be taken into account.  Under the old method, 


                                                                 III-2

only about 100,000 acres would be targeted for land conservation
during the next 26 years, while 550,000 acres are projected to be
developed during that same period.  Conversion of land at this rate
will have an enormous impact on natural resources in the state, many
of which are severely stressed.  It is clear that a more concerted
effort by both the public and private sector is needed to restore
and/or maintain the ecological balance required to keep Maryland an
attractive place to live and for all sectors of the economy to
prosper.

Preservation in a Regional Context

Maryland has been fortunate to have a governor who understands the
importance of conservation and natural resource protection.  Governor
Schaefer has supported numerous public preservation programs and has
been a leader in fostering broad, interjurisdictional programs such as
the multi-state Chesapeake Bay Program and the statewide greenways
program.  His administration is also responsible for many regulatory
programs designed to protect shorelines and wetlands and to direct
growth in a manner that reduces the environmental and fiscal impacts.

The Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act passed by
the Maryland General Assembly in 1992 will help protect greenway
corridors and open space in Maryland.  The Planning Act requires all
state plans and programs to conform to broad growth management
policies.  This law, to be implemented at the local level and through
state policy, is designed to ensure a balance between satisfying the
demands of growth and maintaining environmental integrity.

Because the need for such a balance is evident, there is strong
support for such measures.  Increasingly, land conservation needs are
viewed in the context of what is needed to preserve or restore an
ecological balance for an area defined by something other than
political boundaries.  Across the state, local river management
committees, greenway coalitions, land trusts and watershed commissions
have formed to monitor the status and determine the needs of a
specific natural resource.



                                                                 III-3

As land conservation is more often viewed in a regional or watershed
context, the concept of linkage has grown in popularity.  Isolated
parcels of protected land are seen as less environmentally beneficial
than lands that are connected by a greenway that provides a continual
buffer and/or migration corridor.  The idea of a statewide green
infrastructure has captured the support of many in the public and
private sector.  The Maryland Greenways Commission, established by
Governor Schaefer in 1990, is actively promoting greenway corridors
throughout the state.  Such a network of greenway corridors would
offer protection of stream valleys, wetlands, and sensitive habitats
and would assure that at least minimal stretches of natural areas
remain visible and functional throughout the state, even in the most
highly developed areas.

Maryland's Greenways Program

In many areas of the country, including Maryland, greenways are viewed
as the parks of the 21st century.  These protected linear corridors
offer a variety of ecological benefits and can be used to help shape
growth patterns and maintain the distinctive traits of a particular
community.  Greenways can preserve pieces of the landscape important
to a region's character while at the same time providing habitat for
plants and animals, protection of waterways, migration corridors, and
recreation and alternative transportation opportunities for people. 
Greenways can also reduce the need for public expenditures for water
treatment, flood insurance and a variety of restoration efforts, and
they can increase the value of neighboring properties.

Over the last several decades, the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources established a number of notable stream valley parks.  These
large parcels of publicly owned land now serve as the framework for a
network of greenways throughout the entire state.  The network will
consist of state and locally owned lands as well as private lands
where willing landowners support the greenway concept.  Already,
numerous easements on individual private properties and larger parcels
owned by private land trusts are included in the emerging network of
protected greenways.  Over 800 linear miles of established greenway
corridors have been identified, and another 500 miles are currently 


                                                                 III-4

being established or are planned.  Another 1,000 miles of potential 
greenway corridors has been identified by state and local governments.

To be included in the state's official greenway network, a corridor
must be at least one quarter mile long, have long-term protection in
place, have a management plan, and serve at least one of four broad
greenway functions:  wildlife corridor, stream buffer, conservation
corridor, linear recreation.

Integrating Land Conservation with Regional Needs and Aspirations

Although greenways and open space preservation in Maryland is centered
on protection of natural resources, the emphasis on regional efforts
tends to bring together a variety of interests that can be linked to a
particular landscape.  An emerging trend is that of integrating a
region's special heritage and cultural amenities with land
conservation in an effort to promote tourism and a unique identity
useful in economic development marketing.  There are regional
movements along the Potomac River, the Pocomoke River and the
Susquehanna River that involve protecting the river corridors and
capitalizing on the historic and cultural components of the region. 
This blend of preservation and economic exploitation is a departure
from traditional roles of economic development professionals and
conservationists.

On the North Branch Potomac, for example, protection of a nine-mile
greenway corridor in West Virginia and Western Maryland is expected to
bring tourism and small business development opportunities to one of
the most economically depressed regions of the state.  Capitalizing on
a miraculous turn-around in water quality in this section of the
Potomac, protection of this wilderness corridor and promotion of its
exceptional trout fishery is expected to lure anglers from all over
the country.  The greenway corridor will allow Garrett County, whose
largest industry is tourism, to increase visitation without
compromising its rural character and pristine natural resources.



                                                                 III-5

On the Susquehanna River, state and local officials are working with
private businesses and area interest groups to establish a protected
corridor between the Conowingo Dam and the Chesapeake Bay. 
Development plans in the towns and two counties that border the river
are now being integrated with a larger, regional scheme to link the
natural and cultural amenities within the Susquehanna River Valley. 
Although stiff in the early stages, the Lower Susquehanna Heritage
Greenway is already included in Conowingo Power's recreation plan
(required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the master
plan for DNR's Susquehanna State Park, the recreation plans for
Harford and Cecil Counties, the revitalization plan for the town of
Port Deposit and the urban renewal plan for the town of Perryville. 
The museum community has expressed strong support for the greenway as
have trail enthusiasts and many local residents.

Although recreation is often associated with open space projects and
greenway corridors, alternative transportation has surfaced as another
useful pairing.  Particularly in the densely populated urban areas
where traffic congestion provides aggravation as well as air
pollution, greenways can offer some relief.  The Anacostia Headwaters
Greenway is one such effort in Maryland.  Located along tributaries to
the Anacostia River in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, this
24-mile network of trails will connect neighborhoods to several new
metro stations.  By providing this direct connection between
population centers and mass transit, many commuters will be completely
free from dependence on automobiles to get to work and school.  By
reducing the number of cold auto starts, it is believed that a
greenway for commuters could have a significant impact on the region's
air quality.

The possibilities for combining other functions with land preservation
activities are numerous.  In addition to those mentioned above,
environmental and outdoor education are important uses of natural
lands.

Costs/Benefits of Land Conservation

It is difficult to quantify the economic ramifications of various land
uses.  While there have been recent studies that indicate the costs
associated with sprawling development (e.g., infrastructure and public



                                                                 III-6

services) often outweigh the initial boost to local tax collections,
little has been done to analyze the fiscal impact of land
preservation.

Maryland has long been a national leader in funding open space
projects.  Program Open Space, funded through a one half percent
transfer tax on real estate transactions, has been the primary source
of funds for state and local land acquisitions.  The transfer tax also
provides funds for several other land conservation programs including
agriculture easements, land trust grants and heritage conservation. 
Maryland is also a leader nationally in utilizing the new
transportation enhancement funds for open space preservation and
establishment of greenway corridors.

Yet with all the ecological benefits and amenities associated with
open space, some continue to view land conservation as a non-essential
expense rather than an important investment that pays long-term
dividends to the citizens of Maryland.  Although positive economic
effects of open space have been demonstrated in various parts of the
country, no such study has been undertaken in Maryland.  For this
reason, the Maryland Greenways Commission authorized a study of the
economic impact of one of the state-sponsored greenways, the Northern
Central Rail Trail.

The trail has become one of the most popular parks in the state with
visitation exceeding 450,000.  Although the project initially met with
considerable skepticism by some local residents and elected-officials,
it is now widely acclaimed as an asset to the community and the people
who live there.  Following are the results of the study which included
surveys of homeowners, trail users, and businesses in a defined area
of northern Baltimore County.



                              Section IV


                  Benefit Analysis in Connection With

                    The Northern Central Rail Trail


                                  By

                         PKF Consulting, Inc.



                                                                  IV-1

                   Physical and Locational Analysis

The conversion of the Northern Central Rail corridor to a trail was
one of the first rail conversions after the Federal Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.  Since the Trail's
opening in 1984 the Trail now spans the entire length of the former
rail corridor from Ashland, Maryland north to the Mason Dixon Line, a
distance of 20 miles.  A map locating the Trail within the region can
be found on page IV-3.  The Trail right-of-way constitutes a narrow
corridor - at its narrowest the property is just over 60 feet wide and
at its widest is just over 200 feet wide.  The developed width of the
Trail itself is planned to 12 feet (crushed stone) as funds permit. 
The Ashland entrance to the Trail is roughly 15 miles from downtown
Baltimore and is the most heavily developed area near the Trail.  As
mentioned in the survey text and shown on the accompanying map, the
access points along the southern half of the Trail receive the vast
majority of usage.  The landscape along the northern portions of the
Trail is characterized by active farms and rural, low density, large
lot residences.

The topography along the length of the Trail is nearly level, often
with steep rock outcroppings, wetlands or wooded terrain along its
narrow borders.  Along part of the Trail, the Big Gunpowder Falls
river and its tributaries add a relaxing tone to the Trail.  With the
exception of the historic hamlets at former rail line stops, the Trail
remains largely free from impacts of residential development.

As part of the analysis, demographic and climatic data for the area
was assembled and weighed into the impact formulas (see page IV-4). 
It was interesting to note population projections by Baltimore County
planners and the U.S. Census Bureau predict 79 percent growth in the
population of the Sparks District from 1990 to the year 2010, while
anticipated growth for Baltimore County as a whole is expected to
increase by 18 percent over the same period.  The foregoing figures
support the dramatic growth in demand for use of the Trail.  Also
included in the attendance analysis were average climatic conditions
for the region.  The economic impact model was cross checked using
both standard employment compensation charts, published household
income figures for Baltimore County and IMPLAN employment, 



                                                                  IV-2

compensation and expenditure multipliers.  Median household income for
Baltimore County in 1991 was $43,783, 36 percent higher than the
national average of $32,073.

          A Brief History of the Northern Central Rail Trail

The history and significance of the Northern Central line is probably
the Trail's most fascinating, yet least known assets.  Although NCRT
maps give a brief introduction to its history, no interpretive signs
are present along the Trail for general information or for specific
historic sites along the Trail.  When the Northern Central was
completed in 1838 it was the second oldest long distance railroad in
the United States, stretching 320 miles from Baltimore, Maryland to
Sodus, New York.  Along its path numerous small hamlets developed, the
vestiges of which are still standing today.

During the Civil War the Northern Central Railroad continued to serve
as a main freight and commuter corridor as well as one of the Union
Army's most important supply routes.  Frequent hospital trains ferried
wounded troops to hospitals along the Railroad's corridor.  President
Lincoln wrote his Gettysburg Address on the Northern Central while
travelling to Gettysburg in 1863.  Two years later, after his
assassination the President's funeral train travelled the Northern
Central en route to Illinois.

As the automobile flourished and the road system expanded in the east,
the profitability of the Northern Central declined.  By 1959 the last
commuter service from Parkton was discontinued, and long distance
service was phased out in 1971.  When hurricane Agnes caused
significant damage to a number of bridges along the line in 1972,
freight service was also terminated.  The corridor lay abandoned for
the next 12 years before it was converted to a greenway.



                      NORTHERN CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL                 IV-3
                               AREA MAP



Click HERE for graphic.






                                                                  IV-4

Exhibit B           DEMOGRAPHIC AND CLIMATIC DATA:


   CLIMATE: Based On 30 Year Averages

   YEARLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)             41.8
   YEARLY SNOWFALL (INCHES)                  21.9
   SUMMER TEMPERATURE (DEG. F.)              74.9
   WINTER TEMPERATURE (DEG. F.)              34.7
   DURATION OF FREEZE-FREE PERIOD         186 days

   Source: Maryland State Office of Climatology &
   Maryland Department of Economic and Employment  Development


               1991 BALTIMORE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

   POPULATION                                697,116
   AVERAGE AGE (years)                            35
   HOUSEHOLDS                                275,700
   91-96 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH             7.40%
   PER CAPITA INCOME                         $24,852
   MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME                   $43,783
   EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME                   $35,546
   COST OF LIVING INDEX                        110.3
   CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE (COUNTY)             394,048
   (REGION)                                1,240,460
   RETAIL SALES                           $7 BILLION
   TOURISM GENERATED $ (ROOM TAX RECEIPTS)+$3.8 BILLION

   Source:  Baltimore Regional Council of Governments, March 1992


   HOUSEHOLDS:                  1980      1990     1995     2010

   BALTIMORE COUNTY          237,371   268,280  290,800  318,200

   HEREFORD DISTRICT           2,897     3,843    4,060    4,350

   SPARKS DISTRICT             1,148    2,243     3,210    4,030

   TOTAL DISTRICT HOUSEHOLDS:  4,045    6,086     7,270    8,380
   % OF TOTAL COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS 1.70%    2.27%     2.50%    2.63%



                                                                  IV-5

        Qualitative Values of the Northern Central Rail Trail:

From a historical perspective, parks and trails in the United States
have been provided to the public as a means to conserve resources,
improve residents' quality of life and as a tonic for the ills of
urban life.  Consistent with the preceding is the language of the 1916
legislation creating the National Park Service:

   "To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects
   and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the
   same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them
   unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Until recently, the equation for assessing the implementation or
success of a public open space has had little focus on economic
impacts.  Although the subject impacts can be significant and self
sustaining, the impetus behind park creation remains an altruistic
vision for improving peoples' quality of life and communities' unique
sense of place.

Quantifying the value of aesthetic/intrinsic impacts is always
difficult, subjective and to some people - meaningless.  If someone
enjoys something - whether a park or a Van Gogh painting, why try to
attach an economic value (price tag) to it?  The answer is that
assigning value (economic value) is one of the few true quantifiable
measures to assess the communities' perceptions.  Even though the
foregoing has been the focus of this study, caution should be taken
not to belie the real intent behind providing resources like the
Northern Central Rail Trail for the public, which is for the public
good and is often difficult to assess.  Accordingly, the public
surveys conducted throughout the course of this study also focused on
defining resident' values and gauging their interests, commitment, and
"ownership" of the NCRT.  It was interesting to note that over one-
third of respondents offered to donate their time as a Trail
volunteer.

Also worth noting are people's responses regarding the condition of
the rail corridor before it was redeveloped as a trail/park.  As is
the case with most rail trails, the Northern Central was a derelict
rail corridor - a popular destination for "undesirable" activities
such as underage drinking, illegal dumping, car & motorcycle racing,



                                                                  IV-6

and various sorts of vandalism and defacement.  As mentioned earlier,
since the NCRT's establishment, those undesirable activities have all
but disappeared - partly because the Trail's users "police" the Trail
as their own and the perpetrators of vandalism now congregate
elsewhere.  Accordingly,, reports of crime and vandalism along the
corridor have dropped appreciably.

The broad acceptance of the NCRT by residents is perhaps best
illustrated by the varied number of group events/activities that have
taken place on the Trail recently.  Some include:

GROUP:                                     Event:

Maryland Air National Guard                Bike for Vets
Church Rural Overseas Project              Cropwalk
U.S. Driving for the Disabled              Driving for the Disabled
Hereford Recreation Council                Soccer Program Bike-a-thon
Maryland Bible College & Seminary          Walk-a-thon
Muscular Dystrophy Association             Walk-a-thon
National Kidney Foundation                 Walk-a-thon & Bike-a-thon
Richcroft, Incorporated                    Walk-a-thon & Bike-a-thon
St. Judes Childrens Hospital               Bike-a-thon
First Evangelical Lutheran Church          Walk-a-thon  
Patterson Park Food Bank                   Tube for Food
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America   Fun day 
Baltimore Road Runners                     Marathon   
Civitan Club of Baltimore                  Bike-a-thon   
Club Maryland                              Wellness Walk
Danielle Liver Transplant Foundation       Bike-for-Life
United Methodist Churches                  Hayride              
Rails to Trails Conservancy                Rails to Trails Day
Leukemia Society of America                Bike Rally                
Hunts Methodist Church                     Pediatric Aids Walk-a-thon
Department of Natural Resources            March for Parks



                                                                  IV-7

Whereas part of the objectives of public open spaces is to educate and
bring people and communities closer together, the identification of
programs provided can also provide a measure of understanding of the
success/failures of a park.  As was found during the course of this
study, even though the park is less than ten years old, it has already
established a pattern/legacy for fulfilling this function for the
surrounding communities.

A partial listing of community outreach programs hosted on the Trail
includes:

Mothers Day events        Flag Day events         Senior bike rides

Fathers Day events        July Fourth celebration Family Day

Junior Ranger programs    Full Moon bike rides    Labor Day bike rides

History walks             Nature walks            Autumn hikes

Halloween events          Apple cider walks       Crafts workshops

Bird Walks                Full moon hikes         Garden Club sale

Tubing on the Gunpowder   Wildflower walks        Various foot races
  Falls



                                                                  IV-8

        An Introduction to Survey Results and Analysis Section:


The remainder of the report is a compilation of the various survey
question responses and a summary of the methodologies used to
calculate both the economic impacts of the Trail and the results of
the qualitative responses to intrinsic value questions.



                                                                  IV-9

                       Aggregate Survey Results

Question 1.

Approximately how far is your residence from the Trail?

(Percents;                Counts):
4.21%;      28     -My property is adjacent to the Trail
8.27%;      55     -My property is less than 300 yards from the Trail
12.48%;     83     -Less than one mile
35.19%;    234     -1-3 miles
14.74%;     98     -4-5 miles
11.73%;     78     -6-10 miles
13.38%;     89     -Greater than 10 miles

Question 2.

What is your zip code?

Users survey Responses (184 total):
[18] 21111...[15] 21152...[15] 21093...[14] 21131...[12] 21030...[7]
21234...[6] 21161...[6] 21286...[5] 21214...[5] 21053...[4]
21074...[4] 21209...[3] 21120...[3] 21244...[3] 21047...[3]
17349...[3] 21218...[2] 21013...[2] 21158...[2] 21236...[l]
21014...[1] 17404...[l] 21230 [1] 21155 [1] 21201...[l] 21211 [1]
21212-2016 [1] 21219...[1] 21206...[1] 21085...[1] 21208...[1] 21015-
5613...[1] 21239...[1] 21040...[1] 21228...[1] 21111-1507...[1] 21094
...[1] 21237...[l] 21202...[1] 02130...[l] 21050...[l] 20705...[1]
21045

Property owners survey Responses (423 total):
[129] 21030...[80] 21152...[77] 21111...[40] 21131...[35] 21093...[24]
21120  [17] 21053...[2] 21013...[1] 21077...[l] 21009...[1] 21115...
[1] 21052...[1] 21023 [1] 21234...[1] 21111-1427...[1] 21220...[1]
21014...[1] 51152...[1] 21286...[1] 21111-1515...[1] 21108...[1] 21093
...[1] 21111-1112...[1] 21030-2629


                                                                 IV-10
Question 3. Property Owners                                            
           
How often do you use the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
23.54%         101       -         Once per month
35.43%         152       -         Once per week
14.22%          61       -         Between 1-3 times per week
 6.53%          28       -         Between 3-5 times per week
 2.10%           9       -         Daily
18.18%          78       -         Never

Question 3. Trail Users

How often do you use the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
20.63%         39        -         Once per month
24.87%         47        -         Once per week
27.51%         52        -         Between 1-3 times per week
19.58%         37        -         Between 3-5 times per week
 7.41%         14        -         Daily

Question 4.

How do you travel from your home to where you enter the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
71.43%         465       -         Car
14.13%          92       -         Bike
12.90%          84       -         Walk
 1.54%          10       -         Horseback

Question 5.

How many people typically use the Trail with you?

Average:       3.3 people per group



                                                                 IV-11
Question 6.

Please identify your age group:

(Percent;      Counts)
 1.35%          8        -         15 and under
 3.21%          19       -         16 to 25
17.09%         101       -         26 to 35
28.43%         168       -         36 to 45
27.41%         162       -         46 to 55
12.69%          75       -         56 to 65
 9.81%          58       -         65+

Question 7.

What is your primary activity on the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
46.55%         270       -         Walking/hiking
40.86%         237       -         Biking
10.34%          60       -         Jogging
  .52%           3       -         Horseback riding
  .17%           1       -         Commuting
  .34%           2       -         Picnicking
 1.03%           6       -         Fishing
  .17%           1       -         Cross Country Skiing

Question 8.

Generally, when do you use the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
56.37%         323       -         Weekdays
43.63%         250       -         Weekends



                                                                 IV-12

Question 9.

Is there a particular time of the day that you are more likely to use
the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
32.12%         185       -         Morning
32.12%         185       -         Afternoon
 4.69%          27       -         Evenings
31.08%         179       -         All times

Question 10.

What portion of the Trail do you use most often?

(Percent;      Counts)
57.34%         328       -         Ashland to Monkton
26.22%         150       -         Monkton to Freeland
16.43%          94       -         Entire length

Question 11.

How much time do you spend on the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
 4.39%          24       -         Under 30 minutes
43.51%         238       -         About one hour
52.10%         285       -         more than one hour

Question 12.

Which parking lots do you generally use?

(Percent;      Counts)
21.27%         144       -         Monkton
18.32%         124       -         Ashland
15.21%         103       -         Phoenix
13.29%          90       -         Paper Mill
12.70%          86       -         Sparks
 7.39%          50       -         Whitehall



                                                                 IV-13

 4.73%         32        -         Parkton
 3.25%         22        -         Bentley Springs
 3.84%         26        -         Freeland

Question 13.

How did you find out about the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
72.30%         402       -         Word of mouth
14.57%          81       -         Driving past
 9.17%          51       -         Newspaper
 3.96%          22       -         Road Map

Question 14.

Has your use of the Trail influenced you to purchase?

(Percent;      Counts)
31.81%         223       -         Bike
24.25%         170       -         Bike supplies
22.40%         157       -         Running, walking shoes
14.12%          99       -         Clothing
 7.42%          52       -         Film

Question 15.

How do you value this type of linear park (Trail) compared to a
traditional, more confined park?

(Percent;      Counts)
66.03%         383       -         I like this type of park better
 2.41%         14        -         I like more traditional parks
                                   better
31.55%         183       -         About the same



                                                                 IV-14

Question 16.

Do you feel the North Central Rail Trail is a good use of State funds?

(Percent;      Counts)
93.72%         612       -         Yes
 6.28%          41       -         No

Question 17.

How strongly do you value the presence of the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)

88.04%     530   -I value the Trail as a strong asset of the community
 7.64%      46   -The Trail is of limited value to the community
 2.49%      15   -I do not think the Trail is of any real value to the
                  community
 1.83%      11   -The Trail is a negative influence on the community


Question 18.

How much value do you think the Trail adds to properties within
walking distance to the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
30.46%         166       -         None
 6.97%          38       -         Lowers the value
16.51%          90       -         Between $500 - $1,000
18.17%          99       -         $1,000
14.68%          80       -         $3,000
 4.40%          24       -         $5,000
 8.81%          48       -         More than $5,000

Question 19.

What is your gender?

(Percent;      Counts)
60.09%         396       -         Male
39.91%         263       -         Female



                                                                 IV-15

Question 20.

Are you aware of other rail-trails in Maryland?

(Percent;      Counts)
57.27%         374       -         Yes
42.73%         279       -         No

Question 21.

Would you like to see more trails developed in the state?

(Percent;      Counts)
91.87%         576       -         Yes
 8.13%          51       -         No

Question 22.

Do you find the trail to be well maintained?

(Percent;      Counts)
53.95%         328       -         Excellent
40.62%         247       -         Good
 4.11%          25       -         Fair
 1.32%           8       -         Poor

Question 23.

Do you find the trail to be safe?

(Percent;      Counts)
40.94%         244       -         Excellent
47.82%         285       -         Good
 9.56%          57       -         Fair
 1.68%          10       -         Poor


                                                                 IV-16

Question 24.                                                          

Do you find the trail to be private/secluded?

(Percent;      Counts)
39.02%         231       -         Excellent
44.76%         265       -         Good
12.84%          76       -         Fair
 3.38%          20       -         Poor

Question 25.

Do you find the trail to be clean?

(Percent;      Counts)
58.54%         353       -         Excellent
36.32%         219       -         Good
 4.64%          28       -         Fair
  .50%           3       -         Poor

Question 26.

Would you like to receive information on becoming a Trail
volunteer/supporter?

(Percent;      Counts)
34.88%         203       -         Yes
65.12%         379       -         No

Question 1B.

How long have you lived in close proximity to the Trail?

(Percent;      Counts)
68.60%         308       -         Greater than five years
22.49%         101       -         Between three and five years
 8.02%          36       -         Between one and three years
  .89%           4       -         Under one year



                                                                 IV-17

Question 2B.

If you were to sell your house, do you think your house's proximity to
the Trail would be a positive selling point?

(Percent;      Counts)
68.33%         302       -         Yes
31.67%         140       -         No

Question 3B.

If you were to buy a new house, would the proximity of another
trail/park influence your decision?

(Percent;      Counts)
61.68%         272       -         Yes
38.32%         169       -         No

Question 4B.

Which of the following most closely matches your impressions on future
property values in your area?

(Percent; Counts)
59.91%    269     -      I expect property values to increase slightly
22.49%    101     -      I expect property values to remain about the
                         same
15.14%     68     -      I expect property values to increase greatly
 2.23%     10     -      I expect property values to decline slightly
  .22%      1     -      I expect property values to decline greatly



                                                                 IV-18
Question 5B.

Which of the following most closely matches your impressions of
property values in your area over the past few years?

(Percent; Counts)
39.60%    177     -      Property values have increased over the past
                         few years
33.56%    150     -      Property values have remained the same over
                         the past few years
22.82%    102     -      Property values have declined slightly over
                         the past few years
 4.03%     18     -      Property values have declined substantially
                         over the past few years



                                                                 IV-19

              GREENWAY SURVEYS: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

Three surveys were administered throughout the course of the
investigation:  one for Trail users, one for nearby property owners,
and a third for businesses in the region that may be impacted by the
presence of the Trail.  Surveys for Trail users were distributed
directly on the trail or via intercepts at parking facilities located
along the Trail.  Parks personnel were quite helpful in providing
assistance to this end.  Property owner surveys were targeted via tax
assessors roles and random distribution throughout Baltimore County. 
In order to enable a broader sampling and greater level of cross
tabulation, both the user and property owners' surveys contained many
of the same questions.  Business surveys were handled as interviews -
either in person or via telephone.  In all, over 130 interviews were
conducted both with professionals associated with the Trail (Park
employees) as well as professionals with a unique perspective of the
Trail as related to impacts on land values (brokers, appraisers,
developers, etc).
                            Response Rates:

Response rates for the surveys were favorable, especially given that
the distribution period was largely during the Christmas and New Years
holidays.  Distribution and returns were as follows:

Total Combined Results:

Total Distributed:            2,968
Total Received/Tabulated:       664
Total Response Rate:           22.4%

Property Owners Surveys:

Distributed:                  1,742
Received/Tabulated:             465
Response Rate:                 26.7%

Users Surveys:

Distributed:                  1,226
Received:                       199
Response Rate:                16.23%



                                                                 IV-20

             An Analysis of the Combined Survey Questions:

Distribution and Usability:

Total number of usable surveys responses:       664
Total number of usable Property Owners surveys: 465
Total number of usable Users surveys:           199

Question 1.

Approximately how far is your residence from the Trail?

(Percent;    Counts):
 4.21%;      28     -My property is adjacent to the Trail
 8.27%;      55     -My property is less than 300 yards from the Trail
12.48%;      83     -Less than one mile
35.19%;      234    -1-3 miles
14.74%;      98     -4-5 miles
11.73%;      78     -6-10 miles
13.38%;      89     -Greater than 10 miles

Data obtained from this question, question 3 and the total attendance
provided by the Park's personnel were used to arrive at the gasoline
inputs directly associated with the Trail; the methodology used is as
follows:

Total 1993 Attendance:     457,540
Percent arriving by car:  (326,821) 71.43% 
Average number of people per car: 3.3 (DNR SOP formula)



                                                                 IV-21

Percent of total car users:

14.26%       people travelling 1 mile in each direction
40.21%       people travelling 2 miles in each direction
16.84%       people travelling 4 .5 miles in each direction
13.40%       people travelling 8 miles in each direction
15.29%       people travelling approximately 12 miles in each
             direction

 326,821  /  3.3  *  14.26%  *  2 miles  =  28,245 miles
 326,821  /  3.3  *  40.21%  *  4 miles  = 159,291 miles
 326,821  /  3.3  *  16.84%  *  9 miles  = 150,100 miles
 326,821  /  3.3  *  13.40%  *  16 miles = 212,335 miles
 326,821  /  3.3  *  15.29%  *  24 miles = 363,425 miles
                             Total miles = 913,396


The total mileage figure (913,396) was then divided by the average
miles per gallon of the 1993 on-road fleet of automobiles and then
multiplied by the average 1993 price for self service regular unleaded
gasoline in the state of Maryland (figures provided by American
Automobile Association).

913,396 / 20.9 miles per gallon = 43,704 gallons of fuel

43,704 gallons * $1.149 gal. = $50,216 spent by Trail users on
gasoline

43,704 gallons * $ .235 = $10,271 Maryland state gasoline tax revenues
43,704 gallons * $ .184 = $8,042 Federal gasoline tax revenues



                                                                 IV-22

Question 2.

What is your zip code?

Exhibit C on the following page illustrates both the sampling area as
well as the general draw area, by postal zip code, for the Trail.  It
was interesting to note that the vast majority (of Trail users are
from the general area (within 15 miles of the Trail).  An
insignificant number of users could be classified as tourists.  For
interpretive purposes, the answers for the users' survey and property
owners' survey are displayed separately.  The results of this question
confirm distance estimates from question one and illustrate both the
sample core, for the surveys as well as the general draw area for the
Trail.

PKF crosschecked the relatively low number of users that would
characteristically fall under the "tourist" category by comparing the
survey findings with both the previous survey interviews with park
management and four years of visitor log entries at Monkton Station. 
Repeatedly, the perception that the NCRT is overwhelmingly a local
resource was confirmed/reaffirmed by all.

Users-survey Responses (184 total):

[18] 21111...[15] 21152...[15] 21093...[14] 21131...[12] 21030...[7]
21234...[6] 21161...[6] 21286...[5] 21214...[5] 21053...[4]
21074...[4] 21209...[3] 21120...[3] 21244...[3] 21047...[3] 17349...
[3] 21218...[2] 21013...[2] 21158...[2] 21236...[1] 21014...[1] 17404
[1] 21230...[1] 21155...[1] 21201...[1] 21211...[1] 21212-2016...[1]
21219...[1] 21206...[1] 21085...[1] 21208...[1] 21015-5613...[1]
21239...[1] 21040...[1] 21228...[1] 21111-1507...[1] 21094...[l] 21237
...[1] 21202...[1] 02130...[1] 21050...[1] 20705...[1] 21045

Property owners survey Responses (423 total):
[129] 21030...[80] 21152...[77] 21111...[40] 21131...[35] 21093...[24]
21120...[17] 21053...[2] 21013...[1] 21077...[1] 21009...[1] 21115...
[1] 21052...[1] 21023...[1] 21234...[1] 21111-1427...[1] 21220...[1]
21014...[1] 51152...[1] 21286...[1] 21111-1515...[1] 21108...[1] 21093
...[1] 21111-1112...[1] 21030-2629




Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-24

                  HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 3. Property Owners

How often do you use the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
23.54%      101     -     Once per month
35.43%      152     -     Once per week
14.22%      61      -     Between 1-3 times per week
 6.53%      28      -     Between 3-5 times per week
 2.10%      9       -     Daily
18.18%      78      -     Never



                                                                 IV-25

                  HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 3. Trail Users

How often do you use the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
20.63%      39      -     Once per month
24.87%      47      -     Once per week
27.51%      52      -     Between 1-3 times per week
19.58%      37      -     Between 3-5 times per week
 7.41%      14      -     Daily



                                                                 IV-26

Results of this question were applied to annual attendance figures
supplied by the Trail's personnel: see exhibits D, E, and F on pages
IV-27 and IV-28.  The methodology used by park personnel to estimate
total attendance is done in shift reports:

 There are three full time rangers assigned to the Trail as part of
 their duties.  The ranger on duty counts cars in the Trail's parking
 facilities, which according to standard operating procedure (SOP)
 is. applied to a multiple of 3.3 persons per vehicle.  The figure of
 3.3 persons per car is specific to the Northern Central Rail Trail
 and was cross checked in the field by PKF's staff and deemed to be
 accurate.

Using the percentage breakouts of the 1993 attendance figure of
457,540 and subtracting non-users from the survey formula, a total of
14,320 individuals use the Trail.  Applying this figure to the
surrounding population in the draw area for the Trail, we find a
surprisingly high popularity of the Trail with residents (see
population chart, page IV-4).  Cross-referencing this information with
both the property owners survey respondents and local interviews we
found that over half the residents in the local area use the Trail.



                                                                 IV-27

                               Exhibit D
                      NORTHERN CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL
                          ATTENDANCE BY YEAR
                          YEAR       ATTENDANCE
                          1984          9,820
                          1985         38,085
                          1986         47,933
                          1987         41,430
                          1989         91,658
                          1990        130,165
                          1991        125,291
                          1992        170,565
                          1993        249,413
                          1994        457,540
Source:  Maryland Department of Natural Resources


                               Exhibit E
                          ATTENDANCE BY YEAR


Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-28



Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-29

                      HOW DO YOU TRAVEL FROM YOUR
                        HOME TO WHERE YOU ENTER
                            THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 4.

How do you travel from your home to where you enter the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
71.43%      465     -     Car
14.13%      92      -     Bike
12.90%      84      -     Walk
1.54%       10      -     Horseback

With the limited exception of a few townhouse/condominium developments
at the southern terminus of the Trail, there are few residences in
close proximity to the Trail's access points.  Many survey respondents
mentioned a primary reason for both driving to and using the Trail as
much as they do is because local roadways are geared almost
exclusively for the automobile and that walking and/or bicycle riding
along these routes is too dangerous.



                                                                 IV-30

The degree of incompatibility of local roads with residents' desire
for recreational walking and bicycling is perhaps the greatest reason
for people to use the Trail.  In the course of the study it became
clear that the absence of private/public open spaces to meet the
public's use demands, has contributed significantly to residents'
viewing the Trail as a prized commodity.

Question 5.

How many people typically use the Trail with you?
Average:    3.3 people per group



                                                                 IV-31

                  PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR AGE GROUP: (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 6.

Please identify your age group:

(Percent;   Counts)
 1.35%        8     -     15 and under
 3.21%       19     -     16 to 25
17.09%      101     -     26 to 35
28.43%      168     -     36 to 45
27.41%      162     -     46 to 55
12.69%       75     -     56 to 65
 9.81%       58     -     65+



                                                                 IV-32

The results of question six identify a profile of trial users by age
group.  As expected, we found the majority of users fit the Baltimore
County demographic profile of 30+ years old.  As displayed in the
proceeding bar graph it should be anticipated that the age groupings
will increase in the more mature brackets in the near future, and thus
would increase, the number of Trail users.



                                                                 IV-33

              WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY ACTIVITY ON THE TRAIL?


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 7.

What is your primary activity on the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
46.55%      270     -     Walking/hiking
40.86%      237     -     Biking
10.34%       60     -     Jogging
  .52%        3     -     Horseback riding
  .17%        1     -     Commuting
  .34%        2     -     Picnicking
 1.03%        6     -     Fishing
  .17%        1     -     Cross Country Skiing

As mentioned previously, the primary motivation for most people to use
the Trail is the lack of enjoyable and safe locations to walk, run and
bicycle.  Changes in land use patterns to higher densities and an 



                                                                 IV-34

increased acceptance of the automobile, as the primary consideration
of roadway engineering have made residents feel unsafe to walk or
bicycle for health and recreation purposes on or along road corridors. 
Given the proximity of the Trail in a developing residential area,
pressure on the Trail may be anticipated to increase accordingly with
the anticipated 25 percent growth in Baltimore county households
projected over the next 16 years.



                                                                 IV-35

Questions 8 and 9 confirmed beliefs regarding the uniformity of use of
the Trail by day and time.  Respondents answered that part of the
reason for such a broad use of days and times was that during "peak
hours" (after work and on weekend afternoons) parking for the Trail
can be difficult to find and the Trail can become too crowded.  At any
given time during daylight hours there is an average of over 102
people on the Trail.

               GENERALLY, WHEN DO YOU USE THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 8.

Generally, when do you use the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
56.37%      323     -     Weekdays
43.63%      250     -     Weekends



                                                                 IV-36

              IS THERE A PARTICULAR TIME OF DAY THAT YOU
                 ARE MOST LIKELY TO USE THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 9.

Is there a particular time of the day that you are more likely to use
the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
32.12%      185     -     Morning
32.12%      185     -     Afternoon
 4.69%       27     -     Evenings
31.08%      179     -     All times



                                                                 IV-37

Question 10.

What portion of the Trail do you use most often?

(Percent;   Counts)
57.34%      328     -     Ashland to Monkton
26.22%      150     -     Monkton to Freeland
16.43%      94      -     Entire length

As the draw area for the Trail is generally from the south (Baltimore
suburbs), which includes the areas having the greatest population
densities, the majority of use for the Trail is the southern half. 
However, as this portion of the Trail is often strained by the sheer
numbers of users, many respondents iterated that they now drive to the
northern half of the Trail because it is much more private and
secluded.  Because of its historical ambiance, parking availability
and services such as bicycle rentals, snacks, restrooms, etc.  Monkton
Station remains the "centerpiece" of the Trail.  To a limited degree,
Monkton has become a destination/"springboard" for Trail users.  The
historic buildings, rail station headquarters and services provided by
the adjacent small businesses attract many users seeking a bit of
history and country surroundings.

Question 11.

How much time do you spend on the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
 4.39%       24     -     Under 30 minutes
43.51%      238     -     About one hour
52.10%      285     -     More than one hour

Whether measuring by distance, type of use, or time it is clear that
many Trail users spend a significant amount of time on the Trail. 
Accordingly, many visitors walk/bike as much as 6 miles each time on
the Trail.



                                                                 IV-38

Using local climatological data provided by the National Weather
Service (Exhibits B and H, pages IV-4 and IV-40), it was determined
and checked with this and other questions that on average, there are
approximately 122 people using the Trail at any given time during
daylight hours.

*Using 52 days of poor/extreme weather circumstances and 12 hour/day
use averages.

Question 12.

Which parking lots do you generally use?

(Percent;   Counts)
21.27%      144     -     Monkton
18.32%      124     -     Ashland
15.21%      103     -     Phoenix
13.29%       90     -     Paper Mill
12.70%       86     -     Sparks
 7.39%       50     -     Whitehall
 4.73%       32     -     Parkton
 3.25%       22     -     Bentley Springs
 3.84%       26     -     Freeland

Question 12 serves as a follow up, linking parking facilities to
lengths of the Trail most commonly used.  As expected, Monkton Station
is the most popular parking facility.  Currently over 150 parking
spaces are made available to the public at the various access points
along the Trail.  While Trail users and nearby property owners both
argue there are nowhere near enough spaces to meet demand, they
recognize the Trail itself cannot accommodate more people.  As the
parking formulas adopted by the National Park Service for their
properties are now based on resource management, this formula also
works for the NCRT.  Any further expansion of the parking facilities
would probably lead to degradation of both the resource and the
intrinsic value of the experience for the people using it (See Exhibit
I, page IV-41).



                                                                 IV-39

                      NORTHERN CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL
Exhibit G
                          MAJOR ACCESS POINTS



Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-40



Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-41



Click HERE for graphic.





                                                                 IV-42

               HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 13.

How did you find out about the Trail?

(Percent;   Counts)
72.30%      402     -     Word of mouth
14.57%       81     -     Driving past
 9.17%       51     -     Newspaper
 3.96%       22     -     Road Map

Even though road signs to guide people toward the Trail exist in over
eight locations spread out over the length of the Trail, 72.3 percent
of the NCRT users became acquainted with it via word-of-mouth. 
Additionally, a few local businesses (bike shops, outfitters, horse
stables) promote the Trail to customers.  The adage "The best kind of
advertisement is word-of-mouth" certainly seems to have been true in
this circumstance.



                                                                 IV-43

                      ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS:

The methodology used for quantifying the economic impacts from the
Trail involved survey interviews with all groups of respondents
(users, property owners, and businesses alike).  Figures provided by
these interviews were used as the basis for assessing both the direct,
indirect and induced economic impacts of purchases directly
attributable to the Trail.  For a largely rural area, the impacts are
significant.  On the most basic level, snowcone and drink stands are
now located throughout the Trail, and as the investigation probed
deeper, broad economic inputs consistent with typical trail user
spending - both for soft and hard good purchases, were discovered.

Calculations derived from this data were then applied to the IMPLAN
input-output economic modeling system developed by the U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Land Management Planning Staff.  The IMPLAN input-output
(I/O) model included appropriate multipliers for the Baltimore area
and thus provided accurate data for total direct, indirect and induced
spending inputs.

The final step in the impact analysis was to apply all tabulations
from the input-output model to the 1993 operating expenditures for the
Northern Central Rail Trail.

In summary, the State expenditures to maintain and operate the Trail
for 1993 totaled $191,893 (see breakout below).  Economic benefits to
the State attributable to the Trail are represented in three forms
(goods sold, tax revenue and jobs created/supported).  For 1993 these
benefits are as follows:

 -  $3,380,013 in goods sold because of the Trail

 -  $  171,885 in State sales tax revenue via goods sold

 -  $  132,257 in State income tax revenue via jobs supported

 -  $   72,742 in Baltimore County personal income tax surtaxes

 -  The creation/support of over 262 jobs



                                                                 IV-44

 -To that end State tax revenues alone attributable to the Trail
 totaled $304,142 - a surplus of $112,249 to the State coffers.

           Break out of 1993 Operations Budget for the NCRT:
 
 Contractual Services:                                 $  4,971
 Telephone, Electric, Heat (Monkton Station):          $  4,191
 Classified Salaries:                                  $138,032
 Seasonal Salaries:                                    $ 27,973
 Maintenance Figures:                                  $  5,228
 Vehicle/Equipment (Maintenance and Fuel):             $ 11,498
 
 Total Operations Budget:                              $191,893


                              HARD GOODS

Question 14.

Has your use of the Trail influenced you to purchase?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    31.81%       223     -    Bike
    24.25%       170     -    Bike supplies
    22.40%       157     -    Running, walking shoes
    14.12%        99     -    Clothing
     7.42%        52     -    Film

70 percent of the respondents of the trail users survey had purchased
"hard goods" in the past year, and 57 percent of the property owners
surveyed had purchased goods for use on the Trail.  Combined, 61
percent of the Trail users spent an average of $203 per person in 1993
on goods for use on the Trail.  The dollar figure was provided by a
follow-up question asking respondents to estimate their per person



                                                                 IV-45

expenditures over the past year.  This effect resulted in the purchase
of over $1,773,246 worth of hard goods with a direct impact of over
$88,662.28 in tax revenue for the State of Maryland:

14,320 trail users * 61% * $203 = $1,773,246 Goods purchased for use
on Trail

$1,773,245 * 5% $88,662.28 Maryland State tax revenues

                              SOFT GOODS:

Expenditures for soft goods purchases were calculated using the same
methodology for hard goods with the exception that the final figure is
based on total attendance (per person per visit).  A qualifier asked
respondents of this question to estimate their expenditures per
person, per trip.  The weighted average expenditure for the total
attendance came to $6.30 per person per visit - exclusive of
transportation costs.  Additionally, it is projected that 46 percent
of the total Trail users made no purchases of soft goods.  Also
imported into the sales tax model is a "slippage" figure of 6 percent
to take into account items not taxed or sold "under the table." Direct
impacts for soft goods purchases were calculated as follows:

457,540 people * 54% * $6.30 = $1,556,551 Total soft goods
expenditures

457,540 people * 54% * $6.30 = (.05 *94) = $73,158 State tax revenue



                                                                 IV-46

               HOW DO YOU VALUE THIS TYPE OF LINEAR PARK
                  (TRAIL) COMPARED TO A TRADITIONAL,
                        MORE CONFINED PARK? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 15.

How do you value this type of linear park (Trail) compared to a
traditional, more confined park?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    66.03%       383     -    I like this type of park better
     2.41%        14     -    I like more traditional parks better
    31.55%       183     -    About the same

The unusual configuration of the NCRT (20 miles long and 60-200 feet
wide) provides the Trail with a unique identity in the region.  Given
present recreation use and demographic trends, it was no surprise that
approximately two-thirds of the total survey respondents favored
linear parks (greenways) over the 2.41 percent preferring more
traditional parks.



                                                                 IV-47

                DO YOU FEEL TRAILS SUCH AS THE NORTHERN
                   CENTRAL RAIL-TRAIL ARE A GOOD USE
                          OF STATE FUNDS? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 16.

Do you feel the Northern Central Rail Trail is a good use of State
funds?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    93.72%       612     -    Yes
     6.28%        41     -    No

To ensure there was no uneven weighting, the combined response
percentages of property owner surveys were tabulated as 91.41 percent
in favor of using State funds for the Trail and 8.59 percent opposed.



                                                                 IV-48

                      IMPACTS ON PROPERTY VALUES:

The third area of interest for the study was to assess the impacts (if
any) of the Trail on nearby property values.  In addition to
quantifying the perceptions of local property owners and Trail users,
interviews were conducted with local brokers, appraisers developers,
and the tax assessors.  Quantifying impacts (negative or positive) in
today's turbulent real estate market proved difficult:  Nearly all
concurred that the Trail increases the attractiveness of the vast
majority of properties within an easy walk of the resource.  Some
nearby developments, such as the Wesley Chapel subdivision,
incorporate an equestrian trail linkage in the project.  There are,
however, a number of properties negatively influenced by the weekend
convergence of Trail users.  As certain popular parking facilities
become full, users park on nearby private properties.

The greatest value that the Trail adds to nearby properties according
to developers and brokers is the increased salability of listings. 
Hence, if two identical properties are for sale and one is near the
Trail and the other is not - the Trail is used as a selling point, and
helps many nearby owners sell their property faster.  As one appraiser
noted with regard to how brokers frequently advertise the proximity of
a property listing to the Trail"...they wouldn't advertise the
proximity of the Trail if it didn't help sell property.' Several
developers with projects in the area felt the Trail may have increased
the value of their units by approximately $500, but the figure could
not be substantiated.  Presently there are several developments being
planned in close proximity to the Trail.
While 63 percent of the survey respondents felt the Trail adds an
average of $2,459 to nearby properties, the figure could not be
substantiated in the present market.  Research to confirm/deny if
these perceptions have indeed permeated the local market were explored
in a number of ways:

-  Analysis of comparable sales

-  Rent scales

-  Exchange values



                                                                 IV-49

-  Per square foot breakouts

-  Tax assessments

-  Sales listings where appropriate.

The results of the research show that no identifiable pattern of
economic impacts has been established in the area.  Part of the reason
for this is the limited amount of development and few exchanges in the
area of the Trail.  In some areas, such as Monkton Station, property
values on commercial enterprises are beginning to experience slight
positive impacts.  Conversely, a number of properties adjacent to the
Trail appear to experience limited negative leverage on values, which
relates to the 6.97 percent of respondents believing the Trail lowers
nearby property values.  As is the case with many impact analyses,
properties very close (within 1,000 feet), but not abutting the
resource, generally experience the greatest positive impacts on value. 
Revisiting this situation after more development occurs in the area
may provide the data to demonstrate a pattern of impacts on land
values.  Presently it is premature for any definite conclusions to be
drawn.

However, as perception is the basis of any value, the attitudes
captured by this survey should not be discounted, but rather tested as
additional weighted evidence is made available.  We would recommend
revisiting the issue of property value impacts in five to eight years
time as the development climate matures and possibly stabilizes.



                                                                 IV-50

                HOW STRONGLY DO YOU VALUE THE PRESENCE
                           OF THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 17.

How strongly do you value the presence of the Trail?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    88.04%       530     -    I value the Trail as a strong asset of
                              the community
     7.64%        46     -    The Trail is of limited value to the
                              community
     2.49%        15     -    I do not think the Trail is of any real
                              value to the community
     1.83%        11     -    The Trail is a negative influence on the
                              community

Similar to the previous question, property owner responses were
aggregated separately showing that 85 percent of respondents value the
Trail as a strong asset of the community while only 2 percent of
property owners feel the Trail is a negative influence on the
community.  Conversely, 94 percent of the respondents of the trail
users survey value the Trail as a strong asset of the community, and 1
percent feel the Trail is a negative influence.  Combined, an
overwhelming percentage (95 percent) of residents view the Trail as an
asset for their community.



                                                                 IV-51

             HOW MUCH VALUE DO YOU THINK THE TRAIL ADDS TO
                 PROPERTIES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF
                            THE TRAIL? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 18.

How much value do you think the Trail adds to properties within
walking distance to the Trail?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    30.46%       166     -    None
     6.97%        38     -    Lowers the value
    16.51%        90     -    Between $500 - $1,000
    18.17%        99     -    $1,000
    14.68%        80     -    $3,000
     4.40%        24     -    $5,000
     8.81%        48     -    More than $5,000



                                                                 IV-52

Question 19.

What is your gender?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    60.09%       396      -   Male
    39.91%       263      -   Female

The disproportionate relationship of men to women reflects a sentiment
expressed by a large percentage of female respondents that although
they feel the Trail is made as safe as any park can be, many women
feel vulnerable by themselves and are reluctant to use the Trail
without the company of a male.  This sentiment appears to suggest a
larger issue for safety rather than a direct concern based on the
Trail.  Interestingly, women living adjacent to, or nearby the Trail
felt more safe alone on the Trail than females traveling to the Trail
from the surrounding areas.  This condition may partially explain why
women living closer to the Trail are over 33 percent more likely to
use the Trail alone.

Question 20.

Are you aware of other rail-trails in Maryland?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    57.27%       374      -   Yes
    42.73%       279      -   No

As expected, Trail users were nearly twice as likely to be aware of
other rail trails in the State than respondents who do not use the
Trail.



                                                                 IV-53

                  WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE TRAILS 
                      DEVELOPED IN THE STATE? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 21.

Would you like to see more trails developed in the state?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    91.87%       576     -    Yes
     8.13%        51     -    No

As a separate analysis, 96 percent of the respondents of the Trail
Users Survey were in favor, while slightly less (90 percent) of the
respondents of the Property Owners Survey are also in favor of seeing
the State develop more trails.



                                                                 IV-54

Questions 22 - 25 were asked to assess people's attitudes toward the
Trail as a resource and its operation.

                     DO YOU FIND THE TRAIL TO BE 
                         WELL MAINTAINED? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 22.

Do you find the trail to be well maintained?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    53.95%       328     -    Excellent
    40.62%       247     -    Good
     4.11%        25     -    Fair
     1.32%         8     -    Poor

Very few respondents (1.32 percent) had negative comments as to the
maintenance of the resource, and many noted near their response that
they were genuinely appreciative of the Park's personnel and their
efforts to manage the Trail.



                                                                 IV-55

                 DO YOU FIND THE TRAIL TO BE SAFE? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 23.

Do you find the trail to be safe?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    40.94%       244     -    Excellent
    47.82%       285     -    Good
     9.56%        57     -    Fair
     1.68%        10     -    Poor

As noted earlier, respondents generally felt safe on the Trail and
commented that the Trail was as safe as could reasonably be expected. 
Others noted that as there are usually others using the Trail at the
same time as themselves they feel more safe - experiencing "safety in
numbers."



                                                                 IV-56

           DO YOU FIND THE TRAIL TO BE PRIVATE/SECLUDED? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 24.

Do you find the trail to be private/secluded? 

 (Percent;   Counts)
    39.02%       231     -    Excellent
    44.76%       265     -    Good
    12.84%        76     -    Fair
     3.38%        20     -    Poor

The major complaint associated with this question is that the Trail
often gets too crowded at certain times, on certain days and at
certain locations.  However, the lack of development adjacent or near
the Trail and the presence of wetlands, steep slopes and rock
outcroppings also contribute favorably to the aesthetic appeal of the
Trail.



                                                                 IV-57

                DO YOU FIND THE TRAIL TO BE CLEAN? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 25.

Do you find the trail to be clean?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    58.54%       353     -    Excellent
    36.32%       219     -    Good
     4.64%        28     -    Fair
      .50%         3     -    Poor

The most frequent notation respondents made with regard to this
question involved the absence of trash receptacles from the Trail;
some being for it, some against.  Regardless, the overwhelming
consensus was appreciative, with less than 1 percent of respondents
expressing poor ratings for the Trail's condition.



                                                                 IV-58

Question 26.

Would you like to receive information on becoming a Trail
volunteer/supporter? 

 (Percent;   Counts)
    34.88%       203     -    Yes
    65.12%       379     -    No

We had not expected to receive such a favorable response (34.88
percent), which probably shows a level of commitment and "ownership"
by many of the Trail's users.

      ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ASKED EXCLUSIVELY OF PROPERTY OWNERS:

Question 1B.

How long have you lived in close proximity to the Trail? 

 (Percent;   Counts)
    68.60%       308     -    Greater than five years
    22.49%       101     -    Between three and five years
     8.02%        36     -    Between one and three years
      .89%         4     -    Under one year

The results of this question confirms the difficulty in defining the
economic impacts the Trail has had on property values.  With so few
exchanges taking place since the Trail's inception, the perception of
residents remains the single greatest qualifier to the impacts on
property value question.



                                                                 IV-59

             IF YOU WERE TO SELL YOUR HOUSE, DO YOU THINK
               YOUR HOUSE'S PROXIMITY TO THE TRAIL WOULD
                   BE A POSITIVE SELLING POINT? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 2B.

If you were to sell your house, do you think your house's proximity to
the Trail would be a positive selling point?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    68.33%       302     -    Yes
    31.67%       140     -    No

With distance to the Trail being the major variable for the
respondents of this question, over 90 percent of respondents living
within one mile of the Trail felt their property's proximity to the
Trail was an amenity they could use to assist in the sale of their
property.



                                                                 IV-60

               IF YOU WERE TO BUY A NEW HOUSE, WOULD THE
                    PROXIMITY OF ANOTHER TRAIL/PARK
                     INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION? (1)


Click HERE for graphic.


Question 3B.

If you were to buy a new house, would the proximity of another
trail/park influence your decision?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    61.68%       272     -    Yes
    38.32%       169     -    No

The response to this question again confirmed the fact that the
availability and proximity of recreational resources do influence a
majority of people as to where they choose to live.



                                                                 IV-61

Question 4B.

Which of the following most closely matches your impressions on future
property values in your area?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    59.91%       269     -    I expect property values to increase
                              slightly
    22.49%       101     -    I expect property values to remain about
                              the same
    15.14%        68     -    I expect property values to increase
                              greatly
     2.23%        10     -    I expect property values to decline
                              slightly
      .22%         1     -    I expect property values to decline
                              greatly

Three-quarters of the respondents expressed degrees of optimism for
future property values in the area, with less than 3 percent of
respondents predicting a decline in property values.

Question 5B.

Which of the following most closely matches your impressions of
property values in your area over the past few years?

 (Percent;   Counts)
    39.60%       177     -    Property values have increased over the
                              past few years
    33.56%       150     -    Property values have remained the same
                              over the past few years
    22.82%       102     -    Property values have declined slightly
                              over the past few years
     4.03%        18     -    Property values have declined
                              substantially over the past few years



                               APPENDIX



                              Appendix A
                       Economic Impact Analysis



   MARYLAND RAIL TRAIL STATE AND COUNTY INCOME TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS


Click HERE for graphic.



             MARYLAND RAIL TRAIL ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
                      IMPLAN INPUT - OUTPUT MODEL


Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



Click HERE for graphic.



                              Appendix B
                             Bibliography



                              REFERENCES

Alward, Gregory S., 1986.  In The President's Commission on American
Outdoors, A Literature Review. ("Values and Benefits", pp. 47-57). 
Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office.

Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning, Baltimore County RC 4
Rural Cluster Development Minor Subdivisions.  Office of Planning and
Zoning, Baltimore, Maryland, October, 1993.

Baltimore Regional Council of Governments, Forecasts of Population,
Households, Economic Research and Information Systems.  Baltimore,
Maryland, 1993.

The Baltimore Sun Magazine, "All Aboard the Rail Trail", Baltimore,
Maryland, July 26, 1992.

Beard, Karl and Barry Didato, Building Greenways.  National Park
Service, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Caputo, Darryl F., 1979.  Open Space Pays: The socioenvironomics of
Open Space Preservation.  Morristown, New Jersey:  New Jersey
Conservation Foundation.

City of Seattle, 1987.  Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trail's Effect
on Property Values and Crime.  Seattle, Washington:  Seattle
Engineering Department, Office of Planning.

Claritas Max, Online Data Acquisition, 1993.

Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lilly Dahl, and Larry D. Singell, 1978.  The
Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values:  Some Findings
on the Political Economy of Open Space, Land Economics, 54(2). 

Driver, B. L. and Brown, P. J., 1986.  In The President's Commission
on Americans Outdoors, A Literature Review. (pp.  Values, 63-70). 
Washington, D. C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office.

Frechtling, Douglas C., 1987.  "Assessing the Impacts of Travel and
Tourism - Measuring Economic Benefits." In J.R. Brent & Charles R.
Goeldner (eds.) Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research.  New York:
John Woley and Sons, pp. 333-352.

Furuseth, Owen J. and Altman, Robert E., 1991.  "Who's on the
Greenway: Socioeconomic, Demographic, and Locational Characteristics
of Greenway Users."  Environmental Management. 15(3), 329-336.

Furuseth, Owen J. and Altman, Robert E., 1990.  "Greenway Use and
Users:  An Examination of Raleigh and Charlotte Greenways."  Carolina
Planning 16(2), 37 -42.



Gobster, Paul, 1990.  The Illinois Statewide Trail User Study.  USDA
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: Chicago. 
Available from Rails-To-Trails Conservancy, Illinois Chapter, 313 W.
Cook Street, Springfield, IL.

Hammer, Thomas R., Robert E. Coghlin and Edward T. Horn IV.  July
1974.  "Research Report:  The Effect of a Large Park on Real Estate
Value."  Journal of the American Institute of Planners.

Keiner, Suellen T., 1985.  The Contribution of Outdoor Recreation to
Slate Economic Development. (pp. 73) Washington, D. C. Council of
State Planning Agencies.

Lawton, Kate, 1986.  The Economic Impact of Bike Trails: A Case Study
of the Sugar River Trail.  Unpublished Manuscript.  New Glarus, WI:
Sugar Hill State Trail Corp.

Little, Charles, 1990.  Greenways for America.  Baltimore:  The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Maryland Department of Economic Development, Baltimore County,
Maryland.  Brief Economic Facts, Maryland Office of Planning, 1993.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Guide to the Northern
Central Rail-Trail.  Howley Wolf Publications, Silver Spring,
Maryland, June, 1991.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Gunpowder Currents, Vols. 1-
6, Gunpowder Falls State Park, Glen Arm, Maryland, 1993.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Master Plan for the Northern
Central Railroad Trail, October 10, 1993.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1980.  State Trail Survey
Results Summary (Heartland, Root River, Douglas, and Munger State
Trails).  Unpublished paper:  Minnesota DNR, Trails and Waterways
Unit, Saint Paul, MN.

National Park Service, 1990.  Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers,
Trails and Greenway Corridors.

Vance, Tamara A. and Arthur B. Larson, 1988.  Fiscal Impact of Major
Land Uses in Culpeper County, Virginia.  Piedmont Environmental
Council.

Walsh, Richard G., 1986.  Recreation Economic Decisions:  Comparing
Benefits and Costs.  State College, PA:  Venture Publishing, pp. 70-
71.





(430.html)
Jump To Top