A Contingent Trip Model for Estimating Rail-Trail Demand

How to cite this study

Betz, C., J. Bergstrom, and J.M. Bowker. 2003. “A contingent trip model for estimating rail-trail demand.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46(1): 79-96.

Overview

This study estimates future use on a proposed rail-trail in Georgia, while most trail studies estimate use on an existing trail. It found that the best predictors of future trail use are how close the person lives to the trail, whether they had ridden bicycles in the previous year, and whether they had used a rail trail previously; age and income were not related to predicted use.

Relevance

This study’s findings regarding the factors that lead to higher trail use can be applied in many places, even though it may not be feasible for all researchers to follow the rigorous statistical methods developed in this paper. The authors’ approach allowed for the collection of information from non-users of the trail to identify obstacles to expanding the user base, an often-overlooked aspect when assessments of local trail use are conducted.

Location

The trail connects the towns of Madison (population 3,982 in 2013) and Watkinsville (population 2,874 in 2013) in northeastern Georgia. Watkinsville is roughly 15 minutes from Athens, Georgia (population 117,749 in 2013).

Trail Type

The study estimates potential future use of a section of the proposed 23-mile Antebellum Rail-Trail (ART), a multi-use path. The trail has since been developed, connecting seven towns and covering 100 miles.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study is to determine whether there would be sufficient users, and benefits to those users, to justify building the trail. As a part of this effort, the authors developed a cost-effective method to estimate future trail use by surveying the nearby population. The study was supported by the Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station and Southern Research Station of the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Findings

The authors predict the proposed trail would have 416,000 household visits per year.

Many respondents were familiar with and supportive of rail trails:

• 20 percent had previous experience using rail trails,
• 31 percent said they were familiar with the term “rail trail” prior to receiving the survey, and
• 41 percent expressed strong support for developing rail trails.

The following factors were strong predictors of how much respondents thought they would use the proposed trail:

• Respondents who had ridden bicycles some or a lot in the previous year were much more likely to take trips to the new trail;
• Respondents who had used a rail trail previously were more likely to use the new trail;
• Respondents who lived closer to the trail were more likely to use it.

The authors found that household income, age, and whether the respondent lived in a rural or urban area were not related to expected trail use.

Roughly one-third of respondents stated they would take no trips to the ART. Over half of these stated they might use it, but would not make a trip specifically for it. Respondents cited time and cost constraints as the main reason not to use the trail.

The authors estimate that monetized benefits to future trail users, called “consumer surplus,” will be $18.46 per trip, which is comparable to values from other studies. Multiplying this by the expected number of visits per year yields a total benefit to trail users of approximately $7.5 million per year.