37greenwayuse.pdf

Greenway

Use and

Users:

An

Examination

Of

Raleigh

and

Charlotte

Greenways

Owen

J.

Furuseth

Robert

E.

Altman

As

with

any

public

facility,

the

planning

and

development

of greenways should be

reflective

of

the

needs of

potential

users

and

types

of

usage.

Because

of

theirrelative

short

history,

however,

almost

no

effort

has been

made

to

follow

up

the

expected use

_{of greenways}

with

empirical

evidence

concerning

their

actual

usage.

Intuitively,

greenway

planners

and

designers

may

have

some

notion

_of

likely

patronage,

how

the

facility will

be

used,

and

where

patrons

will

be

coming

from, but

these

perceptions

may

be

inappropriate.

Without

actual

information

on greenway

visitors

and

use,

the

planning

process

is

guided by

conjecture.

If

greenway

development

trends of the 1980s are

ex-tended, thedecade ofthe1990swillseethe proliferationof

new

and expanded greenways throughouttheUnitedStates.

The

challenges facing

greenway

planners

and

managers

are

varied,butthe importance ofcollecting

and

usingpatron

dataintheplanningprocesscannot bediscounted. Inorder

to create viable, user-accessible facilities, better

under-standing

ofwho

patronsare,theirpatterns ofuse,

and

their

problems

and

concerns

must

be addressed.

These

are

critical ingredients for not onlyenhancing facility usage, butalsobuildingbroader

community

supportforthe

green-way

concept.

Asa

resultofaninitialrequest

from

the

North

Carolina

Greenways Conference

Organizing

Committee,

the

De-partment of

Geography and

EarthSciencesofthe

Univer-sityof

North

CarolinaatCharlottehas

been

involvedin sev-eralcase studiesof

greenway

patronage designedtoaddress

these questions.

Our

research has used

two

of

North

Carolina's oldest

and

largestgreenways, the Capital

Area

Greenway

System

inRaleigh

and

the

McAlpine

Greenway

inCharlotte,asstudysites. Inour

work

we

havecollected data of

greenway

users, their activity patterns,

and

their

evaluationsofthesefacilities.

The

researchcarriedout

on

Charlotte

and

Raleigh

green-ways found several

common

elements

between

the

two

communities and

theirdissimilargreenways.

While

these findings relate specifically to the

McAlpine

and

Capital

Area

greenways,they

may

haverelevanceor,atleast, pro-vide

some

insights forother

North

Carolinacommunities.

A

Recent

History

Greenways were

rediscoveredinthe 1980s. Inthefaceof

increasing publicconcern overthelossof

open

space

and

the protection oflocalqualityoflife,greenways

emerged

as ahighlytoutedplanningstrategy (Little, 1987).

A

green-way

may

be definedasa

narrow

linear stripof

undeveloped

land often located alonga stream,flood plain,powerline

corridoror

unused

railroad line.

Because

theyrepresent

fingers of open, public space in a larger urban setting,

greenways

may

providea varietyofpublicbenefits. Special-izedrecreational opportunities,suchasbikepaths,jogging

trails,orparcourses,fitwell into the

greenway

concept.

At

the

same

time,environmental

and

aestheticgoals

may

be

enhanced

bythe

maintenance

ofstream corridors, flood

plains,

and

naturallyvegetated areas (Kusler

and

South-worth, 1988).

Nature

study, fishing

and

picnicking are potentially importantactivities along greenways.

Green-ways

may

also be integrated into a local transportation system.

Where

greenwayslink

neighborhoods

and

commu-nityfacilities,theyrepresent

an

alternative transportation

mode

to the

roadway

(Rotolo, 1981).

Greenways

are

uniquelymultifaceted facilities; theysupply recreational,

environmentalquality,

and

transport servicesfora

minimal

public investment

and occupy

onlyasmallportion ofthe

community.

Inthe past tenyears,thegreenways concepthasspread

Owen

J.Furusethisprofessorofgeographyatthe Universityof North Carolina at Charlotte.

He

is a _{graduate of East}

Carolina University

and Oregon

State University. Priorto

joining thefaculty at

UNCC,

he

was

a planner with the

Jacksonville

Area

Planning

Board

in Jacksonville, Florida.

Hisprofessional

and

researchinterestsarein landuse

plan-ning.

RobertE.

Altman

receivedamaster'sdegree

from

the

Depart-ment

of

Geography

and

Earth Sciencesatthe Universityof North CarolinaatCharlottein 1990.

He

iscurrentlya Ph.D.

studentinthegeography

program

at

Oregon

StateUniversity,

Greenway Programs

in

North Carolina

ExistingGreenwayor TrailSystem

GreenwayUnder DevelopmentorPlanned

GreenwayProgram UnderConsideration

Source: GreenwaysIncorporated,CurrentStatusGreenwavsProgramsinNorth Carolina,February 1989.

from

a fewprogressive communities, like Denver,

Colo-radoandPortland,Oregon,toover200jurisdictions. (Knack andSearns, 1990).

The

highlyregarded President's

Com-mission

on

America's

Outdoors recommended,

in their

1987report,the

development

ofa locallybased,nationwide system ofgreenwaysas a

mechanism

forproviding public accessto

open

space.

In

North

Carolina, there areelevenoperating greenways

or

greenway

systems,withanadditionaltwenty-eight

com-munitieseitherinthe process ofdeveloping greenwaysor considering

them

(see

map

above).

Although most

ofthe

greenwayactivity inthestateisconcentrated in the

more

urban Piedmont, especially the Research Triangle area,

greenwaysarefound throughoutthestate in

communities

of varyingsizes.

The

Capital

Area

and

McAlpine Greenways

While

Raleigh

and

Charlotte's

greenway

planning

pro-grams havereceivedwidespreadrecognition, theseefforts

have

produced

verydifferent products. In 1981,

Meck-lenburg

County

adopted a countywide master

greenway

plancalling for a65-mile "green necklace" oflinear

open

spacelinking

communities and

neighborhoods.

The

largest

component

ofthe

greenway

would

besituatedinlowlying

floodplains.

These

water-orientedcorridorswould,inturn,

bejoined together usingconnectingtrailsalong roadways

(see illustration

on

page39).

Presently, the only operating

greenway

section is the 360- acre

McAlpine

facility,extendingalongthe

McAlpine

Creek. It is locatedina middle- toupper-classsuburban

areaineast Charlotte.

Opened

in 1979,

greenway

facilities

include three milesof

paved

bikeways, a three-mile

cross-country runningtrail,

and

athree-acrelake. Itadjoins the

county-operated

McAlpine

District Park.

The

greenway

abuts several

neighborhoods

and

there are

community

entrances as well as the

main

entrance, with a shared parkingarea.

The

greenway,

which

hasan estimated5,000

visitors per week, is

open

daily without admission fee.

Because it is a single-segment greenway, the

McAlpine

facilitymight beconsidered aneighborhood-oriented green-way.

The

Capital

Area Greenway, begun

in1972,isthe oldest

greenway

in

North

Carolina

and

ranks

among

thelargest

municipal greenwaysystemsintheUnitedStates(Flourney,

Jr., 1989).

The

system serves the city of Raleigh

and

adjacent portionsof

Wake

County, with 12trailsegments extending over 27linearmiles

and

covering

800

acres(see illustration

on

page41).

As

the

greenway

winds through

the city, it connects

neighborhoods

and communities

of

varyingsocial

and

demographic

characteristics.

Unlikethe

McAlpine

greenway,the Capital

Area

green-way

is a

comprehensive

system oftrails, presenting easy opportunitiesforcitizensthroughoutthecityto use,

due

to

itssize

and

accessibilityto

many

differentneighborhoods.

Data

Collection

The

research data

were

collectedatboth greenways, over

a

one-month

period,usinganintercept survey.

Greenway

usersatleastsixteenyearsof age

were randomly

surveyedat differenttimesofday. InCharlotte,the interviewers

were

positionedat the

main and neighborhood

entrances. In

fourtrailsat

main and

various

neighborhood

entrances.

The

four trails surveyed in Raleigh

were

the Shelley Lake,

Johnson

Lake,Buckeye,andLittle

Rock

trails.

These

trails

were chosen

becausetheyrepresentacross-sectionof

the various types of

greenway

trails

and neighborhood

settings fortheCapital

Area

system.

Upper

middle-income

neighborhoods surroundthe

Johnson

Lake

Trailin south-west Raleigh.

Upper

middle-income

and

affluent

neigh-borhoods

surround the Shelley

Lake

Greenway

Trail in

northeast Raleigh.

The

Buckeye and

Little

Rock

trailsare smaller green-ways.

The

Little

Rock Greenway

insoutheast Raleighis

situated in a predominantly

low-income

neighborhood.

The

Buckeye

Trailrunsthrough lower middle-to

middle-income

blue collarsections ofeast Raleigh with

low-in-come

housing

developments

situatednearit.

The

survey questionnaire

was

composed

of multiple choice questions. Itqueriedtherespondentsabout

green-way

usage,visitors'concerns or problems,aswellas collect-ingsocioeconomic,

demographic and

locational

informa-tion.

Two

hundredsixty-one adultscompletedthe

McAlpine

questionnaire, while

320

persons

answered

the Capital

MecklenburgCounty

Greenway System

Connectorsalong

Roadways ProposedGreenways

MunicipalBoundaries

Source Adapted byauthors from theMecklenburgCountyGreenwayMasterPlanMap.June1987.

Area

Greenway

survey.

The

survey

was

designedto

mini-mize

interview time.

The number

of personsrefusing to

participateinthesurvey

was

extremelylow,lessthan seven

percent, inbothcases.

Greenway

Patrons

Given

the locational

and

size differences

between

the Capital

Area and

McAlpine

greenways,

we

began

our

re-searchanticipating that there

would be

significant

differ-ences

between greenway

patronage inRaleigh

and

Char-lotte. Surprisingly,

we

found

that both the

"comprehen-sive"

and "neighborhood"

greenways tendedto

draw

a very similaruserpopulation

and had

the

same

serviceradius.

Tables 1

and

2 presenta profileof

greenway

visitors in

Charlotte

and

Raleigh.

The

majority ofadult visitors in

both

communities

are

young

to middle-aged,white,

and

resideinhouseholds withoutchildren. Socioeconomically, patrons are better educated

and

live in households with higher

incomes

than the average non-patron.

When

the

McAlpine

background

variables are

compared

with the

characteristics ofthe surrounding census tracts,

and

the Capital

Area greenway background

dataare

compared

with

citywide

socioeconomic

and demographic

data,

greenway

usersare

found

tobesignificantlyyounger,bettereducated,

more

affluent,

and

includefewer non-whites.

Table 1. Capital

Area

Greenway

User

Characteristics

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-84

Age

21%

Female

33%

Male

23%

13%

10%

Gender

53%

Non-Wliite

47%

Wliite

Race

15%

85%

High School Some College Graduate Educational Graduate College Graduate Studies

Attainment

15%

24%

40%

21%

$10,001- $25,001-

$50,001-Household <$10,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 >$100,000

Income 7.6% 22.1% 42.2% 23.2% 4.8%

Children<18 Yes

No

InHousehold

30%

70%

One

area

where

the Raleigh

and

Charlotte findings

differisgender.

The

majority of

McAlpine

visitors

were

men, whereas

thelargest

number

of respondentsalongthe Capital

Area

Greenway

were

women.

This variance might be accounted for by gender-related mobility differences.

Transportation studies have

shown

that

women

tend to

havelesstravelflexibilitythan

men

(Hanson and Hanson,

1981;Pas,1984). Consequently,thelarger,

more

accessible Capital

Area greenway

may

provide greateropportunity

Table2.

McAlpine

Greenway

User

Characteristics 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65

Age 15%

Female

31%

Male

25%

18%

7%

4%

Gender

48%

Non-White

52%

Wltite

Race

5%

95%

NotH.S. H.S. Some College Graduate Educnlion.il Graduate Graduate College Graduate Studies

Attainment

3%

13%

25%

45%

13%

Household

Children<18

InHousehold

<$10,000

6%

Yes

36%

$10,000-$25,000

24%

No

64%

$25,001-

$50,001-$50,000 $100,000 >$100,000

42%

22%

5%

Although

the

image

ofa"yuppie"-type

greenway

patron emerges

from

theuserprofile,thisimpressionis

tempered

by frequency ofuse.

While younger

visitorspredominate,

they arenot the

most

intensive users ofthesegreenways.

The

heaviest

greenway

usageisbya smallerpool ofolder

residents.

When

respondents

were

asked

how

often they

used the greenway, the

most

active users

were

seniors,

persons over 55years. InCharlotte

and

Raleigh, amajority

oftheseniorsinterviewedvisitedthe

greenway

daily.

For

most

senior patrons,

greenway

activities have

become

an importantpartoftheirlifestyle.

The

overwhelming

majorityof

greenway

visitors inboth Raleigh

and

Charlotte live nearthe facility (seeTables 3

and4).

The

primaryservice areaofthe four Capital

Area

greenway segments

and

the

McAlpine

greenway

was

a

five-mile radius. Well over one-half

(58%)

of the Raleigh

patronslive lessthanfivemiles

from

thegreenway,

and

90

percent residelessthan ten miles

from

the trail

on which

they

were

surveyed. Similarly,52 percentof the

McAlpine

visitorslivewithin a five-mile radius

and

91 percentlivein a ten-mile radius.

Table3. Capital

Area

Greenway

Distance

From

User'sResidence

essthan.99miles ...

16.0%

1 to1.99miles . ..

10.7%

2to4.99 miles ...

32.0%

5to10.99 miles ...

31.7%

Over

11miles ...

9.6%

Table4.

McAlpine

Greenway

Distance

From

User'sResidence Less than1 mile

18%

1 to5miles

52%

6to10miles

21%

Over

10miles

9%

The

close correlation in travel distances

between

the

McAlpine

and

Capital

Area

greenways

was

completely unexpected.

Because

the Capital

Area

Greenway

offersthe

convenience of proximity to

more

neighborhoods, it

was

conversely anticipated that the

McAlpine

greenway would

attract visitors

from

a

much

largerarea.

The

locational characteristics of patrons inboth

com-munitiessuggests thatgreenwaysplayan importantrolein

neighborhood

recreationoractivitypatterns,butthatthey

have

much

less importance in a regional context.

The

absence oflarge

numbers

of users living

more

than five

miles

from

thegreenwayssuggests that

competing

oppor-tunities

from

otherpublicfacilitiesare

meeting

theneeds ofthese potentialvisitors. Inconclusion,personsarenot

willing toforego nearbyrecreational facilitiesin orderto

visit

more

distantgreenways.

Patterns of

Use

Greenways

offera varietyofpotentialusesranging

from

passivetoactiverecreation,aswell as transportation. This

multi-facetedaspectof greenwaysisoftencitedby

propo-nentsas

one

oftheir

most

importantsellingpoints;

how-ever,

when

we

queried Charlotte

and

Raleighpatronsabout

how

theyused thegreenway, the respondentsindicated a specialized patternof use(seeTables5

and

6).

Table5. Capital

Area

Greenway

Pattern

Of

Use

Atleast Atleast Atleast oncea once a oncea

Everyday week month year Never

Activity _(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

BikeRiding 5.6 12.6 11.6 4.3 65.8

Walking 27.2 33.2 16.3 11.0 12.3

Jogging 8.3 17.3 10.0 3.7 60.8

Transportation 1.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 92.4

BirdWatching 4.7 6.6 8.0 3.0 77.7

Picnicking 0.0 3.7 15.3 16.6 64.5

Fishing 0.0 2.0 5.0 6.3 86.7

Boating 0.0 1.3 4.7 14.3 79.7

Table6.

McAlpine

Greenway

Pattern of

Use

Very

Frequently Frequently Seldom Never

Activity (%) (%) (%) (%)

Walking 40 32 16 12

Jogging/Runn ng 28 16 10 46

Bikeriding 8 16 16 60

Birdwatching 3 8 17 72

Picnicking 1 11 25 63

Transportation 2 4 8 86

Fishing 1 6 93

Based

on

oursurveys,it

would

appearthatthe

greenway

is

most

usedforwalking,joggingor running,

and

bicycling.

Allotheruses

seem

ancillary. Picnicking, bird watching,

and

fishing

were

regular

greenway

activitiesforarelatively

activities bird watching

was

the

most

popular, butonly

one

in fiveCapital

Area

patrons

and

one

in ten

McAlpine

patronsreportedregularly vis-itingthe

greenway

tobirdwatch.

The

heavyuseofthe

greenway

for

pedestrian-and bicycle-oriented recreation is perhaps not suprising. Their linear shape

and

separation from vehicular traffic

make

them

an attractive

alternative to streets or roadways.

Very

few urban land usescan provide these

same

condi-tions,

which

are so valued by pedestrian-

and

bike-orientedrecreationists. Informationabout

good

places to recreate is often shared

among

runners,bicyclists

and

walkers, increasingusage

by thesegroups.

Additionally,

greenway

planners

and

manag-ers tend to

promote

these facilities for these typesofactivities. Indesigninggreenways, plan-ners

and

landscapearchitects are keenly sensi-tive topedestrian-related uses. Similarly,park and recreation

managers

have a tendency to

marketand operatethesefacilitieswith

empha-sis

on

walking, running, and biking.

The

lower usagerates forothertypesofrecreation

may

be

a reflection ofa lack of awareness concerning

otherpotential recreationalactivities inthe green-ways.

Among

the lowest use categories

on

both greenways

was

transportation.

Very

few

respon-dents, less than seven percent, stated that they regularly used the

greenway

for transportation purposes. Thisusagerate

seems

suprisingly low,

inlightofearliernational reports

which

empha-sizedthepotentialuseof greenwaysfor intra-city

travel. This resultunderscoresthefactthatneither

green-way was

specificallyplanned for transportation purposes.

The McAlpine

greenway

is onlythree miles long,

and

its

present

end

points are

two

highway bridges.

The

Capital

Area greenway

isextensive,butitalso

was

not plannedto

connectactivitypoints(e.g.,

employment

centers,

shopping

areas,

community

facilities). Lackingaccessibility to

city-wide traveldestinations, extensive useofeither

greenway

fortransportisunrealistic.

A

second consideration

may

bethe survey population,

which

was

limitedtoadults.

Because

both greenways pro-vide linkages

between neighborhoods

theirgreatest

trans-portation useis likely tobe inter-neighborhood or

neigh-borhood-to-park.

Much

ofthistypeoflocal travel

would

be

byyouthsvisitingfriendsinnearby

neighborhoods

orgoing

to the park.

Had we

surveyed all

greenway

patrons, the youthfulvisitorsmight haveincreased thetravelelement.

Patron

Satisfaction

and

Concerns

One

area

where

usersurveysprovideinsightsthatcannot becollectedthrough any other

mechanism

isvisitor

satis-Capital

Area

Greenway System

-<z>

GreenwayPaths Creek and Lakes GreenwayStudy Areas RaleighCityBoundary

Source: Adaptedby Authors fromthe CapitalAreaGreenway Map.inCapitalAreaGreenway.AReportTo

TheCityCouncilOnTheBenefit Potential,AndMethodologyOfEstablishingAGreenway System

InRaleigh.1982.

faction.

Without

thesedataitisimpossibleto

know

how

effectively a facility or specific design is

meeting

public

needs

and

expectations.

Moreover,

one

isable toidentify

user

problems and measure

theseriousnessofthese

con-cerns. This type of information can be used to modify

existing

greenway

structuresor operationstorespond

bet-tertopublic needs,aswellastoplan

and

design

more

"user friendly"greenways inthefuture.

Our

survey

found

thatbothCapital

Area and

McAlpine

greenway

visitors

were

extremelysatisfied. Admittedly,

we

expected

greenway

visitors tobe supportive of greenways, ortheyprobably

would

not usethefacility; however,their

enthusiasm for local greenways

and greenway

expansion

was

more

intensethananticipated.

When

respondents

were

asked toranktheimportance of greenwaysagainstothertypesofparks,greenways

were

perceived

more

valuablebyamajorityofthe Raleigh pa-trons

and

slightly less than a majority of the Charlotte patrons(seeTable7). Clearly,

greenway

usersfindthese

facilitiesbetter suited totheirrecreationalneeds than

Table7. Patrons' Attitudes

Toward

Local

Greenways

"Compared

toothertypes of parks,

how

would

you

rank

theimportanceofgreenways?"

CapitalArea

McAlpinc

More

Valuable(%)

62.8 48.0

Equally Valuable{%)

34.9 50.0

Less Valuable(%)

2.3 2.0

"Would

you

supportspendingpublic

money

to

develop

and

operateadditional

greenways?"

CapitalArea

McAlpine

Yes(%)

89.8 90.0

>{%) Don'tKnow(%)

2.3 7.9

5.0 5.0

"How

likely

would you

betosupportraising

propertytaxestodevelop

more

greenways?"

Very Don't Very

Likely Likely Know Unlikely Unlikely

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CapitalArea 23.3 29.2 21.9 15.3 10.3

"Even

ifit

meant

raisingtaxes

would you

support developing

more

greenways?"

McAlpine

Yes(%) 73.0

No

(%)

14.0

Don'tKnow(%)

13.0

A

willingness to spend public funds, or even increase

taxes to

expand

greenways,

would

indicate adeeper support

not

measured

bythefirstgeneral question.

When

queried aboutincreased public spending,roughly90 percentof the patronsrespondedaffirmatively.

But

ifincreased

greenway

spending

were

translated into higher taxes, the survey

showed

thatthe

amount

ofsupport

would

drop.

Never-theless, a majorityofthe users, 73 percent in Charlotte

and

52.5percent inRaleigh, indicatedsupportfor

green-way

expansioneven withhighertaxes.

Patron support

and

satisfactionwith their greenways was also evident

when

respondents

were

asked about greenway problems(seeTable8).

The

surveylisted sev-eralpotential

problems

and

asked respondents to

indi-cate

whether

each

problem was

"very serious," "serious,"

"minor"

or

"no

problem."

The

set of problems

was

compiledinconjunction withthe

North

Carolina

Green-ways Conference Organizing

Committee

tocoverawide range ofuserconcerns.

A

reviewofthesesurveyresultsshowsthatmost Raleigh and Charlotte

greenway

users indicated very few prob-lems withtheirfacilities.

No

more

thanseven percentof the

McAlpine

users orfifteenpercent ofthe Capital

Area

usersclassified any

problem

as"serious"

and

"very

seri-ous."

On

everyissueamajority of therespondents

indi-cated

"no

problem." This perception

was

completely unexpected.

Based

on

ourdiscussionswith

greenway

planners,

we

had

expectedtofindthat"securityorfearofcrime"

would

beawidespreaduserconcern, butitprovedtobe

much

less

of a

problem

thananticipated.

Among

Capital

Area

Green-way

users,58.8percent describeditas

"no

problem," while 75 percent of

McAlpine

users described securityas

"no

problem."

Moreover,

among

thosesurveyed

who

did

indi-cate aconcernabout crime orsecurity,

most

consideredit

tobea

minor

issue.

Greenway

cleanliness,parking limitations,

and

crowd-ing

were

somewhat

problematic

among

Raleighpatrons,

while arealimitationscausing overuse

and

crowding

were

issues

among

Charlotteans. Inboth

communities

it

seems

that

greenway

usershave

some

anxietyabout approaching

greenway

carryingcapacity.

Some

ofthisconcern

may

have

been

reflected inthe earlierdiscussions about providing

public

money

to

expand

thegreenways.

The

qualityof greenways

and

theircondition

were minor

issues toour respondents. In linewithearlierfindings,

poor

facilities,

maintenance problems

and

insufficient staffing

were

rarelyconsidered

problems

tothesurveyparticipants.

Conclusions

The

surveyresults indicate that Raleigh

and

Charlotte

greenway

usersare heavily

drawn from

surrounding

neigh-borhoods

or communities.

There

isa cleardistance-decay function associatedwithvisitation,withthelargest

number

ofvisitors living close to the

greenway where

they

were

surveyed

and

the

number

ofvisitorsdecliningas

home-to-greenway

distance increased.

The

service radius inboth

cities

was

approximatelyfivemiles.

The

notionthat

indi-vidualgreenways or

greenway

segmentsact as

Table8.

Greenway

Patrons'

Problems

And

Concerns

Very Serious Problem

(%)

CapitalArea

Serious Problem

(%)

Greenway

Minor

Problem

(%)

No

Problem

(%)

Ver)>

Serious Problem

<%)

McAlpine

Serious Problem

(%)

Greenway

Minor

Problem

(%)

No

Problem

(%)

Security/ FearofCrime

4.7 io.o 25.9 58.8 1 5 19 75

TooSmall/ LimitedArea

1.0 7.6 12.6 78.7 1 6 20 73

Cleanliness 4.7 8.3 23.3 63.8 1 16 83

Crowding 2.0 6.6 22.6 68.8 3 20 77

LimitedParking 1.7 13.3 20.9 64.1 - - -

-Inadequate Facilities

2.0 7.3 14.6 76.1 - - -

-Facility in Disrepair

0.3 3.7 15.0 81.1 10 89

PoorFacilities 0.3 1.3 8.3 90.0 4 11 85

InadequateSlaIT - - - _{2 13 85}

widerecreational resources isnotsupported by ourdata. Similarly,thestudysites

were

patronized byaparticular

subpopulationof the local area.

These

visitors used the

facility intensively for selected types of activities.

The

profileof theaverage

greenway

user

was

a

young

to

middle-aged,white

upper

middleclass person. Seniors,however, usedthegreenways

most

frequently.

While

both greenways offered a variety of potential recreation

and

transportation opportunities,

most

of those surveyedlimitedthemselvestowalking

and

biking.

For

our

respondents, greenways providea recreational niche de-signedfortheseforms ofexercise.

One

lessonforplanners and

managers

may

be toeitheraccept the current

percep-tions

and

design

and

operatetheirgreenwaysaccordingly,

or, alternatively, to

market

the

greenway

as a broader

public resource.

The

latter option

would

require greater

efforts tostructure

new

programs and

activities

which

are not pedestrian- or bike-related,to attractotheruser

popu-lations.

The

use ofgreenwaysasviable transportation

modes

for intra-cityadulttravelhas also notdevelopedinRaleigh. It

isimportanttorecognizethatifgreenwaysaretofunction

astransportationelements, thengreaterattentionneedsto

begiventointegrating

them

intotransportation planning programs.

Finally,oursurveys indicated that theexisting

greenway

user isaverycontented patron,withstrongpolitical sup-portforgreenways

and greenway

expansion.

For

patrons

thereis

no

single issuewhichrepresents asignificant

prob-lem.

Although

crime

and

carrying capacity questions are

cited bya minority of patrons

asconsiderations,they are rela-tivelyunimportant.

The

mes-sagetoplanners

and managers

seems

tobe thatexisting plan-ninganddesigneffortshavebeen

well received by

greenway

pa-trons.

The

challengefacing

plan-nersistodevelopstrategies to

avoid perceived overcrowding

and

resource degradation

(ei-ther social orenvironmental)

in the future. Increased

pa-tronage

and

new

typesofusage couldadverselyaffectuser sat-isfaction.

The

most

obvious

so-lutionisto

expand

systems

and

spread out users

and

their ac-tivities. If

monies

cannot be foundfor

greenway

expansion,

thechallengewillbe

more

troub-lesome.

In avery short time, Raleigh, Charlotte,

and

other

commu-nitieshave

made enormous

progress reviving the

greenway

concept

and implementing community-wide greenway

sys-tems.Their accomplishments,asindicatedby ourresearch,

have

been

impressive.

As more

communities

across

North

Carolinainitiate

new

greenway

programs,theycanlearna great deal

from

the experiences ofthe Capital

Area and

McAlpine

Greenways. o

References

Flournoy,Jr.W.L. 1982."Capital CityGreenway:

A

Reporttothe City Councilonthe Benefits,Potential,andMethodologyof Establishing aGreenwaySysteminRaleigh,"RaleighCityCouncil, Raleigh,NC.

Flournoy, Jr., W.L. 1989. "ANonlinearApproach toOpen Space," Carolina Planning, Vol.15,No.1: 50-54.

Hanson, S.andP. Hanson. 1981. "The Impactof Married Woman's

EmploymentonHouseholdTravel Patterns:

A

Swedish Example," Transportation,Vol.10: 165-183.

Knack,R.andR. Searns. 1990."ThePathsLessTraveled," Planning, Vol. 56: 6-10.

Kusler,J.andA.Southworth. 1988. "Greenways: An Introduction," National WetlandsNewsletter,Vol.10: 2-3.

Little,C.E. 1987. "LinkingCountrysideandCity: TheUsesof Green-ways,"JournalofSoilandWaterConservation,Vol.42: 167-169. Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, 1987.

Meck-lenburgCountyGreenwayMasterPlan, Charlotte,NC.

Pas, E.I. 1984. "TheEffectsof SelectedSociodemographic

Characteris-ticsonDaily Travel-Activity Behavior," EnvironmentandPlanning A, Vol.16: 571-581.

Rotolo, B. 1981. 22-25.