Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway

Assessing Spatial
Equity and Accessibility to
the Little Sugar Creek Greenway
By: Ray Atkinson
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Significance of Problem........................................................................................................ 3
2. Literature Review........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Research Questions............................................................................................................. 10
3. Study Area and Methodology................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Study Area........................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Methodology....................................................................................................................... 15
4. Results....................................................................................................................................... 20
5. Discussion................................................................................................................................. 30
6. Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 30
7. Future Research......................................................................................................................... 35
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 36
9. References................................................................................................................................. 37

Atkinson 2
1. Introduction
Charlotte was mostly built after the introduction of the automobile. Its heavy reliance on
the automobile has resulted in a sprawling community of wide roads with numerous cul-de-sacs
and high vehicular speeds. These roads, especially as one travels further from the Central
Business District, often lack sidewalks on both sides of the road, marked crosswalks and
pedestrian signals. Not providing this safe pedestrian infrastructure increases automobile
dependence and discourages active transportation. To make matters worse, the sprawling nature
of our community dramatically increases the distance it takes to travel anywhere in the city.
While it is nice to arrive at destinations quickly, residents have also expressed a strong desire to
have places to recreate and exercise.
“The results of the 2008 Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Master Plan clearly
reveal the public’s appreciation for natural areas and their desire for a trail system.
Echoing results found in Charlotte Department of Transportation’s bicycle and pedestrian
survey results, residents desired and supported the development of an interconnected trail
system. From a list of 28 parks and recreation facilities, the top requested by the public
was walking and biking trails (74%). The national average was 68%" (Mecklenburg,
2008).
Further results indicated that "93% of all residents felt the role of greenways as a connected
network of walking, biking and nature trails was very important (75%) or somewhat important
(18%)" (Mecklenburg, 2008). Greenways are one aspect of how Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation is offering residents of and visitors to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County the ability
to live an active lifestyle.

Atkinson 3
A greenway is a corridor of protected open space that urban and rural areas create for the
enjoyment of local residents and visitors. Through the creation of greenways, Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation is providing residents of and visitors to Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County with numerous benefits that they can enjoy year-round. Some of these benefits include
providing local residents and visitors with a scenic location to recreate, a space to walk or bike
that is separated from automobile traffic, and a reduction in vehicular congestion. It is important
to ensure during the planning stage that access to greenways does not favor one particular group
over another.
The purpose of this research is to discover whether greenway users are forced to rely on
the automobile or can walk to access a greenway and whether a diverse group of users can access
a greenway. This research has two components: a GIS-based assessment of spatial equity to
greenways by both motorized and non-motorized transportation throughout Mecklenburg
County. To better understand who actually utilizes greenways, the second component consists of
a revealed-preference survey of users of one particular greenway, the Little Sugar Creek
Greenway. Together, these two aspects provide an assessment of who potentially has access to
greenways, and who actually utilizes these facilities. The remaining structure of this paper is as
follows: the significance of problem, literature review, research questions, study area and
methodology, results, discussion, limitations, future research, and conclusion.
1.1 Significance of Problem
Greenways provide a safe space to recreate, exercise and commute that is separated
from automobile traffic. Unfortunately, reaching the greenway is not always safe because there
may not be sidewalks, marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, or safe neighborhood
connections to the greenway. Local residents probably noticed this phenomenon and realized

Atkinson 4
they were then forced to depend on their automobile to reach the greenway. The greenway
survey conducted by CABA revealed that most greenway users, even those living within a mile
of the greenway, arrive by automobile (Beaupre, 2012; Beaupre, 2013). The greenway survey
conducted in 2012 collected 108 surveys and 2013 collected 151 surveys. Since there were a
minimum of 100 surveys collected, both surveys are considered reliable (Gobster, 1995). Due to
the reliance on the automobile, those who do not live within walking distance of the greenway
and cannot afford an automobile do not have access to the greenway. This is problematic
because these people may not have access to other safe locations to exercise so may be limited
in their ability to exercise and live a healthy lifestyle.
2. Literature Review
Greenway planning has existed in the United States since the 1800s with Frederick
Olmsted being the father of the greenway movement in America (Fabos, 2004). However,
research on the actual users of greenways does not have a long history. Furuseth (1991) stated
that "while the number of greenways is expanding, our understanding of users and their behavior
is limited" (329). This quandary impacts the planning efforts of park and recreation planners
because they rely on the data to "make rational planning and locational decisions concerning
future greenways" (329). To make matters worse, "few, if any, studies have examined multiple
trails within an area" (Gobster, 1995). A study on the impacts of rail-trails, which are trails built
from former rail lines, was "the first extensive study to examine the benefits and impacts of rail-
trails and the first, to our knowledge, to systematically examine both the trail users and nearby
property owners of the same trail" (Moore et al., 1992). It is important to study individual
greenway users and the entire greenway system because the results can assist park and recreation

Atkinson 5
planners in evaluating how effective the current greenway system is and what needs to be
changed for future greenways.
Even though practically every city, county, or state government in the United States has
created a greenway master plan, the number of academic greenway studies that survey actual
users of the greenways does not have as long of a history and is not as widespread. Greenway
studies have been conducted in several urban, suburban and rural locations throughout the United
States, including: Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle, Washington (Zacker et al., 1987), North Branch
Bicycle Trail in Chicago, Illinois (Gobster, 1988), Elroy-Sparta State Trail between Elroy and
Sparta, Wisconsin (Schwecke et al., 1989), McAlpine Creek Greenway in Charlotte, North
Carolina and four segments along the Capital Area Greenway System in Raleigh, North Carolina
(Furuseth and Altman, 1990) (Furuseth and Altman, 1991), Missouri River State Trail in
Missouri (Bhullar et al., 1991), Heritage Trail in eastern Iowa, St. Mark’s Trail in Tallahassee,
Florida and Lafayette/Moraga Trail in San Francisco, California (Moore et al., 1992), Raccoon
River Valley Trail in rural Iowa (Robertson, 1992), thirteen trails in Chicago, Illinois (Gobster,
1995), twelve sample sites along the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail in Tennessee,
North Carolina and South Carolina (Moore and Barthlow, 1998), Brays Bayou and Buffalo
Bauou Trails in Houston, Texas and Shoal Creek Trail in Austin, Texas (Shafer et al., 2000),
seven trails in the Indianapolis Greenways System in Indianapolis, Indiana (Lindsey, 2001),
trails in Sumter County, South Carolina (Reed, 2004), North Country Trail in Battle Creek,
Michigan and Lansing River Trail in Lansing, Michigan (Coutts, 2008), Cattail Trail in West
Lafayette, Indiana and Three Rivers Greenway in Columbia, South Carolina (Troped et al.,
2009), Mary Black Foundation Rail Trail in Spartanburg, South Carolina (Reed et al., 2011)
(Maslow et al., 2012), and Swamp Rabbit Trail in Greenville, South Carolina (Price et al., 2012).

Atkinson 6
Accessibility refers to the ease with which a site or service can be reached or obtained
(Gregory, 1986). Spatial accessibility can be broken down to potential access, which refers to the
availability of a service and realized access, which refers to actual usage (Aday and Andersen,
1974). These concepts are important to greenway planning because planners must understand
who the revealed and potential users of greenways are and whether these users have safe and
convenient access to the greenways. In the greenway access literature, Lindsey et al. (2001)
studied seven trails in the Indianapolis Greenways System and defined access as the populations
that live in census tracts at least partially within one-half mile of each greenway (338). This
study utilized the notion of proximity to assess accessibility.
Proximity to a greenway is an important aspect of many greenway user studies because
greenway planners must understand where and who the potential users of a planned greenway
are and how they may travel to the greenway. This information is important to them because they
need to provide sufficient sidewalks, crosswalks, automobile and bicycle parking spaces, bicycle
lanes, and transit from near the greenway user's origin to where he/she may enter the greenway.
However, understanding where and who the potential and revealed users of greenways are and
how they may travel to the greenway will allow this infrastructure to be focused in areas where
the greatest need is. As many of the following studies show, the closer greenway users are to the
greenway the more likely they will chose to arrive by a mode other than the personal automobile.
One of the first greenway studies was done by the City of Seattle’s Engineering
Department. While the study did not look at the users of the greenway, it did study the effect the
Burke-Gilman Trail has had on property values and crime affecting property near and adjacent to
the trail (Zacker et al., 1987). A National Park Service study done on the North Branch Bicycle
Trail in Chicago, Illinois may be the first greenway study to survey the actual users of

Atkinson 7
greenways. Even though the study did not inquire about how far the users traveled to reach the
greenway, it did make use of a bicycle traffic counter and an intercept survey (Gobster, 1988).
Closer to home, a primary service area extended in a 5 mile radius from the McAlpine Creek
Greenway in Charlotte and four segments along the Capital Area Greenway System in Raleigh
(Furuseth and Altman, 1990; Furuseth and Altman, 1991). A study completed on thirteen
greenway trails in Chicago found that the median distance to reach the trail was 4 miles.
However, this distance fluctuated dramatically when the trails were classified as a local, regional
or state trail. Local trails attracted more than 50% of users from a distance of 5 miles or less.
Regional trails attracted more than 50% of users from a distance of between 6 and 20 miles. State
trails attracted more than 50% of users from a distance of more than 20 miles (Gobster, 1995). A
study of similar size was conducted in rural Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina using
12 sample sites along the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. The distance users
traveled in miles to reach one of the sample sites ranged drastically. For instance, 45% of users
entering at the Wataugans site traveled 10 miles or less while only 2% of users entering at the
Cowpens site traveled 10 miles or less (Moore and Barthlow, 1998).
Even though populations may have access to a greenway, they may not be aware of a
greenway being located nearby or may not use it. A telephone survey was administered in
Sumter County, South Carolina to measure agreement between awareness and presence of trails.
The survey found that 56% of the respondents reported having trails and only 33% reported
using the trails (Reed, 2004). A different approach to determine how many people use greenways
was applied in a study of the North Country Trail in Battle Creek, Michigan and Lansing River
Trail in Lansing, Michigan. The study looked at proximity, opportunity and greenway users, of
which proximity and opportunity are directly comparable to potential and revealed access.

Atkinson 8
Proximity was determined from the population density within a 10-minute walking, bicycling
and driving-trip road network distance of each greenway access point. Opportunity was
determined by the mixture of land uses that could be reached from a given greenway segment.
Greenway users were observed and recorded by making multiple bicycle passes over the entire
length of the greenway (Coutts, 2008). An intercept survey administered on the Cattail Trail in
West Lafayette, Indiana and Three Rivers Greenway in Columbia, South Carolina found that a
majority of trail users could travel to the trail in less than 15 minutes (Troped et al., 2009).
Another intercept survey revealed that the users of the Mary Black Foundation Rail Trail in
Spartanburg, South Carolina resided on average 2.89 miles from the greenway (Reed et al.,
2011). Just down Interstate 85 in Greenville, South Carolina, another intercept survey was
administered on the Swamp Rabbit Trail. The average distance users traveled to reach the
greenway was 9.2 miles (Price et al. 2012).
Since greenway users must reach the greenway somehow, transportation is a key element
of greenway studies. One of the first studies to look at this was a National Park Service study
done on the North Branch Bicycle Trail in Chicago, Illinois. Even though bicycle use along the
trail can easily exceed 3,000 cyclists per day, 40% of users drove to the trail via automobile so
the trail is primarily used for recreation and not for commuting (Gobster, 1988). These findings
are similar for the McAlpine Creek Greenway in Charlotte, North Carolina and Capital Area
Greenway in Raleigh, North Carolina, which are used primarily for walking, jogging or running,
and bicycling. Since both of these greenways lack accessibility to city-wide travel destinations,
extensive use of either greenway for transportation is unrealistic (Furuseth and Altman, 1990). A
National Park Service study of greenways in Iowa, Florida and California reported similar trail
uses. The Heritage Trail in eastern Iowa was used 65% by bicyclists and 29% by walkers, the St.

Atkinson 9
Mark’s Trail in Tallahassee, Florida was used 81% by bicyclists and 9% by walkers and the
Lafayette/Moraga Trail in San Francisco, Florida was used 20% by bicyclists and 63% by
walkers (Moore et al., 1992).
Possibly the first greenway study to evaluate an entire greenway system was conducted
on thirteen greenway trails in Chicago. The greenways were classified as a local, regional or
state trail. The users of local trails most frequently reached the trail by bicycle or on foot, with
only 24% of respondents arriving by automobile. The opposite was true for users of regional and
state trails, of whom 54% and 77%, respectively, arrived by automobile (Gobster, 1995). One
way to encourage greenway users to arrive by bicycle or on foot is to make the greenway and
street systems more connected. This was noted in a study of the Brays Bayou and Buffalo Bauou
Trails in Houston, Texas and Shoal Creek Trail in Austin, Texas. “Access to the greenway
through good connections from work to home and connections among trail segments through
grade separations at intersecting roadways help determine intensity and types of trail use”
(Shafer et al., 2000). A study done in Sumter County, South Carolina found that of the
individuals reporting having trails, only 33% reported using the trails. Among these individuals,
49% used the trails for walking (Reed, 2004). When comparing South Carolina trail users to
Indiana trail users, a much higher percentage of Indiana trail users walked, bicycled, or ran to the
trail than did South Carolina users. Overall, about 52% of trail users from both South Carolina
and Indiana drove to the trail (Troped et al., 2009). Unlike the previous study, which asked trail
users how they reached the trail, a study of the Swamp Rabbit Trail in Greenville, South Carolina
reported 91% of trail users using the trail for exercise, 2% for commuting and 7% for both
exercise and commuting (Price et al. 2012).

Atkinson 10
Studies evaluating potential accessibility are often used to assess whether or not access to
such public facilities is equal across all segments of the population, including but not limited to
race, ethnicity and income. Even though equity may appear to be an easily defined concept, there
are numerous ways to define it. Talen (1998) identified four categories including everyone
receives the same public benefit regardless of need, distribution of public benefits according to
need, distribution of public benefits according to demand, and willingness to pay for the public
benefit. Unfortunately, “few authors have integrated the evaluation of accessibility and equity
within a single study” (Nicholls, 2001). For those who do study equity of access to public
facilities, the results are inconsistent and inconclusive: some show inequity while others do not,
and some results are surprising (Lindsey et al., 2001). A study of the park system in Bryan,
Texas found no evidence of inequity. Instead, it found non-Whites, especially Blacks, as well as
those with lower housing values or rents to have significantly higher levels of access to parks
than their White, higher income neighbors (Nicholls, 2001). A similar result was found during a
study of seven trails in the Indianapolis Greenways System. This study found that the poor and
minorities have disproportionately high access to the greenway trails (Lindsey et al., 2001).
However, this is not always the case. The opposite was true in Cleveland, Ohio where people
with low incomes were far more likely than people with higher incomes to state they do not use
parks more often because parks were located too far away, they had no way to get to parks, and
public transportation to parks was unavailable (Scott and Munson, 1994).
2.1 Research Questions
One of the goals of this research is to find out who does and does not use the greenway.
Even though "there is a general belief among park and recreation professionals that people with
low incomes have a greater need for government park and recreation services," these services

Atkinson 11
may not be built within an accessible distance of people with low incomes (Scott and Munson,
1994). However, building something does not mean people are going to use it. “It is well
documented that people with lower incomes use recreation facilities less than other sectors of the
population” (Lindsey et al., 2001).
Given the previous studies, the following research questions emerge for Mecklenburg
County. The first deals with the equity of access to the greenway network throughout the county.
Is the greenway equally accessible by both pedestrians and motorists?
The second question focuses on revealed vs. potential access to the greenways. How do
revealed users of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway compare with those who may potentially have
access to the Mecklenburg County greenway system?
3. Study Area and Methodology
3.1 Study Area
My research consists of two study areas so I can effectively answer the research
questions. These study areas are the Mecklenburg County greenway system and the Little Sugar
Creek Greenway, which is a section of the Mecklenburg County greenway system. At the time of
this study, the Mecklenburg County greenway system, which is shown in Figure 1, has 37 miles
of developed and 150 miles of undeveloped greenways.

Atkinson 13
For the second, revealed access aspect of this study, I focused on the Little Sugar Creek
Greenway from Central Piedmont Community College's Main Campus to Freedom Park (Figure
2). While I hope a comprehensive revealed-preference survey of the users of every greenway in
Mecklenburg County is conducted someday, the Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance (CABA) took
the initiative to get the process started by conducting two revealed-preference surveys of users
along the urban section of Little Sugar Creek Greenway from Central Piedmont Community
College's Main Campus to Freedom Park. In addition, as the below map indicates, CABA
conducted two user counts at the Metropolitan and Freedom Park.
Figure 2

Atkinson 14
It should be noted that CABA did not include the other sections of the Little Sugar Creek
Greenway in its revealed-preferene surveys or user counts. Possible reasons why the other
sections of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway were not included in CABA's study area are
because the Cordelia Park to Alexander Park Section is disconnected from the Freedom Park to
7th Street Section by Independence Blvd and I-277. The section south of Freedom Park forces
users onto the sidewalk along Jameston Drive to reach the greenway further south. Since users

Atkinson 15
are directed onto the sidewalk, which should only be used for walking, this section is considered
an overland connector until the greenway splits from the sidewalk at Westfield Road. Lastly, the
Huntingtowne Farms Park Section is totally disconnected from the rest of the greenway. The
urban section, which is included in CABA's study area, opened in April 2010. As the name
implies, the Little Sugar Creek Greenway is a riparian greenway because it was built along the
Little Sugar Creek.
CABA's revealed-preference surveys and user counts were conducted on two Saturdays,
November 3, 2012 and February 9, 2013 from 11am-3pm. CABA surveyed 108 users and
counted 514 users at the Metropolitan and 371 users at Freedom Park on November 3, 2012.
With a few changes to the survey instrument, CABA surveyed 151 users and counted 585 users
at the Metropolitan and 588 users at Freedom Park on February 9, 2013. A Saturday was chosen
for the survey because many of the volunteers who helped conduct the survey had to work during
the week. CABA has expressed interest in doing a weekday survey during the morning or
afternoon, particular during rush hour so it can capture those who use the greenway to commute
to work during normal business hours. The 11am-3pm time frame was chosen to capture those
who may use the greenway to get lunch or recreate along the greenway. Some of the reasons why
the Little Sugar Creek Greenway was chosen over another greenway in Mecklenburg County are
due to its length (nearly 6 miles), high usage, grade-separated road crossings, and proximity to
economic centers of activity.
3.2 Methodology
Table 1. Data Sources
Source Data

Atkinson 16
Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance (CABA) Greenway revealed-preference survey and user count
conducted on Saturday, November 3, 2012 and
Saturday, February 9, 2013 from 11am-3pm
Charlotte Department of Transportation Road, sidewalk, marked crosswalk, unmarked crossing
layers
Mecklenburg County GIS Mecklenburg County land use layer
Mecklenburg County Parks & Recreation Greenway layer
2010 U.S. Census Bureau Total population, sex, race, age groups, high school
graduate or higher, median household income, below
poverty line, travel to work
I used ArcGIS 10 and the data found in Table 1 to complete the methodology for both
research questions. I appreciate the assistance from all the sources I worked with to complete my
research.
In order to determine whether the Mecklenburg County greenway system is accessible by
both pedestrians and motorists, I created pedestrian and motorist entrance points and lines for
each greenway in ArcGIS 10. As Figure 3 demonstrates, the pedestrian entrance points are
located where pedestrian entrance lines intersect with the sidewalk network and the motorist
entrance points are located where motorist entrance lines intersect with the road network. The
pedestrian entrance lines are needed because the sidewalk network rarely intersects with the

Atkinson 17
greenway network in an area where pedestrians can realistically enter the greenway. For
instance, the sidewalk in Figure 3 travels over the bridge while the greenway travels under the
bridge. Even though the sidewalk and greenway intersect, it is not possible for a pedestrian to
enter the greenway from this point.
Figure 3
A similar issue was found and resolved with the motorist network. The motorist entrance
lines are needed because the road network rarely intersects with the greenway network in an area
where motorists can realistically enter the greenway. For instance, it is not realistic to park an
automobile in the middle of the road where the road network intersects with the greenway.
Instead, motorists must park their automobile in a parking space so I placed the motorist entrance

Atkinson 18
point in a Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation approved parking infrastructure and
connected the greenway to the road network through the motorist entrance lines. Not all parking
infrastructure is approved for use by greenway users so I only included approved parking
infrastructure.
Once I had the motorist and pedestrian access worked out, I applied Figure 4 to create 5,
10, 15 minute drive and walk time service areas from each greenway in Mecklenburg County.
Network analyst, which is the tool I used to create the service areas, is outlined in red.
Figure 4
I chose the 5, 10, and 15 minute time range because people may choose walking over
driving when the distance to the greenway is under ten minutes or a quarter mile walk. Even
though fifteen minutes is stretching this limit, it is still possible that some people may choose
walking over driving. “Residents of neighborhoods who can walk to a corner store for groceries
Motorist Greenway
Access Point (Parking Lot)
Pedestrian
Greenway Access
Point
Sidewalk, Marked
Crosswalk, Unmarked
Crossing Network
Road
Network
Network
Dataset
Network
Dataset
5, 10, 15 Minute
Drive Time Service
Area
5, 10, 15 Minute
Walk Time Service
Area
Network
Analyst
Network
Analyst

Atkinson 19
or have a selection of eateries within a 5- to10-minute walk (approximately ¼ mile) may choose
to walk as opposed to drive a car. If these same establishments were a 20-minute walk (more
than one mile), driving would be more likely” (Frank, 2000). The road layer provided the speed
limit, minute travel, and shape length in meters fields so drive time was already provided. The
sidewalk layer provided the shape length in meters field. However, it did not provide the speed
limit or minute travel fields since sidewalks do not have a speed limit. I calculated the walk time
by “assuming a pedestrian can walk at 3 km/hour” (ESRI).
The walk and drive time service areas were helpful in comparing the revealed users of the
Little Sugar Creek Greenway with the potential users of the Mecklenburg County greenway
system because I needed to select the populations who live within the walk and drive time
service areas. However, before I reached this point I needed to display the revealed and potential
users. Since CABA conducted two surveys along the Little Sugar Creek Greenway, I have access
to two sets of revealed greenway users. Both survey results include socio-economic data so the
revealed greenway users can be compared to the potential greenway users. The results from the
2012 CABA survey were joined to the North Carolina zip code layer so the greenway user's
home zip code could be displayed. The results from the 2013 CABA survey had to be displayed
through a different method because the survey asked for the nearest street intersection to the
greenway user's home instead of just their home zip code. I used BatchGeo to obtain GPS
coordinates for the street intersections. These coordinates were added to a spreadsheet, which
included the socio-economic data of the revealed greenway users, then added to ArcMap.
With the location and socio-economic data of revealed Little Sugar Creek Greenway
users in hand, the location and socio-economic data of potential Mecklenburg County greenway
users can be compiled. Even though there isn't point data for the location of potential greenway

Atkinson 20
users, I narrowed the study area down to the previously mentioned 5, 10, 15 minute drive and
walk time service areas. This allows me to discuss the potential for people living within these
service areas to drive or walk to the greenway. The socio-economic data for the potential users
comes from the 2010 census. In order to display this data in ArcMap 10, I joined the census data
to the Mecklenburg County census tracts.
4. Results
The following results explore whether the Mecklenburg County greenway system is
equally accessible by both pedestrians and motorists and how similar or different the revealed
users of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway are to those who may potentially have access to the
Mecklenburg County greenway system.
As Figure 5 shows, nearly the entire county is accessible to at least one greenway within
a fifteen minute drive. The drive time access is improved when interstate highways or other
major roads are located near the greenway parking and reduced when there is limited road
connectivity or minor roads located near the greenway parking. For instance, Interstates 77 and
85 provide excellent automobile accessibility from the greenways located near uptown Charlotte.
This accessibility is reduced the further one travels along minor roads between the interstate
highways because minor roads have lower speed limits than interstate highways.

Atkinson 21
Figure 5
Unlike automobile accessibility, walking accessibility has nowhere near as far of a reach.
As Figure 6 indicates, some greenways appear to not be accessible to walkers. While this does
not mean there are no walkers on these greenways, the pedestrian infrastructure may not be
sufficient within the pedestrian service area to make the walker's route to the greenway feel safe
and convenient.

Atkinson 22
Figure 6
In order to understand how similar or different the revealed users of the Little Sugar
Creek Greenway are to those who may potentially have access to the Mecklenburg County
greenway system, one should first understand where revealed users are coming to the greenway
from so one can better understand where potential users may come to the Mecklenburg County
greenway system from. As the home location result from CABA's 2012 and 2013 greenway

Atkinson 23
surveys indicate in Figures 7 and 8, users of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway come from
throughout the Charlotte region and outside North Carolina. Due to the large catch basin and
central location near uptown of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway, the revealed home locations
should be a good representation of the potential users home locations of other greenways in the
Mecklenburg County greenway system.
CABA's November 3, 2012 greenway survey, which asked Little Sugar Creek Greenway
users for their home zip code, showed a concentration of greenway users near the greenway and
to the east in neighborhoods such as Plaza Midwood (Figure 7). However, some users traveled
from as far away as Gastonia to use the greenway. Since Gastonia and locations in other parts of
Mecklenburg County also have greenways, people are traveling out of their way to use the Little
Sugar Creek Greenway. To make matters worse, it is highly unlikely people will walk to the
Little Sugar Creek Greenway if it is further than a half mile away. This means that most, if not
all, of the greenway users are arriving by automobile.
“If distinct land uses are separated, if the distance between them are great, and if roads
are more available than sidewalks and paths, then people shift from walking and
bicycling to driving. Accordingly, the U.S. is a nation of drivers, in which only 1% of
trips are on bicycles and 9% are on foot” (Frumkin, 2002).
Gastonia and other parts of Mecklenburg County could reduce the number of users arriving at
their local greenways via automobile by making the local greenways in Gastonia and other parts
of Mecklenburg County more attractive to walking. Some ways to do this is to install sidewalks
on both sides of the road and ensure there are marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals on all
sides of an intersection.

Atkinson 24
Figure 7
CABA's February 9, 2013 greenway survey, which differed from the 2012 survey by
asking Little Sugar Creek Greenway users for the nearest street intersection to their home, also
showed a concentration of greenway users near the greenway then (Figure 8). While there is less
user density, many users are also located south of the greenway between Interstates 77 and 485

Atkinson 25
and Independence Blvd. As with the 2012 survey, a few users traveled to the greenway from
outside Mecklenburg County and even some from outside North Carolina. These users actually
found the home street intersection question on the CABA survey confusing because they didn't
know whether they should provide their home street intersection. Instead, some participants only
wrote out of state or the city they came from. Future greenway studies could be improved to
reduce this confusion.
Figure 8

Atkinson 26
Understanding what mode of transportation revealed greenway users took to reach the
greenway is critical in greenway planning because the infrastructure needed to support walkers
varies greatly from the infrastructure needed to support motorists. As Figure 9 indicates, a
majority of the revealed users of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway drove an automobile to the
greenway. This makes sense because the automobile can be used at nearly any distance.
However, the same cannot be said for walking. Due to the limited distance most people are
willing to walk, it should not be surprising that walkers are concentrated near the greenway with
the number of walkers dropping off drastically the further one travels from the greenway.
Figure 9

Atkinson 27
With a good understanding of the revealed greenway users, one can now look at the
potential greenway users.
Figure 10
Even though people do not just use the greenway to walk to work, the Census Bureau's
journey to work data provides a reliable method of understanding how many people walk in an
area (Figure 11). This data shows that most people who walk to work are located in uptown. This
is not surprising because people who live in uptown usually also work in uptown. In addition,
uptown is filled with skyscrapers built in a highly dense area and has a well-connected sidewalk

Atkinson 28
system so walking is made easy. On the other hand, as one travels away from uptown, one will
find fewer people walking to work, less dense development and less connected sidewalks. Only
the northern section of the greenway is located close to uptown so it is likely that only those
living in or near uptown will walk to the greenway. Everyone else will likely drive an
automobile to the greenway because they usually do not walk to work.
Figure 11

Atkinson 30
5. Discussion
6. Limitations
The lack of sidewalks in Charlotte, especially the further one travels away from uptown,
resulted in greenway entrances not being located near the actual pedestrian entrance to the
greenway. One of many examples of this is shown below in Figure 13. Several of the pedestrian
entrance points are located over a mile away, along a euclidean distance represented as the
pedestrian entrance line, from the actual greenway entrance. I chose to place the pedestrian
entrance points at these locations because the nearest sidewalks are located there. This said,
however, it is possible that the streets that do not have sidewalks have low traffic volumes and
speed limits and are located in a neighborhood with dead end cul-de-sacs. If this is the case then
the City of Charlotte may decided that sidewalks were not needed to provide safe and convenient
pedestrian access to the greenway. Instead, the City of Charlotte may have felt the local residents
could walk along the neighborhood streets to access the greenway. To resolve this limitation and
improve the pedestrian service area, I could have edited the City of Charlotte's sidewalk network
to include artificial sidewalks near the greenway access points.

Atkinson 32
The sidewalk network only covers the City of Charlotte so greenways located outside the
City of Charlotte but within Mecklenburg County were not included in the pedestrian service
area. To resolve this issue, I should have contacted every municipality within Mecklenburg
County to ask for their sidewalk layer. Strangely enough, municipalities were not the only entity
that I needed to contact. The City of Charlotte sidewalk layer does not include the UNC
Charlotte pedestrian network, which includes on-campus sidewalks and paths. While I have
access to the UNC Charlotte pedestrian network, I was not able to redo the pedestrian service
area to include the UNC Charlotte pedestrian network. This is due to the facts that this network
also included the UNC Charlotte road network and the attribute table for the network did not
separate the pedestrian network from the road network. Since these networks were not separated,
I was unable to select the pedestrian network from the road network. This oversight by UNC
Charlotte and miscommunication between UNC Charlotte and the City of Charlotte has resulted
in the greenways surrounding UNC Charlotte to appear lower than they should for their walking
accessibility.
The road network only includes roads located in Mecklenburg County because one of my
study areas was the Mecklenburg County greenway system. This impacted the drive time service
area because greenway users can reach some greenways within fifteen minutes from outside
Mecklenburg County. However, since the road network from outside Mecklenburg County was
not included in my study, a more accurate drive time service area was not calculated.
Walking and driving are not the only modes people could use to reach the greenway. I
chose to exclude bicycling and transit users for a variety of reasons. The largest reason is time
constraint. Other reasons include the limited bicycle network connectivity and the variety of
modes transit users can start or end their trip with. I would like to include these modes in future

Atkinson 33
research because it would be interesting to research how well the current bike lane and signed
bike route systems increase access to the greenway. In addition, B Cycle, which is a bike share
system, has several stops along the greenway and there are several bike racks located on or near
the greenway. It would also be interesting to research how well the Blue Line light rail system
and connected bus system improve access to the greenway. With several bus stops located near
the greenway, it would be interesting to see how much transit has improved access and equity to
the greenway. I included equity because not everyone has access to an automobile.
Even though I used areal interpolation to gather the socio-economic characteristics of the
potential greenway users, there are limitations to using it. Areal interpolation is a generalization
of the population that lives in the census tract. It also assumes the population is evenly spread
throughout the census tract so if the densest area of the census tract is outside the study area then
the data may not be true.
The CABA survey was only conducted on the Little Sugar Creek Greenway. There are
currently sixteen other greenways in Mecklenburg County with several more planned. By
researching the other greenways, I could find out if the revealed socio-economic characteristics
of other greenway users are similar or different to the revealed socio-economic characteristics of
the Little Sugar Creek Greenway users.
Several questions on the CABA greenway survey were changed between the 2012 and
2013 surveys. The November 3, 2012 CABA greenway survey was limited by several factors.
These factors include only asking for home zip codes, only being conducted on one day, only
conducted on the weekend, and excluding some socio-economic characteristics.

Atkinson 34
The survey only asked for home zip codes so the data was too aggregated. Even though
zip code data is limited, there were ways for me to incorporate it into my study. The Feature-to-
Point Tool allows me to get the zip code centroid. However, a few limitations of using the
centroid are that it makes the assumption that everyone from the zip code lives at the centroid
and aggregates the socioeconomic characteristics of everyone living within the zip code. This is
a large concern due to the large size of zip codes. In addition, gathering socioeconomic data from
the Census Bureau is difficult because it does not provide much zip code data for 2010. While I
knew the survey was asking for home zip codes, I did not recognize the issue with zip code
census data until after the survey was conducted. Another issue with zip codes is that it does not
provide me with point data. I need point data to show how people potentially could travel from
their home to the greenway. The most obvious way to accomplish this is to ask for the person’s
home address. However, due to privacy concerns and risk of few responses, it may be better to
ask for the nearest intersection. Other greenway surveys have asked respondents for their nearest
street intersection. “Each randomly selected respondent was asked for the nearest2 cross-streets
of their primary residence (survey respondents reported traveling to the rail/trail from residence
only)” (Reed et al., 2011). I plan to work with CABA to request that future surveys ask for the
nearest intersection.
The survey was limited because it was only conducted on one day and only on the
weekend. “In an effort to obtain a representative sample, time of day and day of the week
(weekday, weekend) for data collection were systematically varied” (Troped, 2009). My
literature review found several other surveys that were conducted over more than one day. “Each
year, interviewers attempted to intercept trail users at 4 times of the day for 7 consecutive days
during each of the 4 seasons, to capture a representative sample and variations in seasons and

Atkinson 35
times of use during the day and week” (Maslow et al., 2012). “Intercept surveys were conducted
quarterly from June30th, 2010 to July 1, 2011; a total of 1,148 intercept surveys were
administered. Interviewers positioned themselves at access points along the trail to collect data
over 4 days (i.e., Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday) each season (i.e., winter, spring,
summer, and fall) for a total of 16 days, 4 times per day (7:30 a.m., 12 p.m., 3:30 pm and 6 pm)"
(Price et al., 2012). This literature review suggests that the CABA survey needs to be conducted
over several more days. In addition, it was limited because it was only conducted on the
weekend. It needed to be conducted over at least one weekend day and week day so it could
intercept a range of different users from weekday commuters to recreational users.
My literature review introduced additional socio-economic characteristics and other
questions to consider. Furuseth and Altman (1991) asked Capital Area Greenway users about
"educational attainment, income, employment characteristics, home ownership, and
environmental group membership” (332). However, I may not be able to include these questions
because it is important to keep the survey as short as possible. The longer the survey the more
likely responders will become exhausted and not complete the survey. After all, they are using
the greenway to do something or go somewhere so their time is valuable.
Since I needed to spatially locate the greenway users from both of the CABA surveys, I
was limited on how much data I could use from the surveys in ArcMap because not every
participant provided their home zip code or street intersection.
7. Future Research
I am currently working with CABA to provide Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation and Charlotte City Council with the results of the greenway study. Specifically,

Atkinson 36
Charlotte City Council has expressed interest to CABA and I to conduct an economic impact
study of the greenway.
Surveys can always be improved so I have been working with CABA to find ways to
improve the survey form, new strategies to conduct the survey, and additional strategies to reach
both uses and non-users. One way the survey can be improved is to conduct the survey over at
least one week day and one weekend day.
The greenway surveys only reached revealed users. One of the goals of this study is to
research the non-users and why they are not using the greenway. This could be accomplished
through a random telephone survey of residents located within a certain distance of the
greenway. It would be interesting to compare the proximity of greenway users to non-greenway
users. In addition, the non-greenway users could provide valuable input into why they don’t use
the greenway.
8. Conclusion
The sprawling development found in Charlotte has resulted in a strong dependence on the
automobile and an inability to walk for many trips. Due to the location of whites who walk to
work near the greenway, they have greater access to the greenway. Unfortunately, the location of

Atkinson 37
blacks who walk to work is not near the greenway so they are forced to rely on the automobile to
reach the greenway. In addition, families living in poverty have less access to the greenway
because they do not live near the greenway and probably do not have enough money to afford an
automobile.
9. References
Aday, L. and Andersen, R. (1974). A Framework for the Study of Access to Medical Care.
Health Services Research, 9(3), 208.
Beaupre, H. Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance. Intercept survey of Little Sugar Creek Greenway
users. November 3, 2012.
Beaupre, H. Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance. Intercept survey of Little Sugar Creek Greenway
users. February 9, 2013.
Coutts, C. J. (2008). Greenway accessibility and physical activity behavior. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(3), 552-563.
ESRI. Network Analyst Tutorial. 1-119.
Frank, L. D. (2000). Land Use and Transportation Interaction Implications on Public Health and
Quality of Life. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 6-22.
Frank, L. D., and Engelke, Peter. (n.d.). How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact
Public Heath: A Literature Review of the Relationship between Physical Activity and
Built Form (Working Paper #1). http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/pdf/aces-
workingpaper1.pdf December 12, 2012.
Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117(3), 201-217.

Atkinson 38
Furuseth, O. J., and Altman, R. E. (1990). Greenway Use and Users: An Examination of Raleigh
and Charlotte Greenways. Carolina Planning, 16(2), 37-43.
Furuseth, O. J., and Altman, R. E. (1991). Who's on the greenway: socioeconomic, demographic,
and locational characteristics of greenway users. Environmental Management, 15(3),
329-336.
Gobster, P. H. (1988). Urban bicycle trails: Use patterns and user preferences. Trends, 25(3), 21-
25.
Gobster, P. H. (1995). Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1), 401-413.
Gregory, D. (1986). Accessibility, in: R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, and D. R. Stoddart (eds) The
Dictionary of Human Geography, second edition, Oxford, England, Blackwell, p. 2.
Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., and Kuan, S. (2001). Access, equity, and urban greenways: An
exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332-346.
Maslow, A. L., Reed, J. A., Price, A. E., and Hooker, S. P. (2012). Associations between
sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions of the built environment with the
frequency, type, and duration of physical activity among trail users. Preventing Chronic
Disease, 9.
Mecklenburg County. Parks and Recreation Department. (2008).Greenway Plan Update 2008.
http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/ParkandRec/Greenways/OpenGreenways/
Documents/MPAppendix2.pdf December 9, 2012.

Atkinson 39
Mecklenburg County. Parks and Recreation Department. (2003). Little Sugar Creek Greenway
Master Plan. http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/ParkandRec/Greenways/
LittleSugarCreekGreenway/Pages/Masterplan.aspx December 9, 2012.
Moore, R. L., Graefe, A. R., Gitelson, R. J., and Porter, E. (1992). The Impacts of Rail-Trails: A
Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails. National Park Service’s
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. Print.
Moore, R. L., and Barthlow, K. (1998). The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance
Trails: A Case Study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. National Park
Service. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/12000/12200/12275/12275.pdf March 30, 2013.
Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study using
GIS. Managing Leisure, 6(4), 201-219.
O'Neill, W. A., Ramsey, R. D., and Chou, J. (1992). Analysis of transit service areas using
geographic information systems. Transportation Research Record, (1364).
Price, A. E., Reed, J. A., and Muthukrishnan, S. (2012). Trail User Demographics, Physical
Activity Behaviors, and Perceptions of a Newly Constructed Greenway Trail. Journal of
Community Health, 37(5), 949-956.
Reed, J. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Wilson, D. K., Mixon, G., and Cook, A. (2004). Awareness and
use of community walking trails. Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 903-908.
Reed, J. A., Hooker, S. P., Muthukrishnan, S., and Hutto, B. (2011). User demographics and
physical activity behaviors on a newly constructed urban rail/trail conversion. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 8(4), 534-542.

Atkinson 40
Scott, D., and Munson, W. (1994). Perceived constraints to park usage among individuals with
low incomes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(4), 79-96.
Shafer, C. S., Lee, B. K., and Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions
related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(3), 163-178.
Talen, E. (1998). Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 64(1), 22-38.
Talen, E., and Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of
accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning a, 30, 595-613.
Taylor, W. C., Floyd, M. F., Whitt-Glover, M. C., and Brooks, J. (2007). Environmental justice:
a framework for collaboration between the public health and parks and recreation fields
to study disparities in physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 4, S50-
S63.
Troped, P. J., Whitcomb, H. A., Hutto, B., Reed, J. A., and Hooker, S. P. (2009). Reliability of a
brief intercept survey for trail use behaviors. Journal of Physical Activity and Health,
6(6), 775-780.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Accessed December 9, 2012.
Zarker, G., Bourey, J. M., Puncochar, B., Lagerwey, P. (1987). Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman
trail's effect on property values and crime. Seattle Engineering Department.
http://www.mrsc.org/govdocs/s42burkegilman.pdf March 30, 2013.

Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway

Ähnlich wie Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway (20)

Mehr von Ray Atkinson

Mehr von Ray Atkinson (13)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (15)

Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility to the Little Sugar Creek Greenway