Reply to Katy Trail economic impact

I often get asked about the Katy Trail's economic impact. People along the trail know how many visitors it brings through their communities, and we trail users know that we spend lots of money in the small towns on teh trail. Here are a few facts and figures:

400,000 annual visitors to Katy Trail State Park have a total economic impact of $18,491,000 a year, which supports 367 jobs with a total payroll of $5,128,000. The total value added to the local community from visitor spending is $8,204,000.

Source: http://mostateparks.com/sites/default/files/Katy_Trail_Economic_Impact_Report_Final.pdf

AND.......that doesn't even begin to touch other "Economic activity elsewhere" (for lack of a better term) that happens because of the Katy: Gas I buy to get there, trail mix at the grocery store, meals at restaurants to/from the trail, bikes and equipment at local shops, all the costs and things I do associated with my hobby, and the list could go on. Trails are not only good for the immediate area around a trail, they are just plain good for everyone (unless that generates economic activity in the Emergency Room--but even that is economic activity. The Katy is why I know to stop at my favorite little dive café near Moscow, and why I bought a piece of antique furniture there. Finally, some people are starting to realize that when people move around and do stuff, economic activity happens. Katy stirs that kind of stuff up.

Good point Arky. We’ve bought related items for the bikes and bike trips online, on the Kansas side of KC, in Omaha, as well as in our home town and state.

The Katy was the first rail trail that we rode years ago. We’ve since spent several dollars on gas, food, lodging, etc. in Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, South Dakota and Florida on rail trail/community rides. The Katy has been good for many on and off the trail.

There are also many non-economic benefits. I spent 5 days this summer on the trail and adjacent areas with my two teenage sons. Luckily, cell service was spotty so they had to be "disconnected" and we had a great time together. Apparently, I am not the overbearing, boorish old man that they thought I was. And I found out how different they each see the world. After 5 days, I was wishing the Katy was 1,000 miles long, that's how much fun we were having. That doesn't count the scores of "single-serving friends" we met along the way.

Ray, you do such a fine job of maintaining this website! Your information regarding economic impact is going to be passed along. Colorado has unused rail lines that are calling for development. We have ridden the KATY at least five time, hope to do it again soon, but also wish we were riding as often in Colorado on such a magnificent trail. Kudos to you all of Missouri!

Did anyone READ the "report"? 2.64 million was restaurant and bars. $86000 gas. Over 10 million was money spent "in and AROUND" the trail". Another 1.95 million is overnight lodging. $67000 admission and fees! No one has any questions?

I have a copy on my computer. The numbers are interesting but the results and recommendations are more interesting. Arky I do believe the indirects (bikes, gas) are factored into the results. I don't understand the lower importance of more drinking water. Maybe if most people are day riders they don't need drinking water as much as overnight longer distance riders?

I understand that some attempt to quantify the economic results of a project needs to be attempted. That information will no doubt (and should) be used to develop additional trails.

I did not read the Katy report, so it may very well address more than I think it does. That said, if the report writers are really able to address the true economic impact of the trail in a report, then they are better report writers that I give them credit for being.

What I hope (and what I think is happening) is that people are realizing that, besides buying houses and having children, recreational activities drive A WHOLE BUNCH of economic activity: So a few key things can make a huge difference to an area. Building a trail is just such an "Economic Activity booster." What would St. Louis be like without Busch Stadium? What would Branson be like without Table Rock Lake? And what will Windsor become with a connector from KC? I hope Rail Trail riding becomes America's next great obsession!

Arky, it is just like polling data for elections. They get feedback from a certain number and based on statistical modeling make reliable assumptions with numbers. One of the report recommendations was to have a means to get more accurate data at trailheads or restaurants or B&Bs for more accurate results. So there you go, guess estimates!

All I'm saying is that a KC connecter is going to make property values in Windsor go up. It's going to mean bars, and places to eat, and sales tax. It's going to sell airplane tickets to and from KC and StL. Its going to create a heck of a lot of excitement, locally and nationally. It's going to sell bikes and equipment thoughout the state. It's going to sell auto repairs, and gas and lumber at the hardware store. Its going to sell food, and pay for infrastructure. Its going to get people outside and get them to spend time with their friends and family. It's going to significantly economically impact the immediate area, and elsewhere. SO GET IT DONE!

I agree with you Arky...

Kind of like the east end St. Charles area, Arky? I don't think so.

Pseudo, it's nice to know that everything is still gloomy in your world.

One does not have to be a genius to know that running a business along the Katy is a challenging proposition. I for one wish there were more dining and camping options. If a KC connector increases traffic on the Katy even 25% (and I think that is a very low estimate), then it would be a great--dare I say exponential-economic boost to the entire area, and all the current economic models go out the window. Furthermore, if you don't think that a KC connector to Windsor sells rooms and food in Bluffton (and elsewhere), then you just don't get it. SO GET IT DONE!

The following link gives taxable sales info for every City in Missouri. Rocheport had $2.1 million in taxable sales for 2013. Not everything in Rocheport of course is bicycle driven, but it's hard to imagine Rocheport having half the success it's had without the Katy. What does $2.1 million in taxable sales mean? Multiply that by the state sales tax rate of 4.225 percent and you get $89K. $89K alone to the state coming out of just lil ol Rocheport. Taxable sales, in-town. I view the Katy as infrastructure, like a gas line or sewer line. It pays dividends big-time like any infrastructure. Most any state would die to have a rail-trail like the Katy.
http://dor.mo.gov/publicreports/taxablesales.php

I think the KATY has been wonderful for our area but it is only a 4 to 6 month income source for most along the trail. Hartsburg, Wilton, Easley and a lot of other small towns would have dried up without the trail. We enjoy the visitors from all over the world who ride thru our little town and they seem to enjoy us.

Come on Arky, as we all know there are some business and many well being life benefits along the KT. It is however, a 6 month a year kick. 25% or $2 million increase annually for the KC connector is hopeful at best. Do you think DNR or MODOT would lend you money or give your a grant to open a business along the KT? Put the money where the trail is right?

Pseudo, you probably think MoDOT should not put up guardrails along roads because the possibility of them saving a life cannot be balanced with the certainty of the expense to put them up. Why are you always so gloomy?

I think the comments on this thread support my point: Katy is infrastructure (unique infrastructure) that provides much more economic benefit than can be accounted for in a report. I don't think that half the state will become bicycle tourists if the trail is connected to KC, but I do think that Katy's economic benefit will be GREATLY increased when the connecter is completed. SO GET IT DONE!

I get it Arky, oh keeper of the trail. Quality of life. I'm for increasing the services along the trail just as much as the next guy or gal. That is what is being done with the bridge work now. But the priority of the KT in getting the tax revenue spending is not as high as we all bike riders think it should be. Infrastructure, possibly if you use it to get to your crops or land. Exercise may not fit that category. But I'm for some kind of fees for using it too.

In that case, we agree on something: I support a "Katy Day Use Fee". Maybe $3 a day, or a $20 Annual Pass? I like the way they do it on the Prairie Spirit Trail, where you can use the trail in the towns, but need a day pass for the areas away from the towns. Then use that money for trail maintenance?

I'm all for doing things better. I also think that there are now very few people who do not think that their community is not MUCH better with the Katy than without it. Nor are there very many people who see it as a financial burden.

It would also be great if each community "adopted" their section of the trail much like stretches of roads are adopted, then kept the grass cut, picked up the trash, etc., to free up $ for other needs. Is there a "Friends of the Katy" organization?

Another way to make it better is to CONNECT IT TO KC.............SOON!

Arky, This trail counter could be used to get a more accurate count of how many are actually on the KT.

http://www.trafx.net/products.htm#Infrared%20Trail%20Counter

This discussion is interesting, especially since the Jefferson City News Tribune has published several letters to the editor opposed to the Rock Island Trail that will hopefully become a reality. I haven't read the report that is being discussed, but I have met people from all over the US and people from other countries biking the Katy Trail. I doubt those people would be here if it were not for the Katy Trail. If you want to promote the advantages of this trail, please consider writing a letter to the editor of the News Tribune. Go to www.newstribune.com and you should be able to figure out how to send a letter via the internet.

Cathy, I believe this is one comment to the News Tribune. Are the statements made in the opinion piece accurate $500 million and 12.5 million per town?
http://www.newstribune.com/news/2014/nov/12/your-opinion-oppose-rock-island-trail/

Sine the person who wrote that letter to the editor, Rodney Luebbering from St. Thomas, did not give his source for that information, I have no way of beginning to figure out if he is correct. I think he is saying that the Rock Island Trail will cost taxpayers $500 million and $12.5 million per town. He also says in the same letter, that "less than 40% of the Katy Trail users are happy with its condition." He does not give his source for that information. I am a regular user of the trail, and I read this forum on a regular basis, so I strongly disagree with him. I think a majority of trail users think DNR does a good, if not great, job of maintaining the trail. That's why I am encouraging people on this forum to send a letter to the editor of the News Tribune to voice your opinions. People see my name pretty regularly in the letters to the editor. It would be good for them to see other people taking the time to express their opinions. Again, it is very easy to submit a letter on-line to the News Tribune.

Doug Rendleman wrote a great letter to the editor of the Jefferson City News Tribune that appeared in today's paper in support of the Rock Island Trail. Doug you really hit the nail on the head.

I saw in another post on this forum by Mike from Hartsburg that he was concerned about an accident that may have damaged your B & B. I hope all is well in Bluffton, and the Rendleman House was not damaged.

I was at a trade show in Chicago last week. I met a guy from Georgia and we got to talking about biking. I mentioned the Katy and he got real excited, telling me that he and a friend and two people from Germany are planning an end-to-end Katy ride in June. The Katy ride is to be the highlight of the Germans trip here. How cool is that?

Euro to the dollar is a great deal in the U.S. now. Like the dollar to the peso in Mexico. Can't beat it it.

The concern with a new trail is the fact that the economic losses is not even considered. When a rural trail is built property value is lost- Google - rails to trails litigation cost- property taxes gone. None trail related business suffer major liabilities cost some will close some relocate. The cost to the public to buy, build, and maintain a trail needs to be addressed-- before it is railbanked and property owners on the trails are allowed to sue the federal government for compensation. Does anyone know what those cost are??? I've heard 500 million won't build the rock when you figure all of this in?

Seriously? That is a typical Anonomous post. It is also like landowners saying that building Lake of the Ozarks has hurt local property values. That argument might have had legs in the 1950's, but as people have moved out of rural areas, the ones who are still in those rural areas are desperate to find ways to bring people back in (or at least come back on the weekends and leave some money).

The bike riders want this new trail because we want a new place to ride. But make no mistake, the local communities want the trail to improve local quality of life, and for the positive economic impact it will have.

Arky, some perspective if you please. Believe or not there are millions of people in this country that have no desire to drive to a trail and ride a bike or jog or pitch a tent and bast in nature. Do you believe they should throw in there tax money (or possibly have their property taken or lives disrupted economically) to build a second rail trail in MO?

Annonoh,

My perspective, on a thread discussing the economic impact of an additional trail, is that a trail is an asset, not a liability. Sure, there are start up and maintenance costs: But whether you are a bike person or not, another trail, especially a trail that would provide the very unique opportunity to ride 400+ miles in a loop from 2 major metro areas, would provide a significant positive economic impact on the communities in and around that area.

The only reason I know where Treloar, Rocheport, and Windsor are is because of The Katy. Those places and a few more have kept a few of my dollars over the years too.

Landowners might be worried about gangs of lycra clad bikers roaming the country, banging on their doors demanding free water and directions. But I doubt it.

Rail trails in Iowa, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have all gone in or are being expanded: Positive economic impact, lifestyle issues, and perception of the community are the driving force in all of them: No one has ever said "We want to do something nice and build you bike riders a trail, even though it will cost some money."

Using your logic, not everyone goes to ballgames, so municipalities should not fund stadiums. What about building roads that I don't plan to travel on? That would be a waste of MY money.

Here's another perspective. The Katy Trail is just another state park. I seldom use any of the other state parks but I don't object to my tax dollars going to support them. Same thing with the lands managed by the Department of Conservation - I hunt and fish on my own property but I don't object to paying taxes to support the public lands. So Anonoh, if you use any public tax supported lands, you
're welcome. I'm glad my tax dollars could provide you the opportunity to do something that you enjoy.

The lost real estate tax revenue from the trail is minimal because it is classed as abandoned or as agriculture, both of which are taxed at a very, very low rate.

Agree with you Don.

Furthermore, we are not talking about putting in a new county road, or even anything like power transmission lines. The land lost to agriculture was lost 100 years ago when the rail road went through the property. I suspect that the vast majority of the land is grown over and remains unused, or is used as place to burn brush--the gravel and debris make it so. Look at old rail lines on Google Earth: Most are 100 ft wide thickets and fence rows. The landowners know that the right of way exist in much the same way that I know I have an easement in my back yard.

What the landowners don't know, and fear, is that strangers will be going on and near their property--so they do what they can to stop the trail buy using the legal means available to them. I understand such concerns. Sites like this can go a long way to stopping stealth camping, etc, and minimizing such fears.

Read this one KC NPR