PRECA 10-07-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was of particular interest. It appears that the majority of trail development was done with General Fend and Grant money. These sources are diminishing and other means will be needed if development is to continue. We were looking at the possibility of a referendum, which has not been used much. The graph below shows how funding has been done in the past. Respondents could check multiple sources and most did, but there was no quantification by category It would take a much more extensive survey to determine the actual amounts in each category. We did not expect any respondent to go into an in depth analysis of any issue on the survey. The funding source that is probably growing is the use of Park Dedication Funding. This was the most often mentioned when the Other category was checked. The most common trail surface is various widths and depths of bituminous. This comprised slightly over fifty per cent of all types. It was mentioned seventy-six times versus sixty-nine for all others combined. Respondents did check multiple surface. types, so again it would take a more detailed questionnaire to determine the actual number of miles installed by type. ,, As was mentioned earlier, trail usage was the most confusing question, but the results appear to be what could be expected. Fitness was rated as being about thirty per cent above Access and Nature, with Other, primarily snowmobiling and cross-country skiing, rated at only four per cent. The question was confusing, because Nature usage and Fitness or Access utilization can all be done simultaneously. The attempt here was to find out if some area really predominated and that is not the case. The areas appear well- balanced. The final part of the survey, page two, was the data that fulfilled our objective, which was to identify those areas that had been mentioned by citizens in regard to trail problems. The ten categories mentioned on the survey were Litter, Vandalism, Theft, 9 ~.