Trail Use and Economic Impact Study

Attachment #2
LOCATION
PROJECT TITLE
PR OP O SA L
(B I N DI N G F OR 9 0 DA Y S )
RPI Consulting LLC

Durango, Colorado
City of Steamboat Springs Trail Use and Economic Impact Study, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 2
Executive Summary 3
Introduction And Methodology 4
Trail User Intercept Survey Methodology 5
Trail Count Methodology 10
Economic Impact Assessment 12
Overnight Visitor Characteristics 12
Overnight Visitor Trail-User Spending Estimates 19
Overnight Visitor Trail-User Economic Impacts 23
Economic Impacts Not Quantified 24
Economic Impact Analysis Key Findings 28
Trail Use Study 29
Intercept Survey Findings 29
Trail Count-Informed Use Patterns 39
Trail Use Summary of Findings 50
Appendix A: Relevant Results from RRC Summer Visitor Study 51
Appendix B: Relevant Results from the Community Survey 56
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study collected primary data and assimilated the best economic and visitation data
available to estimate the quantity and location of trail use on Steamboat Springs trails, the
type of users (full-time residents, part-time residents and visitors), and to understand how
people are using the trails and what they think about them. Seven hundred and thirty
(730) in-person trail user intercept surveys were collected from mid-June through late
September, 2018 on Steamboat Springs’ three most popular trails systems: Emerald
Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass. The survey was designed to establish a profile
of trail user characteristics, capture perceptions of trails, gauge the frequency and duration
of trail use, understand trip characteristics, identify preferred trail difficulty level and
track visitor spending patterns. Historic trail counter data was used to establish baseline
trends and level of use within the trails systems. To better understand trail use patterns
within each trails system, the research team placed counters at key points throughout the
Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass trails systems in 2018.
Trail-related economic impacts are a substantial contributor to Steamboat Spring’s year-
round economy. Twenty-three percent of trail users surveyed were overnight visitors, over
half of whom were staying in paid overnight accommodations. The average visitor was a
party of 3.4 people, staying four nights and spending $1,883 on the trip. The study
estimates that between 31,300 and 43,500 trail related visitors spend from $17.3 million to
$24.1 million per season in aggregate across all sectors during the trail season. Accounting
for multipliers, the total economic impact from trail-related overnight visits is between
$26.2 million and $36.5 million in total output, supporting between 300-400 jobs.
TrafX trail counters and software detected significant trail use throughout the three trails
systems. The annual Buffalo Pass trail count is approximately 18% of overall estimated
use in the three trail systems and the remainder is split between Emerald Mountain and
Spring Creek at about 40% each. Intercept surveys indicated that a higher percentage of
visitors or part-time residents utilize Buffalo Pass compared with Full-Time Residents.
Overall, survey respondents were nearly evenly split between bikers and those on foot,
although there were slightly more biker respondents among full-time residents and visitors.
Trail counter data indicate that more use occurs on moderate trails at various points within
a trails system compared to difficult trails and that there is higher use on sections that are
closer to the trailhead compared with those further out.
The intercept survey found some differences in route choice among the three types of users,
full-time residents, part-time residents and visitors. Fifty-four percent (54%) of full-time
resident respondents cited convenient location as a factor in how they chose their route and
42% chose time/distance. Visitors exhibited more diverse motivations for route choice, the
most frequent factor was that they heard about the route or it was recommended (44%).
Trail users’ typical trail outings are between 1 and 3 hours. A larger share of part-time
residents and visitors choose even longer outings compared to full-time residents. Few full-
3
time or part-time residents typically to go more than eighteen miles, but 15% of visitors
surveyed cited a typical outing of over 18 miles. Over half of trail intercept survey
respondents were combining multiple loops.
Intercept survey respondents showed high levels of satisfaction with the trails although
results did register some level of concern with other trail users. Over 92% of survey
respondents rated the condition of the trails a 4 or 5 out of 5. Most of the trail systems
included in the study area are rated intermediate and most cyclists rated their riding skill
as advanced, yet 85% or more of those surveyed thought that their chosen trail route
offered the right level of difficulty. Bikes safety and the speed and control of riders was a
common concern cited by full-time residents. Four percent (4%) of users cited a concern
with dogs in general while 11% cited off-leash dogs as a concern. Over half of the full-time
resident respondents indicated that they have no concerns about the way other trail users
may affect them.
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Recreation assets have long been a priority for the Steamboat Springs community. Citizens
have shown their support for public trails with a voter-approved 1% tax on accommodations
with a significant portion of revenues directed towards improving and expanding the trail
infrastructure in and around the city. The two central topics summarized in this report are
an economic impact analysis of existing trails in and near the City of Steamboat Springs
and a descriptive analysis of trail use patterns and trail users.
The first section of this report tracks historic trail use and estimates the economic impact of
trail-related overnight visitors to Steamboat Springs with a focus on three major trails
systems in/near Steamboat Springs: Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass.
Recreation visitors, including trail users, spend a considerable amount of money while in
the area and provide fuel for the local economy. In addition to the quantifiable economic
impacts of trail-related overnight visitation, trails provide a variety of benefits to the
community by improving well-being and physical health and adding to the overall
attractiveness of the community to prospective residents and businesses.
The analysis in this report utilized automated trail counter data as well as results from a
trail intercept survey conducted summer through fall of 2018 to track trail use and
economic impacts. Trail counters at major trailheads gauge overall trail use while
strategically placed trail counters show use patterns within each trails system. The trail
user intercept survey results provided an estimate of visitor trip characteristics and
spending patterns while also providing details about how trails are being used and about
user preferences and concerns.
4
TRAIL USER INTERCEPT SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Seven hundred and thirty (730) in-person trail user intercept surveys were collected from
mid-June through late September, 2018 on Steamboat Springs’ three most popular trails
systems: Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass. The intercept survey began
with observations about activities/modes, party size, age groups, number of dogs and other
visible attributes. Some of the questions differed depending on whether trail users were
year-round residents (locals), part-time residents or visitors, so the team utilized three
survey instruments. The survey was designed to establish a profile of trail user
characteristics, capture perceptions of trails, gauge the frequency and duration of trail use,
understand trip characteristics, identify preferred trail difficulty level and track visitor
spending patterns.
Figure 1 summarizes the number of intercept surveys collected by user type and location.
Part-time residents are defined as people who live in the Steamboat Springs area part of
the year but consider their primary address outside of Routt County. Locals are defined as
year-round residents to Steamboat Springs.
Figure 1 – Completed Intercept Surveys by Trailhead and Locals vs. Visitors

Surveys with Surveys with Share of
Surveys with Total Surveys
Year-Round Part-Time Surveys with
Visitors by Trailhead
Residents Residents Locals
Emerald Mountain
Surveys
Stables Trailhead 157 12 42 211 74%
Blackmer Drive 79 9 21 109 72%
Ridge Trailhead 9 1 1 11 82%
Spring Creek Surveys
Spring Creek Trailhead 108 20 39 167 65%
Buffalo Pass Surveys
Dry Lake Trailhead 118 25 68 211 56%
Panorama Intersection 1 1 2 4 25%
Ditch Intersection 11 3 3 17 65%
Total Surveys 483 71 176 730 66%
5
Figure 2 – Steamboat Springs Intercept Survey Trailhead Location
Many of the questions about route, length, and other details about the outing were the
same/similar between surveys, but some questions were customized to the user-type. The
locals’ survey asked 11 questions regarding trail route, typical trail outing distance and
frequency, perceived condition of the trails, and concerns about other trail users. The 17
question part-time resident survey asked about primary zip code, travel party
demographics, and reasons for that particular trip. The visitors’ survey asked 18 questions
including primary zip code, accommodations, length of stay, spending and additional
activities they had or planned to participate in during their visit.
Trail surveys were deliberately taken on both weekends and weekdays and at different
times of day to contact all types of users.
6
Figure 3 – Surveys Collected by Weekend versus Weekday
Weekend or Weekday?
Weekend
40%
Weekday
60%
Surveys collected before 12:00 pm accounted for 77.7% of all surveys; 22.3% of surveys were
collected after 12:00 pm with peak survey collection between 8:00 am and 11:00 am. This
does not indicate the level of use by time of day, and to some degree reflects the fact that
survey takers were more frequently available during those times of day.
Figure 4 – Surveys Collected by Time of Day
Survey Collection by Time of Day
10.3%10.5%
9.6% 9.6%
8.8%
8.4%
7.7%
5.3%
4.9%
3.3%
2.6% 2.7% 2.7%
2.3% 2.3%
1.4% 1.5% 1.8%
0.8% 0.8% 1.1%
0.7%
0.3% 0.5%
7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30
to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to
7:29 7:59 8:29 8:59 9:29 9:59 10:29 10:59 11:29 11:59 12:29 12:59 1:29 1:59 2:29 2:59 3:29 3:59 4:29 4:59 5:29 5:59 6:29 6:59
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
7
SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

One-third of survey respondents were visitors or part-time residents, showing clearly that
visitors utilize the local trails systems and also shows that local residents are out enjoying
the trails in great numbers. Twenty-four percent (24%) of survey respondents were visitors.
Nearly all visitors were staying overnight, 23% of survey respondents were overnight
visitors.
Figure 5 – Survey Respondent Resident Status
Visitor
24%
Part-Time Resident
10%
Year-Round Resident
66%
Question #4 730 Responses

Q: “Are you a…”
Response Options: Year-round visitor; Part-time resident; Visitor; Other
The mix of male and female trail users surveyed are divided fairly evenly. This shows that
there is not a large discrepancy between male and female trail users, but it is worth noting
that there were slightly more female trail users among full-and part-time residents.
Figure 6 – Trail Group Composition: Male & Female by Resident Status
Trail Group Composition by Resident Status

Full-Time Residents 48%
(n=824) 52%
Part-Time Residents 46%

(n=146) 54%
Visitors 51%
(n=427) 49%
Males Females
Question #3.a 730 Responses

Q: “Trail Group Composition (number of each)”
Response Options: Males: #_____; Females: #_____
8
The majority of all trail users were adults. Children and youth account for 10% to 12% of all
surveyed trail users and seniors account for 8% to 13%. Part-time residents are more likely
to be retired or partially retired, which may explain why part-time residents have the
highest percentage of seniors using the trails.
Figure 7 – Trail Group Composition: Age by Resident Status
Trail Group Composition: Age by Resident Status

82% 81%
76%
8% 8% 13% 9%
6% 5% 4% 7% 3%
Kids (younger than 10) Youth (10 - 18) Adults Seniors
Full-Time Residents Part-Time Residents Visitors

(n=823) (n=147) (n=420)
469 Full-Time Resident Responses

Question #3.c 70 Part-Time Resident Responses
170 Visitor Responses
Response Options: Kids (younger than 10): #_____; Youth (10 – 18): #_____; Adults: #_____;
Seniors: #_____
Twenty-five percent of respondents (183 respondents) had one or more dogs with them on
the trail for a total of 235 dogs observed, 59% of which were on a leash. The trailheads with
the highest number of dogs were Blackmer Drive and Spring Creek which both offer off-
leash dog areas along the trail.
Figure 8 – Trail Users with Dogs
Trail Users with Dogs
Trail Users with Dog(s)
25%
Trail Users with No Dog

75%
Question #3.b 183 Responses

Response Options: Dogs (if applicable): #_____; On leash? (yes / no): _____
9
The part-time resident survey included one question about household status. Forty percent
(40%) of part-time resident respondents are empty nesters and 30% of part-time residents
do not have children. Only 12% of part-time residents are single with no children,
indicating that most part-time residents are married or have a family household.
Figure 9 – Part-Time Residents’ Household Status
Part-Time Residents' Household Status

Single, no children
12%
Couple, no children Empty-nester

18% 40%
Family household
30%
TRAIL COUNT METHODOLOGY

TrafX is a hardware/software automated trail use counting system that the City of
Steamboat Springs has been using in coordination with Routt County Riders since 2013.
TrafX counters are either infrared (IR) which optically record all passing users, or
mountain bike (MTB) counters which only detect the metal in mountain bikes.
During past seasons prior to 2018, trail counters were placed near various trail heads and
at select locations within the trails systems. Historic counter data was used to establish
baseline trends and peak use within the trails systems. Emerald Mountain and Spring
Creek trailheads had ample trail counts throughout several years and were adequate to
establish baseline trails system use. Buffalo Pass had sporadic counter placements and
data, making overall trail use difficult to estimate.
To better understand trail use patterns within each trails system, the research team placed
counters at key points throughout the Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass
trails systems in 2018. Emerald Mountain trails system has had consistent counts for
several years in some locations. The data collected throughout the Emerald Mountain trails
system is central to this study because of the record of past trail counts, its in-town access,
10
variety of difficulty and length, and user-specific trails. Only a few counters were placed on
the Buffalo Pass trails in past years because many of the trails are new, so the 2018 counts
are the most extensive tracking of use in these newer trails to date. Although Spring Creek
has been counted for multiple years near the trailheads and lower on the trail, there were
not counts further up the trails in past years. The 2018 counts extended to destinations and
turnaround spots further up the drainage.
11
ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Economic impacts of trail-related use vary depending on whether the users are full-time
residents, part-time residents or overnight visitors. The most direct and measurable
economic impact generated by trails is their role in attracting overnight visitors to
Steamboat Springs. Reported overnight visitor spending habits from the trail intercept
survey were analyzed to estimate trail-related expenditures and induced economic impacts
to Steamboat Springs. Quantifying part-time resident trail-related spending was not
feasible, but the intercept survey results show characteristics that signal a significant and
consistent economic input by this user-group. Similarly, while it is clear that trails
contribute immensely to quality of life and the vitality of the community for full-time local
resident trail users, it is not a relationship that can be measured quantitatively.
OVERNIGHT VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS

Visitor spending (lodging, food, recreation, etc.) in Steamboat Springs translates directly to
jobs and income in the local economy and supports future expansion and maintenance of
trails for residents and visitors. From 1998 to 2016, travel and tourism employment in
Routt County grew from 4,695 to 6,162 jobs, a 31.2% increase or about 1.7% annual growth
over 18 years. In 2016, travel and tourism represented 37% of total employment in Routt
County (Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System: Routt County, CO). According to
the intercept survey results, 23% of trail users are overnight visitors.
Steamboat Springs is a well-established outdoor recreation destination that draws in
visitors year-round. Trails play an important role in the decision to visit, as evidenced in
the 2018 trail intercept survey. The visitor section of the trail intercept survey was
designed to learn how trails affected decisions about the trip and how spending is connected
to trails and recreation in the Steamboat Springs economy. Visitor respondents were asked
to approximate their party’s spending habits, reason(s) for visit, and trail route
characteristics. Party spending was logged by category including lodging, food and drinks,
shopping, gifts and souvenirs, recreation and entertainment, and other expenses. A
computation using length of stay, travel party size and per party spending yielded the
average overnight spending per visitor.
Ninety-seven percent of visitor respondents indicated zip codes within the United States.
Steamboat Springs and its well-known trails systems attract visitors from around the
country and internationally. Forty-five percent (45%) of visitor respondents were from
outside of Colorado. The mid-west, eastern and southern regions of the U.S. are common
primary residence locations, as displayed in Figure 11. International visitors included
residents of England, Mexico, Australia, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Over
half (55%) of visitors listed a primary zip code in Colorado with a majority of the visitors
listing a primary zip code from in the Front Range as shown in Figure 12.
12
Figure 10 – Visitor Primary Residence In-State versus Out-of-State
Visitors' Primary Residence
Outside of Colorado
45%
In Colorado
55%
Question #32.a 173 Responses

Q: “Are you:”
Response Options: Here for the day / part of the day; Staying or stayed overnight (# of nights: ____)
Figure 11 – Visitors’ Primary Residence Zip Code Map, U.S. States
13
Figure 12 – Visitors’ Primary Residence Zip Code Map, Front Range
Ninety-seven percent (97%) of visitors surveyed on the trails were overnight visitors, 3%
were staying for the day or part of the day. Overnight visitors account for 23% of all trail
users surveyed reaffirming the fact that Steamboat Springs is a destination for summer
trail-related activity. Eighty-six percent (86%) of overnight visitors were staying for 2 or
more nights (see Figure 13). The average length of stay for a travel party in Steamboat
Springs is 4.15 nights, which shows that visitors who use trails tend to be on a multi-day,
destination leisure trip.
Figure 13 – Visitors’ Length of Stay in Steamboat Springs
Visitors' Length of Stay in Steamboat Springs

No Response 2%
Here for the day / part of the day 3%
1 Night 13%
2 Nights 28%
3 Nights 17%
4 Nights 7%
5 Nights 8%
6 Nights 5%
7 Nights 11%
8 Nights 1%
9 Nights 1%
10 Nights 1%
More than 10 Nights 3%
14
Fifty-four percent (54%) of visitor respondents indicated that they were staying in paid or
rented lodging or a second home/timeshare while in Steamboat Springs. Forty-six percent
(46%) of visitor respondents indicated they were staying with friends or family or tent/RV
camping while in Steamboat. Visitor respondents staying in paid lodging and those paying
for tent/RV camping in Steamboat Springs have the most impact on the local economy.
Figure 14 – How Visitors are Staying in Steamboat Springs
How Visitors are Staying in Steamboat Springs

Tent camping / RV
23%
Paid / rented lodging

43%
Second Home or
timeshare
11%
With family or friends

23%
Question #32.b 168 Responses

Q: “How are you staying in Steamboat? (circle one)”
Response Options: Paid/rented lodging; With family or friends; Second home or timeshare (owned by
member of the party); Tent camping/RV; Other
The average travel party size in Steamboat Springs of visitor parties surveyed on the trails
is 3.4 people. Forty percent (40%) of visitor respondents indicated that their travel party
size is 2 people; 42% of respondents traveled with 3 or more people. Larger travel parties
spend more money while in Steamboat Springs.
Figure 15 – Visitor Travel Party Size
Visitor Travel Party Size

1 Person 18%
2 People 40%
3 People 16%
4 People 7%
5 People 7%
6 People 4%
7 People 1%
8 People 2%
9 People 1%
10 People 1%
More than 10 3%
15
Recreation and trail-related use accounts for a large majority of visitor respondents’
primary reason for their trip to Steamboat Springs. Sixty-five percent (65%) of visitor
respondents cited trail-related activities (biking, hiking, running, or motorized) as a
primary reason for their visit. Just under 45% of visitor respondents cited general vacation,
recreation, or leisure as a primary reason for their visit Steamboat Springs.
Figure 16 – Visitor Primary Reason for Trip to Steamboat Springs
Primary Reason for Trip to Steamboat Springs (n=295)
General vacation / recreation / leisure 44.8%
Trail activities - bike 41.4%
Trail activities - hike/run 23.0%
Trail activities - motorized 0.6%
Other outdoor recreation 10.3%
Attend special event / festival 4.0%
Visit family / friends 20.1%
Wedding / family reunion 5.2%
Business or business pleasure 2.9%
Other 17.2%

Q: “What was the primary reason for your trip to Steamboat? (circle all that apply)”
Response Options: General vacation/recreation/leisure; Trail activities (bike; hike/run; motorized);
Other outdoor recreation; Attend special event/festival; Visit family/friends; Wedding/family reunion;
Business or business/pleasure; Other
16
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of visitor respondents dined out in Steamboat Springs during
their trip; 48% participated in shopping. Over half of visitor respondents indicated “other”
activities participated in during their trip. Dining out and shopping usually take place
within the downtown area and directly impact local small businesses.
Figure 17 – Percent of Visitor Participation in Activities
Visitors' Participation in In-Town Activities (n=405)

Shopping 48%
Dining Out 88%
Attend a Public Event 11%
Performance Entertainment 14%
Visit Art Galleries 8%
Rafting / Tubing 15%
Other 51%
None 4%

Q: “What in-town activities did you / will you participate in? (circle all that apply)”
Response Options: Shopping; Dining out; Attend a public event; Performance entertainment; Visit art
galleries; Rafting/tubing; None; Other
Of the 51% of visitor respondents who indicated participating in “other” activities during
their trip to Steamboat Springs, 34% went to the hot springs and 24% participated in
outdoor recreation or competitions during their trip.
Figure 18 – Percent of Visitor Participation in “Other” Activities
"Other" Activity Participation (n=87)

Hot Springs & Pools 34%
Fishing 6%
Ski Area / Gondola 6%
Botanic Gardens 3%
Farmer's Market 7%
Bike Park / Skate Park 2%
Recreation / Competition 24%
Rodeo 7%
Horseback Riding 5%
Breweries 2%
Camping 1%
Movie 1%
Fire Station Open House 1%
17
RRC SUMMER VISITOR RESEARCH STUDY, 2017

RRC conducted a Summer Visitor Research Study in Steamboat Springs in 2017. This
survey yielded over 750 intercept surveys in downtown Steamboat Springs and 412
kiosk/online surveys (see Appendix A for selected results from this survey). Eighty-nine
percent (89%) of respondents to the summer visitors survey were overnight visitors to
Steamboat Springs, 7% were day visitors and 4% were seasonal residents/second
homeowners. Forty percent (40%) of visitor respondents were from Colorado. Many visitors
participated in outdoor-related activities while in Steamboat Springs, including: athletic
events, horseback riding, cycling/biking, running/walking and hiking. Hiking was the
second most popular activity for summer visitors in Steamboat Springs in 2017;
running/walking was the fifth most popular activity.
The RRC Summer Visitor Research Study yielded results that are consistent with the trail
intercept survey conducted in 2018. Some relevant key findings from the Summer Visitor
Research Study include:
• Trail-related activities (hiking, cycling/biking, running/walking, horseback riding,
etc.) are a drawing point for summer visitors (see Figure 19).
• Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondents indicated biking around town during their
trip; 58% participated in mountain biking (downhill or cross country).
• Summer visitor respondents reported spending an average of $1,122 during their
trip to Steamboat Springs.
• Forty-six percent (46%) of summer visitor respondents indicated that they paid $100
or more on recreation and entertainment during their trip to Steamboat.
• Hiking remains steady through every age group. Summer visitors under 18 have
relatively high participation rates in hiking, running/walking and cycling/biking.
Figure 19 – Trail-Related Activity Participation During Trip to Steamboat – RRC Report
Activities Engaged in During Trip
Participate in athletic event/competition 5%
Horseback riding 6%
Watch athletic event/competition 9%
Cycling/biking 21%
Running/walking 34%
Hiking 52%
Source: RRC Steamboat Springs Summer Visitor Research, 2017.
18
OVERNIGHT VISITOR TRAIL-USER SPENDING ESTIMATES

Overnight visitor spending estimates are presented as low-end and high-end estimates.
TrafX trailhead counts for past seasons provided a key input for estimating total trail use.
Low-end estimates of trail use are based on consistent historic trail count data for the front
side of Emerald Mountain as measured at the Stables and Blackmer Drive trailheads and
at Spring Creek. The high-end range estimates additional use in the Buffalo Pass trails
system and accounts for other Emerald Mountain trailheads by extrapolating more limited
available data. The low-end estimates are more certain because they are based on empirical
data while the additional use and spending in the high-end estimates are less certain
because they required assumptions and more steps in the calculations. Spending reported
by overnight visitors in the trail intercept survey was applied to the estimates of overnight
visitor trail users to yield low and high-end estimates of visitor spending.
VISITOR SPENDING PATTERNS

Overnight visitors have a greater direct economic impact during their stay than day visitors
as they spend more money in Steamboat during their longer trips. The four-day average
length of stay (see Figure 13 above) indicates that Steamboat Springs draws visitors in for
multiple days, and fewer people choose a shorter visit. The following figure summarizes the
various travel expenditures reported by the overnight visitor trail survey respondents.
Figure 20 – Average Travel Party Spending by Category
Average Travel Party Spending by Category

Other
11%
Recreation and
Entertainment
12%
Lodging
47%
Shopping, Gifts and
Souvenirs
10%
Food and Drinks

20%

Q: “Approximately how much will your travel party spend on each of the following for your entire trip
in Steamboat?”
Response Options: Lodging $_____; Food and drinks $_____; Shopping, gifts & souvenirs $_____;
Recreation / entertainment $_____; Other $_____
19
Average trip spending by overnight travel party was roughly $1,884, calculated using each
visitor respondents’ travel party size, length of stay and reported spending. The sum of the
reported spending in Steamboat Springs from all overnight visitor respondents was more
than $171,000.
Figure 21 – Overnight Visitor Average Travel Expenses
Total Party Party Party Daily Per Person Per Person n=
Spending Average Average Average Daily Average
Lodging $80,0004.00 $888.93 $115.70 $144.01 $36.21 90
Food & Drinks $53,840.00 $373.89 $92.01 $122.01 $35.05 144
Shopping, Gifts
$16,495.00 $194.06 $27.53 $34.36 $9.76 85
& Souvenirs
Recreation /
$17,230.00 $226.71 $28.62 $30.03 $7.36 76
Entertainment
Other $4,005.00 $200.00 $3.13 $5.42 $0.97 21
Total $171,574.00 $1,883.59 $266.99 $335.83 $89.35
LOW-END OVERNIGHT VISITOR SPENDING ESTIMATES

The low-end spending estimates were computed using the trail counter data during peak
season and trail intercept survey data. Steamboat Springs’ trail counter data has been
collected at several trail locations beginning in 2013. The intercept-surveys were taken at
the same locations for which historic counts are available including the Stables, Blackmer
Drive, Spring Creek, and at Dry Lake Trailhead on Buffalo Pass near the counter on Bear
Tree Ridge (BTR). Low-end economic impacts focus on the trail counts on Spring Creek and
Emerald Mountain (front-side) where historic trail user counts have been the most
consistent. Buffalo Pass trail use was not included in the low-end estimates due to the lack
of consistent historic trail counts, in large part because many of these trails and connectors
were built recently.
May through September is the peak season for trail use based on analysis of historic trail
counts. The aggregate peak season trail counts at the Stables, Blackmer and Spring Creek
counter locations is 75,900 ‘passes’ (TrafX Counter Data, 2017). According to the intercept
survey, 94.9% of all trail users end their trail outing at the same trailhead where they
started. Total counts were adjusted to avoid double counting trail users according to this
factor, resulting in an estimated 39,900 peak season users at these three major trailheads.
Figure 22 – Steamboat Springs In-Town Adjusted Trail Use
Item Variable Quantity Formula/Source
Emerald Mountain (Blackmer & Stables) Trail
A 58,100 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2017
Counts
B Spring Creek Trailhead Counts 17,800 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2018
C Total In-Town Trail Counts (Peak-Season) 75,900 A+B
Percent of Trail Users Starting and Finishing Trail
D 94.9% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
Outing at Same Trailhead
E Adjusted In-Town Trail Use 39,900 C*[(D*.5)+(1-D)]
20
According to the trail intercept survey results, 23% of all trail users are overnight visitors
to Steamboat Springs. Twenty-three percent (23%) of adjusted trail users during peak-use
season is approximately 9,200 overnight visitor trail users. Direct economic impacts were
derived using information collected from the trail intercept surveys and counter data.
Figure 23 shows the calculations of low-end trail-related overnight visitor spending.
Figure 23 – Trail-Related Overnight Visitor Economic Impacts (Low-End)

A Adjusted Emerald and Spring Creek Trail Use 39,900 Figure 22, Row E
B Percent Trail Users Overnight Visitors 23% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
C Visitor Trail Users (Low-End) 9,200 A*B
D Average Travel Party Size 3.4 Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
E Total Trail Related Visitors (Low-End) 31,300 C*D
F Average Total Travel Party Spending $1,884 Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
G Total Trail-Related Visitor Spending (Low-End) $17,300,000 C * F (rounded to 100,000's)
HIGH-END OVERNIGHT VISITOR SPENDING

The high-end overnight visitor spending estimate accounts for several factors which
indicate additional trail use and associated spending. Some of these factors include: winter
or shoulder season trail use, other trailheads/access points, and unaccounted for trail use
data.
Buffalo Pass’s main trailhead, Dry Lake, does not have historical counter data and its trail
counts were not included in low-end estimates. Other trail access points not covered by
historical trail counts include: 1-Mile Run, the Howelson Hill ski jumps, Beall trail on
Emerald Mountain, and Dry Lake and Ditch trailheads on Buffalo Pass. These and other
additional trail access points could account for additional trail users not included in the
low-end overnight visitor spending estimates. According to intercept survey results, 8% of
Emerald Mountain trail users accessed the system at a trailhead for which historic trail
counts are not available and therefor are not included in the low-end spending estimates
(i.e. BMX track, Ridge Trail, ski jumps, etc.).
Figure 24 – Emerald Mountain Additional Trail Access Points and Trail Users
A Adjusted Emerald Mountain (E.M) Trail Use 30,500 Same Method as Figure 22
B Trail Users Accessing E.M. from other trailheads 8% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
C Adjusted E.M. Trail Use from All Access Points 32,900 A * (B+1)
D Additional E.M. Trail Use from Other Access Points 2,400 A*B
While the historical trail count data in the Buffalo Pass trails system is sparse, one
mountain bike counter that detects the medal in bikes was placed on Buffalo Pass near
BTR during the 2017 trail season. This counter provides input for an order of magnitude
estimate of level of use in the Buffalo Pass trails system. The intercept survey indicated
21
that 56% of Buffalo Pass trail users were biking; 44% were hiking or running. Additionally,
the survey indicated that only 15% of all Buffalo Pass trail users were using Bear Tree
Ridge (BTR) trail. Using these inputs, the following computation estimates total Buffalo
Pass use at 13,200 users over the peak season.
Figure 25 – Buffalo Pass Estimated Annual Trail Users
A Bear Tree Ridge (BTR) Mountain Bike Trail Counts 2,500 TrafX Trail Counts, 2017
B Percent of Buffalo Pass Trail Users on BTR 85% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
C Buffalo Pass Mountain Bike Trail Computed Counts 14,100 (B*A)/(1-B)
Percent of Non-Mountain Biking Buffalo Pass Trail
D 44% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
Users (Hiking, Running, Walking, etc.)
Total Buffalo Pass Trail Computed Counts – All
E 25,200 [(C*D)/(1-D)]+C
Modes
Percent of Trail Users Starting or Finishing Trail
F 94.90% Figure 22, Row D
Outing at the Same Trailhead
G Adjusted Buffalo Pass Trail Users 13,200 E*[(F*.5)+(1-F)]
The high-end trail-related overnight visitor economic impact estimate was calculated using
Emerald Mountain’s adjusted trail use plus Buffalo Pass’s estimated trail use. The
additional factors included in the high-end analysis add 3,600 additional annual overnight
visitor trail-users to the 9,200 overnight visitors estimated in the low-end estimate.
Figure 26 – Trail-Related Overnight Visitor Economic Impacts (High-End)

A Adjusted E.M. and Spring Creek 39,900 Figure 22, Row E
B Additional E.M. Trail Use from Other Access Points 2,400 Figure 24, Row D
C Adjusted Buffalo Pass Trail Users 13,200 Figure 25, Row G
D Total Adjusted Trail Users (High-End) 55,500 A+B+C
E Percent of Total Trail Users That Are Overnight
23% Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
Visitors
F Overnight Visitor Trail Users (High-End) 12,800 D*E
G Average Party Size 3.4 Trail Intercept Survey, 2018
H Total Trail Related Visitors (High-End) 43,500 F*G
I Average Total Travel Party Spending $1,884 Figure 23, Row J
J Total Trail-Related Visitor Spending (High-End) $24,100,000 F*I
22
OVERNIGHT VISITOR SPENDING SUMMARY

The overall trail-related visitor spending in Steamboat Springs ranges from $17.3 million
(low-end) to $24.1 million (high-end) over a trail season. The low-end spending estimates
have a higher level of certainty because computations used more complete data. The high-
end estimates involve more assumptions and steps of analysis and should be treated as
order of magnitude estimates. The additional factors included in the high-end analysis
could generate $6.8 million in overnight visitor spending beyond the more certain low-end
spending estimate, for a total of $24.1 million in overnight visitor trail user spending.
Figure 27 – Low-to High-End Ranges of Trail-Related Visitor Economic Impact
A Total Trail-Related Visitor Spending (Low-End) $17,300,000 Figure 23, Row G
B Total Trail-Related Visitor Spending (High-End) $24,100,000 Figure 26, Row J
OVERNIGHT VISITOR TRAIL-USER ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Estimating economic impacts includes translating the spending across affected sectors into
employment and earnings outputs. In addition to showing direct effects, economic impact
analysis applies multipliers to account for secondary effects of injecting the visitor dollars
into the community. Customized multipliers were established to calculate visitor spending
impacts for the Yampa Valley Regional Airport in the Economic Impact Study for Colorado
Airports, CDOT Aeronautics Division, 2013 (see Table A-3: Commercial Visitor Spending
Impacts on Employment, Payroll, and Output). These multipliers were developed using a
customized IMPLAN input-output model that accounted for the size/scale of the local
economy and conditions in the local market area. Specific multipliers were computed to
estimate impacts of visitor spending separately from impacts of airport operations. The
visitor spending model included adjustments such as “margining,” which was applied to
avoid overstating the localized impacts of visitor retail spending (Economic Impact Study
for Colorado Airports, CDOT Aeronautics Division, 2013, see Page 1, Methodology). Further
calibration of visitor spending multipliers would require an update to the IMPLAN model
created for the 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports, or constructing a new
model.
The annual economic impacts of overnight visitor trail-users begin with the direct spending
ranging from $17.3 million at the low-end to $24.1 million on the high-end over the course
of a trail season. Including multipliers, the low-end visitor spending supports 290 jobs and
$8.9 million in earnings and up to 403 jobs and $12.4 million in earnings at the high-end.
The $17.3 million low-end estimated spending generates a total of $26.2 million in output
and the $24.1 million high-end estimated spending generates a total of $36.5 million in
output. As trail use by overnight visitors increases, so will the economic outputs.
23
Figure 28 – Economic Impacts of Overnight Visitor Trail User Spending

Low-End High-End
Multiplier Multiplier Units Visitor Spending Visitor Spending
Initial Supported Employment 12.4 Jobs/$Million 214 299
Multiplier Employment 4.3 Jobs/$Million 75 105
Total Supported Employment 16.7 Jobs/$Million 290 403
Initial Payroll $0.36 Earnings/Dollar $6,150,000 $8,570,000

Multiplier $0.16 Earnings/Dollar $2,760,000 $3,850,000
Total Payroll $0.52 Earnings/Dollar $8,920,000 $12,420,000
Initial Output (Spending) $1.00 Output/Dollar $17,300,000 $24,100,000

Multiplier $0.51 Output/Dollar $8,890,000 $12,380,000
Total Output $1.51 Output/Dollar $26,190,000 $36,480,000
Source: Multipliers from Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports, CDOT Aeronautics, 2013
ECONOMIC IMPACTS NOT QUANTIFIED

OFF-SEASON USE
Depending on the trailhead, winter trail use fluctuates from, and is sometimes higher than,
summer trail use. Blackmer Drive is groomed during the winter season and has 3-4 times
higher trail use in winter months than it does in summer months. Accessing in-town trails
such as Blackmer Drive is not a primary visitor attraction to Steamboat Springs, but
instead acts as an additional benefit to visitors.
Figure 29 – October through April (Off-Season) Trail Use
A Blackmer Drive Adjusted Trail Use (October - April) 16,700 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2017
B Stables Adjusted Trail Use (October - April) 2,300 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2017
C Spring Creek Adjusted Trail Use (October - April) 7,000 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2017
BTR Trail - Buffalo Pass Adjusted Trail Use (October
D 300 TrafX Trail Count Data, 2017
- April)
E Total Winter/Cooler Season Trail Use 26,200 A+B+C+D
PART-TIME RESIDENTS AND TRAILS

Part-time residents represented 10% of all trail intercept surveys collected. On average,
part-time resident respondents stay in Steamboat Springs 4.2 months or about one-third of
the year. Exact spending or recreational habits are unknown, but part-time resident
spending is a primary input into the economy because they spend money in the area that
was earned elsewhere, so their spending provides fuel for the economy much the same as
spending by traditional tourists. Construction and maintenance of the homes themselves
24
are an additional economic input from part-time residents. Figures 30 and 31 illustrate
where part-time residents consider their primary zip codes within the U.S. and in Colorado.
Figure 30 – Part-Time Residents’ Primary Zip Codes Map, US
Figure 31 – Part-Time Residents’ Primary Zip Codes Map, Colorado
25
While there is no recent data about part-time resident spending habits in the Steamboat
Springs area, the intercept survey does provide insights into how much of the year they
stay in their Steamboat area homes, party size and the importance of trails.
Outdoor recreation trips, including trail activities weigh significantly as a primary reason
for part-time residents’ stay in Steamboat Springs. Thirty-four percent (34%) of part-time
resident respondents indicated biking on trails as a primary reason for the visit while 22%
selected hiking as the primary reason for their stay.
Figure 32 – Part-Time Residents’ Primary Reason for Stay in Steamboat Springs
Part-Time Resident Primary Reason for Stay in Steamboat

General vacation / recreation / leisure 27%
Trail activities - bike 34%
Trail activities - hike/run 22%
Trail activities - motorized 3%
Other outdoor recreation 16%
Attend special event / festival 1%
Visit family / friends 15%
Wedding / family reunion 1%
Business or business pleasure 13%
Other 13%
Seventy-two percent (72%) of part-time resident respondents indicated they live in

Steamboat Springs 3 or more months out of the year. Thirty percent (30%) of part-time
resident respondents stated they live in Steamboat Springs 6 or more months out of the
year. The average amount of time that part-time residents spend in Steamboat Springs is
4.2 months, or roughly 35% of the year.
Figure 33 – Part-Time Residents’ Months/Year Spent in Steamboat Springs
Part-Time Residents' Months/Year Spent in Steamboat Springs

1 Month 9%
1.5 Months 7%
2 Months 7%
2.5 Months 4%
3 Months 16%
3.5 Months 1%
4 Months 15%
4.5 Months 1%
5 Months 7%
6 Months 15%
7 Months 1%
8 Months 7%
8.5 Months 1%
9 Months 1%
10 Months 3%
26
All part-time resident respondents reported having travel party sizes less than 10 people.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents lived part-time in Steamboat Springs alone;
42% of respondents had a travel party size of 2 people.
Figure 34 – Part-Time Residents’ Travel Party Size
Part-Time Residents' Travel Party Size

1 Person 23%
2 People 42%
3 People 9%
4 People 11%
5 People 5%
6 People 2%
7 People 2%
8 People 3%
9 People 3%
IMPACTS ON QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECONOMIC VITALITY

The economic benefits of trails for communities are not amenable to quantification, but they
are not a matter of speculation; rather, they have been documented in an array of economic
impact studies conducted across the United States. “While not traditionally viewed as
attractions that contribute to tourism and local economies, trails have become destination-
worthy sites and formidable economic generators” (Rails to Trails Conservancy).
Conservation Tools has compiled a list of economic benefits identified from trail studies in
the U.S. including:
• Trails increase the value of nearby properties, and spending at local businesses,
• Trails make communities more attractive places to live and influence housing
locations,
• Trails influence business location and relocation decisions,
• Trails revitalize areas, creating a demand for space in what were once vacant
buildings,
• Trails provide transportation options and cut fuel expenses, offering reliable means
of transportation for short distance trips,
• Trails provide low or no-cost recreation to families with low costs relative to other
recreational services that could be provided by government,
• Trails increase tax revenues in the communities in which they are located,
• These benefits represent a huge economic return on the money invested into trail
projects. The costs of land acquisition for trails, trail construction and maintenance
27
are far outweighed by the economic benefits generated by trails (Conservation Tools,
Economic Benefits of Trails).
Residents choose Steamboat Springs partly because of year-round outdoor recreation and
trails systems. The benefits that trails bring to a community, its economy and culture are
an on-going asset for Steamboat.
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KEY FINDINGS

Trail-related economic impacts are a substantial contributor to Steamboat Spring’s year-
round economy. The information gathered in the trail-intercept survey and through
trailhead counts provide a measurable range of visitors’ trail-related spending and
economic impacts. Some key findings from the economic impact analysis include the
following:
• Twenty-three percent (23%) of trail users surveyed were overnight visitors.
• Overnight visitors spend an average of 4.15 nights in Steamboat Springs
• The average overnight visitor travel party size is 3.4 people.
• The average overnight travel party spends $1,883 while visiting Steamboat Springs
• Fifty-four percent (54%) of overnight visitors stay in paid or rented lodging
• Sixty-five percent (65%) of the overnight visitors surveyed during the trail intercept
survey said trail-related activities were a primary reason for their visit.
• Thirty-four percent (34%) of part-time residents cited biking on trails as a primary
reason for their stay and 22% of part-time residents cited hiking on trails as a
primary reason for their stay in Steamboat.
• The study estimates that between 31,300 and 43,500 trail related overnight visitors
per season.
• Low-end estimated trail-related visitor spending totals $17.3 million per season.
• High-end estimated trail-related visitor spending totals $24.1 million per season.
• Low-end visitor spending supports 290 jobs and $8.9 million in earnings and
generates of $26.2 million in total output.
• High-end visitor spending supports 403 jobs and $12.4 million in earnings and
generates $36.5 million in total output.
28
TRAIL USE STUDY

The Trail Use Study focuses on how the trails are being used and the choices and
perceptions of trail users. The trail use analysis has as its foundation in two major data
sources: 1) intercept survey results regarding the use of trails including the type of user,
modes of travel, routes, frequency of use as well as user-perceptions about trail conditions,
difficulty level/challenge, and concerns about other trail users; 2) data collected from trail
counters strategically placed to better understand how much use is occurring and when and
where the use is occurring.
INTERCEPT SURVEY FINDINGS

The Intercept Survey Findings section of the Trail Use Study provides findings about
typical trail outing lengths for all users, access points, preferences, concerns about other
trail users, perception of Steamboat’s trails, and other survey findings related to trail use
patterns. All 730 surveys were collected at trailheads around Steamboat Springs and later
entered into an online version of the survey for analysis. Many of the questions on the trail
intercept survey were aimed at understanding how trails are used, which trailheads were
accessed, use patterns and user perceptions, or concerns about other trail users.
The full-time resident intercept survey questions were primarily written to establish an
objective basis for understanding how residents use trails, their experiences and
perceptions. In all, 483 of the 730 total surveys were completed by full-time residents.
Ninety-seven percent of full-time resident survey respondents indicated using Steamboat
Springs trails at least weekly and four out of five full time residents reported using trails
daily/a few times per week. This shows how well residents are able to fit trail activities into
their day-to-day lives. Conveniently located trailheads and trails are crucial for supporting
this day-to-day use.
29
Figure 35– How Often Full-Time Residents Use Trails in the Steamboat Springs
Area
How Often Full-Time Residents Use Trails

One or two times per
month / several times A few times per year
per year 0.41%
3%
Weekly
14%
Daily / a few times per

week
82%

Q: “How often do you use trails in the Steamboat Springs area? (circle one)”
Response Options: Daily / a few times per week; Weekly; One of two times per month/several times
per year; A few times per year
The proportion of surveys taken by parties that were biking and those walking or running
provides an indicator of how much of each is occurring throughout the trail systems.
Overall, survey respondents were nearly evenly split between bikers and walkers/hikers
although there were slightly more biker respondents among full-time residents and visitors.
Figure 36 – Survey Responses by Walking/Running or Biking
Survey Responses by Walking/Running or Biking

54%

45%
Visitors 48%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Walk/Run Bike
30
When asked to describe their primary use of trails, over a third (36%) of full-time resident
survey respondents said they mostly bike, 34% do a mix of biking, hiking, and running, and
29% of full-time residents mostly run or hike on Steamboat trails. Full-time residents’
“other” primary trail use included horseback riding and hunting.
Figure 37 – Full-Time Resident Primary Trail Use
Full-Time Resident Primary Trail Use

36%
34%
24%
5%
1%
Mostly biking Mostly hiking Mostly running A mix of biking, hiking, Other:
and running

Q: “Which describes your primary trail use?”
Response Options: Mostly biking; Mostly hiking; Mostly running; A mix of biking, hiking and running;
Other: _____
The largest share of bikers surveyed at Steamboat Springs trailheads consider their skill
level advanced and about one-third rated their riding as intermediate. Most of the trail
systems included in the study area are rated intermediate and most cyclists rated their
riding skill as advanced, yet 85% or more of those surveyed thought that their chosen trail
route offered the right level of difficulty (Figure 44 - Trail Difficulty Rating by Resident
Status). This indicates that advanced bikers can be satisfied with intermediate trails.
Figure 38 – If Biking, Rated Skill Levels (by Resident Status)
If Biking, Rated Skill Levels by Resident Status

63%
54%
49%
33% 35%
30%
7% 9% 7% 9%
5%
0
Professional / Competitive Advanced Intermediate Beginner
Full-Time Residents (n=445) Part-Time Residents (n=46) Visitors (n=184)
31
The proportion of surveys taken in each trail system provides an indicator of the amount of
use occurring in each system by each resident type. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of full-
time resident surveys were taken in the Buffalo Pass trail system, while over 40% of
visitors and part-time resident surveys were taken at Buffalo Pass (see Figure 39). This
indicates that a higher percentage of visitors and part-time residents utilize Buffalo Pass
compared with Full-Time Residents.
Figure 39 – Survey Responses by Trail System by Resident Status
Survey Responses by Trail System
22%
27%
28%
41%
22%
Visitors 36%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Spring Creek Emerald Mountain Buffalo Pass
32
Most Steamboat Springs trail users’ typical trail outings are between 1 and 3 hours (Figure
40 – Typical Trail Outing Length: Hours). The typical outing times demonstrate that
recreating on trails is a priority for most users, well beyond a typical fitness routine. For
instance, U.S. adult males participated in 0.4 hours of sports, exercise and recreation per
day and U.S. adult females participated in 0.2 hours of sports, exercise and recreation per
day (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Time Spent in Leisure Activities in 2014, 2015). A
larger share of part-time residents and visitors choose even longer outings, with 32% of
visitors and 21% of part-time residents going for longer than 3 hours. Less than 10% of
local residents cited typical outings of more than 3 hours.
Figure 40 – Typical Trail Outing Length: Hours (by Resident Status)
Typical Trail Outing: Hours

7%
Less than 1 hour 3%
3%
52%
1 to 2 hours 29%
31%
31%
2 to 3 hours 48%
34%
7%
3 to 4 hours 11%
20%
4 to 5 hours 5%
10%
1%
5 to 8 hours 3%
1%
1%
8 to 10 hours
1%
0%
Varies 2%

n=427 n=63 n=153
Question #7 (Full-Time Residents) 258 Responses

Question #22 (Part-Time Residents) 31 Responses
Question #37 (Visitors) 91 Responses
Q: “If Biking, how would you rate your skill level? Please indicate how many people in your group are
at each of these skill levels:”
Response Options: Professional / Competitive: #_____; Advanced: #_____; Intermediate: #_____;
Beginner: #_____
33
The distance traveled in a typical outing varies, with the largest share clustered between
five to eleven miles. Few full-time or part-time residents typically to go more than eighteen
miles, but 15% of visitors surveyed cited a typical outing of over 18 miles.
Figure 41 – Typical Trail Outing Length: Miles (by Resident Status)
Typical Trail Outing: Miles

3%
Less than 2 miles 2%
3%
9%
2 to 3 miles 6%
9%
12%
3 to 4 miles 8%
8%
11%
4 to 5 miles 13%
8%
18%
5 to 8 miles 25%
19%
16%
8 to 11 miles 25%
18%
15%
11 to 15 miles 10%
8%
11%
15 to 18 miles 6%
13%
4%
18 to 25 miles 4%
10%
2%
25 or more miles 2%
5%
n=352 n=52 n=118

Q: “How long is your typical trail outing?”
Response Options: Miles: #__________; Hours: #__________
34
Fifty-four percent (54%) of full-time resident respondents indicated convenient location as a

factor in how they chose their route, 44% selected scenery and environment and 42% chose
time/distance. Convenient location and time/distance was a factor for fewer visitors and
part-time residents compared with full-time residents. Scenery/environment was a factor
in route choice for 50% of part-time residents and 47% cited physical exertion level. Visitors
exhibited more diverse motivations for route choice, the most frequent factor was that they
heard about it or it was recommended (44%). Avoiding other users was the least selected
option for route choice by all trail users, although 12% of full-time residents seek less-
traveled trails.
Figure 42 – Reason(s) for Trail Route Choice (select all that apply)
Reason(s) for Trail Route Choice
Heard about it / route was recommended

44%
54%
Convenient location 40%
27%
42%
Time / distance 29%
18%
30%
Technical difficulty level 34%
25%
30%
Physical exertion level 47%
21%
32%
Quality of trail(s) 25%
18%
44%
Scenery / environment 50%
31%
12%
Avoid other users 9%
1%
29%
Routine / familiarity 18%
6%
17%
Other 24%
25%

n=1387 n=187 n=386

Q: “Why did you choose this route? (circle all that apply)”
Response Options: Convenient location; Time / distance; Technical difficulty level; Physical exertion
level; Quality of trail(s); Scenery / environment; Avoid other users; Routine / familiarity; Heard about
it / route was recommended (Visitors only); Other
35
Figure 43 – “Other” Common Route Choice Options by Resident Status shows the most
common remarks for those who cited “other” route choices. Full-time residents offered the
most comments in the “other” category, with 30 respondents citing dog friendly
trails/access.
Figure 43 – “Other” Common Route Choice Options by Resident Status
"Other" Common Route Choice Options

30
Dog friendly areas / access to water 7
7
3
Convenient Parking 1
3
19
New trails / variety 4
4
2
No smoke 1
6
Great beginner trails 1
1
2
Local Recommendation 2
5
4
Love this trail
4
2
Cooler temperature than in-town trails 1
2
RCR trail crew
2
Fall colors
2
1
Practice for race
2
Found on web-based media / marketing

12
Horse Loop
3
The majority of trail users surveyed found the trails they used that day were at the right
level of difficulty. Very few trail users found trails in Steamboat Springs too difficult or
challenging. This finding should be viewed in light of the fact that most of the trails in the
study area are rated intermediate/moderate. Although most trail users found trails to be a
right level of difficulty, 10% of full-time resident respondents and 15% of part-time resident
respondents indicate trails were too easy/not challenging enough.
36
Figure 44 – Trail Difficulty Rating by Resident Status
90%
Trail Difficulty Rating by Resident Status
89%
85%
15%
10%
4% 5%
1% 0%
At the right level of difficulty Too difficult / challenging Too easy / not challenging enough

Q: “Was the trail…?”
Responses: At the right level of difficulty; Too difficult/challenging; Too easy/not challenging enough
On a scale of 1-poor to 5-excellent, over 94% of full-time resident respondents rated the
condition of the trails they were using as a 4 or 5. Only 3 full-time resident respondents
rated the trails as a 1 or 2. Ninety-two percent (92%) of part-time resident respondents and
97% of visitor respondents rated trail conditions as a 4 or 5 out of 5.
Figure 45 – Condition of Trails Rating by Resident Status
Condition of Trails Rating by Resident Status 71%

63% 61%
31% 31%
26%
5% 6% 3%
0.2% 0% 0% 0.4% 1% 1%
1 - Poor 2 3 4 5 - Excellent

Q: “On a scale of 1 to 5 rate the condition of the trails you are using or have used today:”
Response Options: 1 – Poor; 2; 3; 4; 5 – Excellent
37
Over half of the full-time resident respondents indicated that they have no concerns about
the way other trail users may affect them. Bikes safety concerns regarding speed and
control of other trail users was a common concern. Just 4% of users cited a concern with
dogs in general while 11% cited off-leash dogs as a concern.
Figure 46 – Full-Time Residents Concerns About Other Trail Users (select all that
apply)
Full-Time Residents Concerns About Other Trail Users (n=624)

No concerns 57%
Bikes safety concerns - speed / control 16%
Bikes safety concerns - not announcing when passing 9%
Bikes safety concerns - not yielding to hikers / runners 9%
Dogs off their leashes 11%
Dogs in general 4%
Crowding / too many users 5%
Impolite / uncivil interactions 4%
Other 17%

Q: “Do you have any concerns about the way other trail users may affect you? (select all that apply)”
Response Options: No concerns; Bikes safety concerns – speed / control; Bikes safety concerns – not
announcing when passing; Bikes safety concerns – not yielding to hikers / runners; Dogs off their
leashes; Dogs in general; Crowding / too many users; Impolite / uncivil interactions; Other
“Other” concerns about the way trail users may affect full-time residents emphasized
horses on the trails, horse manure and dog poop. A half-dozen respondents cited the need
for separate hiking/biking trails.
Figure 47 – Full-Time Residents “Other” Concerns About Trail Users
Full-Time Resident "Other" Concerns About Trail Users

Need hiking or biking-only trails; separate uses to avoid… 6
No separation of users; mix of user types 4
Visitors do not know trail etiquette 2
Trail conditions are bad when wet sometimes 3
Don't support e-bikes on trails 3
Aggressive Dogs 6
Trash on trail 3
Lack of trail etiquette on mixed-use trails 3
Horses on trails / horse poop 27
Dog poop on trails 13
38
TRAIL COUNT-INFORMED USE PATTERNS

TrafX counters and database software provide an estimate of trail users counted at various
locations along Steamboat Springs trails. Using either an infrared (IR) or mountain bike-
only magnetic counter (MTB), TrafX software records and stores trail user counts.
Historical counter data was used to establish baseline trends and peak use within the trails
systems. Emerald Mountain and Spring Creek trailheads had ample trail counts
throughout several years and were adequate to establish baseline trails system use. When
making choices regarding which counts to use, the RPI team selected counters with the
most reliable long-term counts vs. selecting more sporadically taken counts that may have
been in a location that would register higher use. The one exception is that historical trail
counts for Buffalo Pass were based on more sporadic counter placements and yielded more
spotty data, so establishing baseline use on this system required extrapolation.
To better understand trail use patterns within each trails system, the research team placed
counters at key points throughout the Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek and Buffalo Pass
trails systems in 2018. Emerald Mountain trail system has had consistent counts for
several previous years in some locations. The data collected throughout the Emerald
Mountain trails system is central to this study because of the consistent record of trail
counts, its in-town access, variety of difficulty and length, and user-specific trails. Only a
few counters were placed on the Buffalo Pass trails in past years because many of the trails
are new, so the 2018 counts are the most extensive tracking of use in these newer trails to
date. Although Spring Creek has been counted for multiple years near the trailheads and
lower on the trail, there were not counts further up the trails in past years. The 2018
counts extended to destinations and turnaround spots further up the drainage.
TrafX counts have afforded the ability to answer key questions related to trail use patterns
and preference on Steamboat’s in-town trails systems. It is important to note that TrafX
counters are triggered in a variety of ways, and sometimes what is indicated as trail users
are wildlife, livestock, vegetation or shadows causing overall trail counts to be inconsistent.
These inconsistencies were accounted for as much as possible.
All TrafX counter locations on Emerald Mountain are provided in “Figure 48 – Emerald
Mountain (Frontside and Backside) Trail Counter Locations” below.
39
Figure 48 – Emerald Mountain (Frontside and Backside) Trail Counter Locations
Source: TrafX DataNet, 2018.
A series of research questions led to the placement of trail counters throughout Steamboat
Springs’ trails systems in 2018. These questions include:
1. Is the level of use different for easy/moderate vs. difficult rated trails?
2. How does the level of use change with the distance from trailheads?
3. How are roads within a trails system used differently than single track?
4. In what ways and how frequently are users connecting trails and trail systems in an
outing?
5. What is the relative level of use between Emerald Mountain, Spring Creek, Buffalo
Pass?
T RAIL D IFFICULTY L EVEL A ND D ISTANCE F ROM T RAILHEAD

Infrared (IR) and mountain bike (MTB) trail counters were placed at various locations on
Emerald Mountain for the 2018 season. While some of these trail counters had insufficient
40
data, most trail counters yielded the data needed to make observations about trail use
patterns.
Trail counts indicate that more use occurs on moderate trails at various points within a
trails system compared to difficult trails. Emerald Mountain offers a variety of trail
difficulties throughout the trails system. For example, MGM is a popular moderate option
on the front side of Emerald Mountain has significantly higher trail counts compared with,
Eye to Eye, a difficult trail option running roughly parallel to MGM. Both of these locations
have MTB trail counters which only account for mountain bike trail use. See Figure 49 –
MGM (Moderate) versus Eye to Eye (Difficult) Weekly Counts (2018).
Figure 49 – MGM (Moderate) versus Eye to Eye (Difficult) Weekly Counts (2018)
MGM and Eye to Eye Trail Use

1,400
1,228
1,200
1,000
800
600 526
446
400
193
200 85 103
Eye to Eye MGM
The lower section of this Flash of Gold is rated easy, the middle section is rated moderate
and the upper section, furthest away from Dry Lake trailhead, is rated difficult. Flash of
Gold trail on Buffalo Pass has easy, moderate and difficult trail segments. “Figure 51 –
Flash of Gold Trail Use (Easy, Moderate, Hard) Weekly Counts (2018)” illustrates different
weekly trail counts on each section of Flash of Gold by counters #11, #12 and #39,
respectively.
41
Figure 50 – Buffalo Pass Counter Locations
Flash of Gold’s level of difficulty increases and as the trail gets further from the Dry Lake
trailhead. Trail counts indicate that there is higher use on sections of Flash of Gold that are
both closer to the trailhead and less difficult. Figure 51 – Flash of Gold Trail Use displays
the difference in weekly trail counts during peak season on Flash of Gold. The counter
closest to the trailhead recorded more than double the counts counter placed mid-way out
and far more than the furthest counter.
Figure 51 – Flash of Gold Trail Use (Easy, Moderate, Hard) Weekly Counts (2018)
Flash of Gold Trail Use (Lower, Mid, Upper)

1,600
1,380
1,400
1,200
1,000 827
800 684
600 439
400
229 206
200
0
Flash of Gold (Lower) Flash of Gold (Mid) Flash of Gold (Upper)
42
Trailforks offers an integrated heatmap application that tracks and visualizes mountain
bike-specific ride-log data on trails. Trail rides and route data from Strava, Trailforks,
AllTrails, and MapMyRide and other web-based route tracking programs are absorbed into
Trailforks. The red and orange trail segments in “Figure 52 – Trailforks Heatmap, Buffalo
Pass (2018)” indicate more use; green and yellow trail segments have lower use. Trail
difficulty and distance from trailhead are important factors which can be analyzed using
this secondary data source. Heatmap data indicates that Flash of Gold lower has 95%
popularity rating, middle has 80% popularity rating and the upper, most difficult section,
has a 70% popularity rating (Trailforks Heatmap Public Data, 2018). The Trailforks
heatmap shows a general pattern throughout the entire looped system of higher use closer
to the trailhead.
Figure 52 – Trailforks Heatmap, Buffalo Pass (2018)
Dry Lake
Trailhead
Source: Trailforks Global Heatmap, 2018.
43
Despite Buffalo Pass’s out-of-town location and lower overall use, TrafX counts show one of
its most popular difficult rated trails, Bear Tree Ridge (BTR), receives more use than Eye to
Eye, an example of a difficult rated trail on Emerald Mountain. One could infer that the
additional challenge offered by the trails on Buffalo Pass is part of the attraction and
experience. Future counter placements and use studies on Buffalo Pass could yield more
insights into the effect of trail difficulty ratings on level of use because it has more variety
of difficult trail options than Emerald Mountain.
Figure 53 – Difficult Trail Use Buffalo Pass vs. Emerald Mountain Weekly Counts
(2018)
400
Difficult Trail Use - BTR and Eye to Eye
350 336
291
300 276
250 215
210
200
150 138
100
50
Eye 2 Eye BTR
Spring Creek is an out-and-back trail that is popular for a variety of activities, particularly
due to the trail’s proximity to water and dog park “ponds” slightly up from the trailhead.
94% of all survey respondents on Spring Creek reported an out-and-back route or a single
loop (see Figure 58 –Connections and Loops by Trails System). Trail counts show that
Spring Creek sees considerably different trail use on lower Spring Creek than upper Spring
Creek, illustrated in “Figure 54 – Spring Creek Trail Use (Lower vs. Middle) Weekly
Counts (2018)”. A counter placed higher up from the trailhead on Spring Creek indicates
considerably less use than the lower portion of the trail during peak season.
44
Figure 54 – Spring Creek Trail Use (Lower vs. Middle) Weekly Counts (2018)
Spring Creek Trail Use Lower vs. Middle

4,000
3,500 3,413
2,939
3,000
2,500 2,407
2,000
1,500
917
1,000
500 371
161
0
Spring Creek (Lower) Spring Creek (Middle)
Figure 55 – Spring Creek Trail Counter Locations
45
F RONTSIDE AND B ACKSIDE OF E MERALD M OUNTAIN

The front-side and backside of Emerald Mountain connect meaning that it is possible to
traverse some long connecting routes. The backside of Emerald Mountain receives less trail
use overall than the frontside, and the vast majority of outings on the mountain begin and
end on the frontside. The Morning Gloria (frontside) and Ridge (backside) counter locations
show much higher use on the frontside (Figure 56 – Ridge Trail Use Backside vs. Frontside
Weekly Counts 2018). The 2018 Intercept Survey found that just two percent (2%) of
Emerald Mountain frontside trail users were connecting between the frontside trails and
backside trails. Emerald Mountain backside trail users also tend to start and end on the
backside: Fifty-nine percent (59%) were using Ridge Trail; 23% were using Rotary trail and
18% of respondents connected onto Beall trail. While the opportunity exists, findings show
that few go all the way over to connect the front-side and backside.
Figure 56 – Ridge Trail Use Backside vs. Frontside Weekly Counts (2018)
Ridge Trail (Frontside vs. Backside) and Rotary Trail Use

1,200
1,000 958
799
800
600
400 248
200 152
11
0
Ridge Trail at Morning Gloria Ridge Trailhead Rotary Trail (Lower)
Figure 57 – Trailforks Heatmap: Emerald Mountain Area (2018)
Source: Trailforks Global Heatmap, Open Street Map, Strava, 2018.
46
L OOPED R OUTES AND C ONNECTING T RAIL S YSTEMS

The intercept survey asked whether or not respondents were connecting multiple trails
during their outing, illustrated in “Figure 58 –Connections and Loops by Trails System”.
The trail intercept survey indicated that 57% of Emerald Mountain survey respondents
were combining multiple loops. Fourteen percent (14%) of respondents were doing a single
loop outing on Emerald Mountain while 40% of respondents were doing a single loop outing
on Buffalo Pass.
Figure 58 –Connections and Loops by Trails System
Connections and Loops
Buffalo Pass 4% 14% 42% 40%
1%
Spring Creek 5% 89% 5%
Emerald Mountain 2% 57% 27% 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Connected between trail systems (e.g. frontside Emerald to backside, Spring Creek to Buffalo Pass)
Connected multiple loops
Out and back
Single Loop
Source: 2018 Intercept Survey
S INGLE TRACK VS . R OAD U SE

Single track trails and access roads naturally attract different types of users. According to
the Trail Intercept Survey, mountain bikers do not necessarily prefer to use ascending
roads to access trails deeper in a system for single track mountain bike descents. Bikers
tend to stay on single track trails (ascending and descending) even when an ascending road
is available. Survey respondents on Emerald Mountain indicate a considerable difference
between mountain biker and hiker/runners’ use of roads versus single track. Less than
fifteen percent (15%) of mountain bike respondents on Emerald Mountain stated taking
roads (Blackmer Drive, Lane of Pain, Prayer Flag Road, etc.) during their ride. In contrast,
47
intercept survey results indicate that hikers/runners prefer to use the roads. Surveys taken
at Emerald Mountain trailheads indicate that 76% of non-mountain bike trail users
surveyed stayed on roads (Blackmer Drive, Prayer Flag Road, Lane of Pain, etc.) during
their hike or run. A TrafX counter located on Blackmer Drive at the intersection with
Larry’s detected consistently higher use than a proximate single-track counter on NPR,
showing that Blackmer serves many users in the Emerald Mountain System.
Figure 59 – Blackmer Drive and Proximate Trail Weekly Counts (2018)
Blackmer Dr. Counts On vs. Near Road

1,600
1,400 1,349
1,200
1,000 864
808
800
600
411
400 294
200
21
0
Larry's & Blackmer Dr. NPR near Blackmer Dr.
C OMPARISON OF B UFFALO P ASS TO S PRING C REEK AND E MERALD M OUNTAIN

Comparative trailhead counts for Buffalo Pass, Spring Creek and Emerald Mountain
indicate that Emerald Mountain and Spring Creek receive considerably higher use than
Buffalo Pass during the peak season. Buffalo Pass is outside of town, has more difficult
trails, and is at a higher elevation. However, the use at Buffalo Pass remains substantial
considering its different characteristics from Spring Creek and Emerald Mountain. Use of
the Buffalo Pass area is largely due to the scenic trails, higher elevation offered,
uncrowdedness, and the fact that the newer trails on Buffalo Pass are an attraction.
Flash of Gold, Bear Tree Ridge (BTR) and Grouse are among the more popular trails on
Buffalo Pass. Visitors indicated in the intercept survey that besides Buffalo Pass trails,
they came to Steamboat Springs to visit Fish Creek Falls, a widely popular destination trail
for visitors, not located within studied trails systems.
While the historical trail count data in the Buffalo Pass trails system is sparse, one
mountain bike counter that detects the metal in bikes was placed on Buffalo Pass on Bear
Tree Ridge (BTR) slightly up from the trailhead during the 2017 trail season. This counter
provides input for an order of magnitude estimate of level of use in the Buffalo Pass trails
system. The Trail Intercept Survey indicated that 56% of Buffalo Pass trail users were
48
mountain biking; 44% were hiking or running. Additionally, the survey indicated that only
15% of all Buffalo Pass trail users were using Bear Tree Ridge trail. Using these inputs,
there were an estimated 13,200 annual Buffalo Pass trail users from May to September (see
the Economic Impact Report, Figure 25 for complete computation). This adjusted annual
Buffalo Pass trail user count is approximately 18% of overall estimated use in the three
trail systems in the study area.
Figure 60 –Trail User Count Composition at Major Trailheads (May – September,
2017)
Trail User Count Composition at Major Trailheads

Dry Lake (estimated)
18%
Stables & Blackmer

43%
Spring Creek
39%
Figure 61 – Buffalo Pass, Emerald Mountain & Spring Creek Trailhead Weekly
Counts (2018)
Emerald Mountain, Buffalo Pass & Spring Creek Trailheads

Weekly Trail Use
8,000
7,310
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,326
4,000
3,000
2,000 1,484
1,000 336
548
0
Spring Creek Trailhead Stable Reroute Trailhead Blackmer Dr. Trailhead

Ridge Trailhead Dry Lake Trailhead at BTR
49
TRAIL USE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

• The annual Buffalo Pass trail count is approximately 18% of overall estimated use in
the three trail systems and the remainder is split between Emerald Mountain and
Spring Creek at about 40% each.
• Fifty-four percent (54%) of full-time resident respondents indicated convenient
location as a factor in how they chose their route and 42% chose time/distance.
Visitors exhibited more diverse motivations for route choice, the most frequent factor
was that they heard about the route or it was recommended (44%).
• Overall, survey respondents were nearly evenly split between bikers and those on
foot, although there were slightly more biker respondents among full-time residents
and visitors.
• Fifteen percent (15%) of mountain bike respondents on Emerald Mountain took
roads (Blackmer Drive, Lane of Pain, Prayer Flag Road, etc.) while 76% of
hikers/runners stayed on roads.
• Over 92% of survey respondents rated the condition of the trails a 4 or 5 out of 5.
• Most of the trail systems included in the study area are rated intermediate and most
cyclists rated their riding skill as advanced, yet 85% or more of those surveyed
thought that their chosen trail route offered the right level of difficulty
• Trail users’ typical trail outings are between 1 and 3 hours. A larger share of part-
time residents and visitors choose even longer outings compared to full-time
residents.
• The distance traveled in a typical outing varies, with the largest share clustered
between five to eleven miles. Few full-time or part-time residents typically to go
more than eighteen miles, but 15% of visitors surveyed cited a typical outing of over
18 miles.
• Trail counts indicate that more use occurs on moderate trails at various points
within a trails system compared to difficult trails.
• Trail counts indicate that there is higher use on sections that are closer to the
trailhead compared with those further out.
• Bikes safety regarding speed and control of other trail users was a common concern.
Just 4% of users cited a concern with dogs in general while 11% cited off-leash dogs
as a concern.
• Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Emerald Mountain survey respondents were combining
multiple loops.
• Intercept surveys indicated that a higher percentage of visitors and part-time
residents utilize Buffalo Pass compared with full-time residents.
50
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT RESULTS FROM

RRC SUMMER VISITOR STUDY
RRC conducted a Summer Visitor Research Study in Steamboat Springs in 2017. This
survey yielded over 750 intercept surveys in Steamboat Springs and 412 kiosk/online
surveys. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents to the summer visitors survey were
overnight visitors to Steamboat Springs, 7% were day visitors and 4% were seasonal
residents/second homeowners. Forty percent of visitor respondents were from Colorado.
Many visitors participated in outdoor-related activities while in Steamboat Springs,
including: athletic events, horseback riding, cycling/biking, running/walking and hiking.
Hiking was the second most popular activity for summer visitors in Steamboat Springs in
2017; running/walking was the fifth most popular activity.
Figure A.1 – Trail-Related Activity Participation During Trip to Steamboat – RRC
Report
Activities Engaged in During Trip
Participate in athletic event/competition 5%
Horseback riding 6%
Watch athletic event/competition 9%
Cycling/biking 21%
Running/walking 34%
Hiking 52%
51
The following figure indicates the type of biking that respondents said they participated in
during their trip. Sixty-five percent (65%) of respondents biked around town during their
trip; 58% participated in mountain biking (downhill or cross country)
Figure A.2 – If Biking, Type of Biking Participated in During Steamboat Trip –
RRC Report
If Biking, Type of Biking

65%
38%
31%
27%
8%
Around town Road Mountain (downhill) Mountain (cross BMX

country)
Figure A.3 – Primary Reason for Visit to Steamboat – RRC Report
Primary Reason for Visit to Steamboat
General vacation/recreation/leisure 46%
Visit friends/family/relatives 15%
Special event/festival 8%
Wedding/family reunion 5%
Business/professional (meeting/conference, etc.) 5%
Combined business/pleasure 4%
Biking (road/mountain) 2%
Other: 14%
52
Recreation / entertainment represented 13% of overall average party spending in

Steamboat Springs. Summer visitor respondents reported spending an average of $1,122
during their trip to Steamboat Springs: $473 on lodging, $301 on food and drinks, $174 on
shopping, gifts and souvenirs, $147 on recreation/entertainment, and $27 on other.
Figure A.4 – Average Party Spending in Steamboat Springs – RRC Report
Average Party Spending in Steamboat Springs

Recreation / Other
Entertainment 2%
13%
Shopping, Gifts & Lodging

Souvenirs 42%
16%
Food & Drinks

27%
Forty-six percent (46%) of summer visitor respondents indicated that they spent $100 or
more on recreation and entertainment during their trip to Steamboat.
Figure A.5 – Party Spending on Recreation and Entertainment – RRC Report
Party Spending on Recreation / Entertainment
None 41%
Under $100 13%
$100 to $299 30%
$300 to $499 8%
$500 to $699 4%
$1000 to $1999 4%
53
Hiking remains steady through every age group. Summer visitors under 18 have relatively
high participation rates in hiking, running/walking and cycling/biking.
Figure A.6 – Activities Engaged in During Trip by Age – RRC Report
Activities Engaged in During Trip by Age

67%
67%
Under 18 83%
17%
71%
43%
18 to 24 19%
10%
10%
56%
25%
25 to 34 22%
3%
51%
43%
35 to 44 20%
11%
6%
49%
35%
45 to 54 29%
9%
11%
54%
38%
55 to 64 17%
4%
4%
47%
33%
65 to 74 16%
2%
4%
71%
29%
75 and older
Hiking Running/walking Cycling/biking Participate in athletic event/competition Horseback riding
The age of summer visitor respondents that participated in biking also varies by type of
biking. The participation in mountain biking decreases as respondents’ age increases
indicating a relatively young demographic for more difficult biking.
54
Figure A.7 – If Biking, Type of Biking Participated in During Trip by Age – RRC
Report
If Biking, Type of Biking by Age

100%
18 to 24
100%
25 to 34 50%
50%
67%
67%
35 to 44
33%
71%
29%
45 to 54 43%
43%
75%
25%
55 to 64 25%
60%
20%
65 to 74 40%
20%
20%
Around town Mountain (cross country) Road Mountain (downhill) BMX
Forty-one percent of intercept survey visitor respondents stated mountain biking was a
primary reason for their visit to Steamboat Springs; 23% of visitors stated hiking/running
as a primary reason for their visit. The trail intercept-survey results for primary reasons to
visit are higher than the results found in the Summer Visitor Research; however, outdoor
recreation remains a significant attraction to Steamboat Springs.
55
APPENDIX B: RELEVANT RESULTS FROM

THE COMMUNITY SURVEY
The National Research Center (NRC) conducted a Community Survey in 2017 in an effort
to determine the community’s attitudes and priorities about City of Steamboat Springs
services and policies. A total of 2,500 households were randomly selected to participate in
this survey. Respondents were broken into two groups: full-time registered voters (full-time
residents) and second homeowners (part-time residents). Of the 2,500 households selected
to participate, a total of 675 surveys were completed from the two groups (530 full-time
residents and 145 part-time residents). Relevant key findings from this survey in relation to
Steamboat Spring’s trails and outdoor recreation include:
• 85% of full-time residents rated availability of paths and walking trails as they
relate to Steamboat Springs as good or excellent.
• 87% of full-time residents rated recreational opportunities and amenities as they
relate to Steamboat Springs as good or excellent.
• 80% of full-time residents indicate Emerald Mountain summer use as important or
very important.
• 91% of full-time residents rate the importance of the quality of overall natural
environment as essential or very important.
The 2017 Community Survey yielded varying results in the use of city parks if more off-
leash dog areas were provided in city parks. If more off-leash dog areas were provided, 43%
of full-time residents would use city parks more, 31% would use them the same amount,
and 26% would use them less.
56

Trail Use and Economic Impact Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trail Use and Economic Impact Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trail Use and Economic Impact Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment #2

RPI Consulting LLC

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

TRAIL USER INTERCEPT SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Figure 1 – Completed Intercept Surveys by Trailhead and Locals vs. Visitors

Figure 2 – Steamboat Springs Intercept Survey Trailhead Location

Figure 3 – Surveys Collected by Weekend versus Weekday

Survey Collection by Time of Day

SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Question #4 730 Responses

Trail Group Composition by Resident Status

Part-Time Residents 46%

Question #3.a 730 Responses

Trail Group Composition: Age by Resident Status

Kids (younger than 10) Youth (10 - 18) Adults Seniors

Full-Time Residents Part-Time Residents Visitors

469 Full-Time Resident Responses

Trail Users with No Dog

Question #3.b 183 Responses

Part-Time Residents' Household Status

Couple, no children Empty-nester

TRAIL COUNT METHODOLOGY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OVERNIGHT VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 10 – Visitor Primary Residence In-State versus Out-of-State

Visitors' Primary Residence

Question #32.a 173 Responses

Figure 11 – Visitors’ Primary Residence Zip Code Map, U.S. States

Figure 12 – Visitors’ Primary Residence Zip Code Map, Front Range

Visitors' Length of Stay in Steamboat Springs

How Visitors are Staying in Steamboat Springs

Paid / rented lodging

With family or friends

Question #32.b 168 Responses

Visitor Travel Party Size

Figure 16 – Visitor Primary Reason for Trip to Steamboat Springs

Primary Reason for Trip to Steamboat Springs (n=295)

General vacation / recreation / leisure 44.8%

Trail activities - bike 41.4%

Trail activities - hike/run 23.0%

Trail activities - motorized 0.6%

Other outdoor recreation 10.3%

Attend special event / festival 4.0%

Visit family / friends 20.1%

Wedding / family reunion 5.2%

Business or business pleasure 2.9%

Question #42 174 Responses

Visitors' Participation in In-Town Activities (n=405)

Question #43 170 Responses

"Other" Activity Participation (n=87)

RRC SUMMER VISITOR RESEARCH STUDY, 2017

Activities Engaged in During Trip

Participate in athletic event/competition 5%

Watch athletic event/competition 9%

Source: RRC Steamboat Springs Summer Visitor Research, 2017.

OVERNIGHT VISITOR TRAIL-USER SPENDING ESTIMATES

VISITOR SPENDING PATTERNS

Average Travel Party Spending by Category

Food and Drinks

Question #44 154 Responses