Return to story

Critics of the King George rail-trail have offered no real evidence

July 6, 2006 12:50 am

WE ARE ALL ENTITLED to our opinions, but the legitimacy of our opinions should be measured by the facts that support them. When asked to substantiate their claim that "trails increase crime," trail opponents offer little more than second- or third-hand anecdotal evidence.

They reference no study. They cite no statistics. At best, opponents relate the story of a single crime, or they talk about trails in the abstract.

Trails neither cause nor increase crime. This isn't an opinion; it's a fact, established by numerous studies on the issue.

The most comprehensive study on the question of trail crime is a 1998 study done by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in cooperation with the National Park Service. Titled "Rail-Trails and Safe Communities," the study looked at 372 trails nationwide.

One of the first paragraphs in the study states: "Stories of trails attracting drug dealers, murderers, and rapists are perpetuated by trail opponents with only a handful of newspaper headlines to back up their assertions rather than empirical research. Despite numerous studies that have concluded that rail-trails do not generate crime, concerns persist and fear of the unknown continues to provide fertile ground for trail opponents."

The "Rail-Trails and Safe Communities" study goes on to cite four separate studies conducted between 1979 and 1997 that concluded rail-trails do not increase crime.

Comparison of major crime statistics from 1995 provides a useful frame of reference. In 1995, the national average for assaults occurring in rural settings was 203 assaults for every 100,000 people, with rail-trail assaults of 0.01 for every 100,000 users.

In other words, you were 20,000 times more likely to be an assault victim off a trail than on one.

Results for study of minor crimes were similar. According to the study, only one-fourth of rail-trails reported any type of minor crime such as graffiti or littering, and letters from law enforcement officials attested that the volume of these incidents was "minimal."

But what about the claim that trails increase crime for those who live on or near the trail? Once again, the facts do not support this claim. Another study was a 1990-91 National Park Service and Penn State study titled "The Impacts of Rail-Trails: A Study of the Users and Property Owners From Three Trails," which noted that "the majority of [adjacent property] owners reported that there had been no increase in problems since the trails had been established."

Florida's Pinellas County, near St. Petersburg, conducted a trail study in the mid-1990s to assess the impact of trails on crime. According to the study, "crime rates along the trail were generally related to the character of the surrounding area rather than to the existence of the Pinellas Trail," and "factors external to the trail seem to be better indicators of crime rates than the presence of the trail."

At recent King George County supervisors meetings, we had law enforcement officials from Charles County who reside in King George speak out against the trail. They cited their personal experience with Charles County's trails as evidence that trails cause crime. However, when I called the Charles County Sheriff's Office to ask for details, one of the lieutenants provided a response similar to the quote regarding the Pinellas County trail, saying, "We have crime on our trails because we have crime in our neighborhoods."

But isn't one crime "one too many"? This is one of those cliches that indicate all objective arguments have been exhausted. It's the argument of last resort and could be used to oppose anything that might result in even a single crime. Do we really want to live that way? Are the benefits of a trail nullified when there is the possibility, no matter how slight, that a crime may occur? For the answer, it is instructive to once again review the experiences of residents living along other rail-trails.

The 1998 RTC study includes letters from law enforcement and public safety officials around the country. The Department of Public Safety for the city of North Augusta in South Carolina wrote: "In response to the question, 'Was the development of the trail a good idea?' I would, from a police point of view and a citizen's point of view, reply emphatically that it was a great idea."

The chief of police for the Elizabeth Township Police Department in Pennsylvania wrote, "Based on our experience with the trail, we see no reason for any municipality to fear having a trail established." The sheriff of Midland County, Mich., wrote, "The development of this park [the rail-trail] has been a very positive experience for Midland County and its residents."

A joint study by the Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks titled "The Effects of Greenways on Property Values and Public Safety" surveyed residents of single-family homes living adjacent to three trails in the Denver area. Ninety-three percent of respondents said that the trail increased their quality of life.

The overwhelming majority of people who live near these trails have a positive view of them.

The issue before us shouldn't be decided on the basis of exaggerated claims or wild histrionics. County leadership and those in law enforcement have an obligation to provide well-reasoned, objective facts regarding this issue. They shouldn't feed irrational fears when those fears are objectively and relatively unfounded.

DAVE FEDORCHAK, a King George resident, is vice president of the Friends of the Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail.