→ October 01, 2022.
Survey Results.The survey was launched September 12, 2022 and was available until September 30, 2022. The survey was distributed online and promoted on social media, through email lists, by partners and stakeholders, lawn signs, a mailer, door hangers, and via word of mouth. Six intercept surveying events engaged participants along the trail, at key community nodes, and during popular community events. The survey was offered in English and Spanish to accommodate the diverse presence within this community. A presentation at the Poplar Grove Community Council on September 28, 2022 updated participants about project progress.
Respondents.
A total of 265 people took the survey. Approximately 145 surveys were collected during the intercept events—105 in English and 40 in Spanish. Approximately 120 were collected online—102 in English and 18 in Spanish. The top five zip codes were:
84104 (27%)
84116 (26%)
84103 (12%)
84101 (5%)
84115/84106 (5%)
This includes all the zip codes that touch the Folsom Trail, including: 84104 (Poplar Grove and Glendale), 84116 (Fairpark, Rose Park, Jordan Meadows, and Westpointe), 84103 (Capitol Hill and Avenues), and 84101 (Downtown and Ballpark), as well as 84115 (Ballpark and South Salt Lake) and 84106 (Sugarhouse, South Salt Lake, and Millcreek). Approximately 70 percent of survey respondents were from zip codes touching the trail.
Demographics.
Race/Ethnicity.
Age.
Gender.
Household Income.
Results.
How often do you use the Folsom Trail?
Why do you use the Folsom Trail?
What would you like to see along the creek and trail?
Participants prioritized seating areas, lighting, and trash and recycling cans, all of which already exist along the trail. This either underscores the need for additional amenities in this category or shows a lack of use among participants. One participant suggested adding emergency blue lights for safety. Another suggested additional cans are needed along the trail, especially underneath Interstate-15. It was also suggested to include compost and glass recycling cans and a sharps bin.
Comments pertaining to the landscaping options largely wanted to see native and low-water/drought-tolerant species. Art and placemaking comments suggested murals, sculptures, and touchable/tactile interactive art. It was suggested signage include narratives from the local community, history, and diversity. Interestingly, playgrounds were the lowest priority. This may underscore the safety concerns for children expressed in the following question. Specific playground amenity suggestions included splash pads, workout equipment, nature play spaces, and a sandbox.
In the other category, eight participants suggested shade was needed along the trail through structures and/or large canopy trees. Seven suggested adding public restrooms. Five suggested cameras, security guards, and/or park rangers to increase safety. Four suggested dog parks. Other suggestions included: fishing infrastructure, community garden, plaza, bike maintenance station, basketball court, detention pond, outdoor cooking infrastructure, equestrian trail, little library book stand, parking, and fencing. Suggestions that are outside of the scope of this project included connections to Madsen Park and railroad overpasses.
Do you have any concerns?
The main concerns about the project included unsheltered homelessness, maintenance, and safety. Comments about unsheltered homelessness spanned a spectrum from providing people experiencing homelessness a place to stay, sleep, and resources to removing them from the space. Maintenance and safety were mainly related to concerns about unsheltered homelessness. Other maintenance concerns included noxious weeds, specifically puncturevine, which can detract from recreational uses by popping tires and poking dog paws. Other smaller concerns included railroad crossings, contamination, too engineered of an approach to stream daylighting, budget, overuse/misuse of the trail, lack of trail connection to the community, Jordan River Trail, and destinations, too many proposed amenities, flooding, ADA accessibility, parking, gentrification, evaporation, and the fact that the project is not done yet.
Comment Map.
There were 23 comments on the comment map—5 from intercept surveying and 18 online. Nine were concerns, nine amenities, three popular areas, and two uncategorized. Amenity comments included bathrooms, showers, water fountains, landscaping, bike racks and repair tools, and interesting trail entrances. Concerns included railing along the creek, design considerations related to unsheltered homelessness, and trail crossings of roads and train tracks. Comments that were outside the project scope included improvements to Madsen Park and connections to the Jordan River Trail and Downtown.
Methodology.
QR codes on each engagement method were tracked via UTM parameters. Total users to the site during this engagement phase was 528, between September 1-30, 2022. According to this data, the most effective method was paid social media ads at 273 users (52%)—265 to the English ad and 8 to the Spanish ad. This was followed by: door hanger – 22 users (4%), mailer – 11 users (2%), lawn sign – 11 users (2%), and pamphlet – 4 users (1%).
There were 171 users directly from typing folsomtrail.org into their browser. Tracking methods are not able to see where these users are coming from. It may be that users came from the print materials, including the lawn sign, mailer, door hanger, and pamphlet. Other referrals include: Seven Canyons Trust – 17 users (3%), Facebook – 9 users (2%), and email – 5 users (1%). Google searches accounted for 9 users (2%).
To increase conversions via the Spanish ad, copy will be split into two separate ads with dedicated funding for each. With only one ad and two language options, it may be that Meta is prioritizing the English copy.