Congestion Assessment 1

Congestion 

Assessment

Joshua Tree 

National Park

FINAL 

September 2017

WASO Congestion Management 

Program

 

 

 

National Park Service 

 
Congestion Assessment 2

Congestion Assessments Description

Congestion Assessments provide short-term technical transportation support to national parks, in cooperation with regional 

transportation coordinators. Parks with congestion face difficult challenges that affect visitor experience, resources, safety, asset 

management and park operations. 

These assessments use the first three (3) steps in the 7-step Congestion Management Toolkit process. Assessments use a structured 

approach to exploring high-level park congestion issues and information, then matches those issues with a wide range of potential 

congestion mitigation tools at the end of the report. Assessments are not decision-making documents or transportation plans. Postassessment technical support is available from regional transportation coordinators, the Denver Service Center, Federal Lands Highway 

(FHWA) and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

For more information about the 

Congestion Management 

Program and related technical 

support, please contact Linda 

MacIntyre, Program Manager at 

303 969-2483. The Congestion 

Management Toolkit is at

www.nps.gov/transportation/pd

fs/NPS-CMS_Toolkit.pdf.

Figure 1. Overview of NPS Congestion Management Process
Congestion Assessment 3

Background

Brief Description of the Park

Joshua Tree National Park lies along the east-west transverse ranges of the Little San Bernardino Mountains in southern California. The 

southern boundary of the park follows the base of these mountains along the northern edge of the Coachella Valley. The northern

boundary is defined by the Morongo Basin. Ecologically, Joshua Tree National Park lies at the convergence of two deserts—two large 

ecosystems whose characteristics are determined primarily by elevation. Below 3,000 feet, the Colorado Desert encompasses the 

eastern part of the park and features natural gardens of creosote bush, ocotillo, and cholla cactus. In the higher elevations, where more 

moisture and cooler temperatures are more prevalent, the special habitat of the Joshua tree is found.

The park is home to a fascinating diversity of desert plants and animals. More than 900 species of flowering plants have been identified, 

with the most distinctive being the ocotillo, the cholla, and the Joshua tree. The park also preserves more native palm oases than any 

other unit in the national park system. These oases support vegetation and wildlife distinct from other species found in the park. The 

park also contains highly diverse fauna. More than 250 species of birds have been recorded at Joshua Tree National Park, as have many 

unique species of reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and invertebrates.

The park lands include a rich and diverse cultural history. Human occupation dates to the early Holocene period, with what is 

known as Pinto culture; human occupation continues throughout the historical era with tribes known today as Cahuilla, 

Chemehuevi, Mojave, and Serrano. In the last quarter of the 19th century, European American surveyors, cattlemen, miners, 

and homesteaders began to arrive and, alongside native peoples, created a set of enduring social and cultural legacies for these 

lands. Joshua Tree National Park protects numerous archeological sites and materials associated with at least four overlapping 

ethnographic native cultures—the Cahuilla, Serrano, Chemehuevi, and Mojave Indians. Other historic sites preserve information 

on the history of the processing of gold ore, cattle ranching, rustling, and homesteading of the southwestern deserts.

On August 10, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Joshua Tree National Monument as a unit of the national park system 

through a Presidential Proclamation. In 1984, the monument was designated as part of a biosphere reserve system that included Joshua

Tree and Death Valley National Monuments, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Management Area, and 

Deep Canyon Research Center. In 1994, the California Desert Protection Act added 234,000 acres (including 163,000 acres of new

wilderness) to the park, and re-designated the area as Joshua Tree National Park.

The park boundary currently contains 772,676 acres in federal ownership and 19,834 acres of nonfederal lands. Of these lands, 595,370 

acres are designated as wilderness and 70,557 acres of potential wilderness. The park lies within both San Bernardino and Riverside
Congestion Assessment 4

counties approximately 100 miles from the Los Angeles metropolitan area—more than 18 million people live within a three-hour drive of 

the park. The natural desert expanse of the park provides ideal conditions for campers, photographers, star gazers, naturalists, as well as 

anyone seeking space for quiet introspection, exploration, or outdoor learning. In addition, the extensive granite rock outcrops, boulder 

piles, desert mountain ranges, and canyons create a world-class destination for rock climbers, as well as hundreds of miles of scenic 

trails for hikers and equestrians.

Gateway Communities and Tourism: Trends and Planning Efforts1

The park is located within both San Bernardino and Riverside counties approximately 100 miles from the Los Angeles metropolitan 

area—more than 23 million people live within a three-hour drive of the park. San Bernardino County is expected to reach 2.66 million 

residents by 2035, growing by approximately 27% between now and then. Riverside County is expected to reach 3.3 million residents by 

2035, growing 33%.

In Riverside County, where most of Joshua Tree is located, 23% of the land is dedicated to recreation and open space. The county’s 

diverse geography and extensive natural resources, as well as its proximity to major economic and population centers, provide unique 

opportunities for tourism and recreation for residents and visitors alike. While Joshua Tree is not the only public land in the county, all 

are under increased visitation pressure due to population growth. The surrounding communities hope to expand access to public lands

and public lands tourism in the area. The recently designated Sand to Snow and Mojave Trails National Monuments, both of which 

border the park to the west and north-east, are two examples of new public lands opportunities for residents and visitors.

Demand for public lands that can be used for camping, hiking, climbing, and other outdoor pursuits is strong and continues to increase. 

Several groups in the community are looking at options to expand these opportunities for visitors and residents. The Tortoise Rock 

Casino is considering creating a campground/RV camping in 29 Palms, and another private group is looking to open a campground near 

Utah Trail just outside the park’s north entrance. Air BnB and similar online businesses have created private camping opportunities in 

the town of Joshua Tree, offering tent camping and RV parking on open lots within community neighborhoods. These new camping 

opportunities could reduce some demand for camping inside the park. 

Transportation-Related Infrastructure

Major automobile transportation routes in the Park include the east-west Park Boulevard (25.5 miles) and north-south Pinto Basin road 

(35.5 miles). A variety of campground access roads, spur roads leading to trailheads, access roads, and administrative roads bring the 

total number of paved road miles to 80.3 miles. From the time of the last Roadway Inventory Program (RIP) at Joshua Tree in December 

 1 http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/21/Resources%20Documents/CIR_2015_Report.pdf; 

https://www.thecommunityfoundation.net/images/pdfs/RS_CIR_2014.pdf
Congestion Assessment 5

2015, 80.7% of the paved roads in the park were described in good to excellent condition. In contrast, 68.6% of paved parking areas in 

the park were described as being in good to excellent condition in the RIP report. Road widths range from 20-25 feet with narrow 

shoulders. There are no bicycle lanes within the park.

The park also has 111 miles of unpaved road. While an 18-mile geology motor tour is passable for most passenger vehicles, a majority of 

these 111 miles of unpaved road can only be accessed by high clearance vehicles and/or mountain bicycles. The park currently has 2,158 

total parking spaces within the park. 577 of these are used for camping facilities and 73 are considered RV spaces.

2 Some of the parking 

facilities in the list of 2,158 parking spaces are administrative and/or do not account for parallel RV spaces that could accommodate 

multiple cars.

Three main entrances access the park; the west entrance closest to the community of Joshua Tree, the north entrance outside of the 

City of Twentynine Palms, and the south entrance near Interstate 10 and the Cottonwood area of the park. Each of these three entrance 

stations have one fee collection booth. The vast majority of visitors to Joshua Tree come via private passenger vehicles, and visitation is 

concentrated in about 10% of the park along Park Boulevard adjacent to Joshua tree forests and boulder fields.

Joshua Tree will pilot a shuttle system beginning in the fall of 2017. The pilot proposes to utilize 22 passenger vehicles with 30-minute

headways within the park and 2-hour headways for trips accessing Twentynine Palms and Joshua Tree. The 30-minute shuttle will access 

Barker Dam, Intersection Rock, Hidden Valley, Ryan Mountain, and Jumbo Rocks. The system will operate daily starting in the spring of 

2018 between 8:00AM and 8:00PM. Service beyond May 2018 will be determined based on the evaluation of the pilot season.

 2 JOTR Parking Spaces Summary last updated 2-23-2017 (Lutz)
Congestion Assessment 6

Figure 2. Joshua Tree Park Map Overview
Congestion Assessment 7

Visitation Trends

NPS Public Use Statistics 

NPS Public Use Statistics Office (PUSO) data on overall recreation visitation was reviewed in preparing this report. Recreation visitation 

is derived from a formula that uses vehicle counts, reduces those counts slightly to account for non-recreational vehicles, and then 

multiplies the remaining vehicles by a people-per-vehicle multiplier to get a recreation visitation number. 

Visitation at JOTR ranged from 1,434,976 in 2010 to 1,383,340 in 2013 showing a minor decline per year. But in 2014, visitation spiked 

to 1,589,904 and has spiked even higher the succeeding years. The Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of recreation visitation at JOTR 

was 12.43% between 2010 and 2016. The AAGR for all NPS units in California and the Pacific West Region for the same period was about 

2%. This means JOTR visitation has risen at a significantly higher rate than most NPS units in the same state and those in the same region 

(See Figure 3). In the last two years JOTR has seen about a 25% growth in visitation each year.

Figure 3. Visitation Increase Over Ten Years at Joshua Tree Entrance (West Entrance)
Congestion Assessment 8

2010 Visitor Survey

According to the park’s 2010 Visitor Study, United States visitors comprised 81% of total visitation during the survey period, with 62% 

from California. International visitors were from 19 countries and comprised 19% of total visitation. Frequency of visits fifty-six percent 

of visitors were visiting the park for the first time in their lifetime. Twenty-two percent had visited five or more times in their lifetime. 

Age Twenty-eight percent of visitors were 56 to 70 years of age, 25% were 26 to 40 years old, 11% were 15 years or younger, and 6% 

were 71 years or older. Thirty-eight percent of visitor groups were aware of the Congressionally designated wilderness in Joshua Tree 

NP. Eighteen percent of visitor groups visited the Congressionally designated wilderness areas during this visit to the park. Most visitor 

groups (87%) obtained information about the park prior to their visit from the park website (55%), and most (93%) received the 

information they needed. Seventy-two percent of visitor groups would use the park website to obtain information for a future visit. For 

49% of visitor groups, the park was one of several destinations, and for 43%, the park was the primary destination. Six percent of visitor 

groups were residents of the area (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms). The most common primary reason for visiting the 

park area among non-resident visitor groups was to visit the park (75%). Fifty-seven percent of visitor groups stayed overnight in Joshua 

Tree NP or in the surrounding area (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, and Twentynine Palms), of which 35% stayed two nights inside the park 

and 33% spent one night in the surrounding area. Seventy-two percent of visitor groups tent camped in a developed campground in the 

park, while 36% of visitor groups were RV/trailer camping outside the park in the surrounding area.

Information from Previous Planning Efforts

The following completed plans and documents served to inform development of the recommendations in this report. Further, they will 

need to be considered if the park chooses to pursue any of the recommendations, and in their continued long-term visitor use 

management planning efforts.

2015 Foundation Document

The Foundation Document identifies the park’s resources and values that are important enough for the park to be included as a unit of 

the national park system. The value of providing accessible and diverse opportunities in a remote desert to a large and burgeoning urban 

population is applicable to the congestion assessment process. High-priority planning needs identified in the document include, but are 

not limited to, a Cottonwood Comprehensive Site Plan, a Strategic Plan, a Visitor Use Study, and a Long-Range Interpretive Plan. A 

greater understanding of park visitation patterns and visitor use needs of surrounding communities is also called for in the Foundation 

Document.
Congestion Assessment 9

Other Relevant Plans

1998 General Management Plan Supplemental EIS

2001 Business Plan

2003 Visitation Counting Instructions

2010 Visitor Study

2011 Pinto Basin EA

2012 Black Rock EA

2014 Resource Stewardship Strategy

2014 Transit Feasibility Study

2014 Transit Service Business Plan

2015 Roads Inventory and Condition Assessment of Paved Routes

2015 Joshua Tree Administrative History

2017 Economic Benefits (JOTR News Release)

2017 Visitation Increase (JOTR Briefing Statement)

2017 Cottonwood Visitor Center Scoping

2017 Visitation Record Number (JOTR News Release)

Unfunded Transportation PMIS

PMIS Status Title Comments

233636A Planned 

2019

Create and Identify Bus Stops for Pilot 

Transportation Service Not formulated. Not submitted for review

237972B Planned 

2017

Complete Final Wayside Exhibit Plan for 

Enhanced Visitor Enjoyment Not formulated. Region-reviewed

PMIS Projects Formulated for Funding

PMIS Status Title Comments

242905 Formulated 

for FY19

Repair, Rehabilitate and Delineate 4 miles 

of the Geology Tour Road for Visitor 

Enjoyment

Region reviewed on 05/30/2017
Congestion Assessment 10

242925 Formulated 

for FY20

Rehabilitate, Revegetate, Restore & 

Delineate Roads & Parking at Split Rock & 

Live Oak Picnic Areas

Region-reviewed on 5/31/2017. 

Rehabilitate, Re vegetate, restore and delineate 35 informal 

pullouts on 0.54 miles of Split Rock day use route #200 FMSS 

# 19814 and 0.38 miles of Live Oak day use route # 201 

FMSS # 19816. Approximately 2000 boulders will be needed 

for delineation of the road and parking areas to reduce the 

impact from illegal parking and continued resource damage. 

Re-vegetate impacted areas with native plants to reduce the 

visual impact and restore the area back to its native 

condition. This component represents work covered by child 

work orders of FMSS Parent WO 19241614 with target start 

dates in FY 2017."

242930 Formulated 

for FY20 

Replace Deteriorated or Non-Conforming 

Signs Along Park Routes 11, 12, 13, 212 A, 

101, 213, & 917

Region reviewed on 05/30/2017

In addition these planning efforts are also underway or anticipated:

• Operate and Evaluate 2-Year Pilot Visitor Shuttle Service from Local Communities to Park Locations (Implement Sept. 2017)

• Development Concept Plan to Relocate West Visitor Entrance Station

• WASO-NRSS Visitor Use Research Study (summer 2017-fall 2018) including seven roadside counters, 6 trail counters and onsite 

evaluations of parking lot use and general visitor use.

• A Pilot Incident Command deployed the “2017 Spring Operations” requiring a minimum of one shift per pay period for all 

personnel to assist with traffic control at fee booths and main parking lots and trails heads. This effort will likely be modified and 

continues in 2018.

• Visitor centers have started to deploy folding tables and chairs outside to relieve crowding inside and expand the ability to assist 

basic park orientation; the park is looking at setting up “pop-up” information booths within the park as well.

• Resource and facilities staff are collaborating to better demarcate parking areas and use signage to mitigate out of bounds 

parking.
Congestion Assessment 11

• A pilot shuttle system will launch February 2018 to determine if this can help relieve long entrance station lines and parking 

congestion, improve visitor experience, and protect resources.

• Workloads have been re-prioritized to address capacity issues; this is impacting all other operations and project commitments.

• Plans are underway to place select campgrounds under a reservation system.

• The park is considering identifying select backcountry campsites and placing those on a reservation system.

• Cottonwood Visitor Center replacement and likely expansion is scheduled for FY20-22.

• Hiring/recruiting efforts to decrease workload on regular full-time staff. (Hiring GS-3 staff to staff buses/assist with increased 

workload, increase outreach to volunteer staff to fill critical roles, etc.)

The outcomes of these efforts will influence the long-term congestion management strategies the park chooses to pursue. 

Congestion Problems: Locations, Frequency and Impacts

Visitation at Joshua Tree National Park has increased by 80% from 2013 (1,383,340) to 2016 (2,505,286). January 2017 numbers show a 

20% increase from January 2016 visitation numbers; based on recent precipitation resulting in a “super bloom.” This increase in 

visitation is also likely correlated with increasing popularization of desert destinations and growth in nearby population centers. Median 

home prices near the park are easily 60% less than all surrounding urban areas, enticing more people to move to the area.

Total visitor parking park-wide is 1,851 spaces; 1,274 in parking lots and pull outs, and 577 within campgrounds. Only 722 parking spots 

are at attraction sites (trailheads, picnic areas, climbing areas). Further, today the formal parking spots, which were developed in the 

1990s, are inadequate. Busy days within the park can play host to over 4,000 vehicles all vying for the same parking spaces.3 When 

designated parking lots and campgrounds in the park fill to capacity, these activities spill over into illegal use of backcountry roads for 

car-camping, increased off-road parking, and off-road vehicle incidents.

This congestion-related spill-over activity causing lasting damage vegetation and soils, which is expensive to rehabilitate in a desert 

environment. Additionally, the park is experiencing record levels of other illegal activities that are also damaging resources. These 

include graffiti on park facilities and on rock formations, rock piling, artifact looting, out-of-bounds camping, illegal campfires, droneflying, dogs off leash, and off-roading in wilderness areas. 

Increasing visitor use affects management of park infrastructure and staffing and results in a diminished visitor experience. Impacts 

include severely-diminished visitor services, increased conflicts between visitors associated with limited parking and camping spots, 

 3 Based on NPS staff observations
Congestion Assessment 12

over-worked septic systems, and the need to empty pit toilets and dumpsters at near twice the frequency as in previous years. Weekend 

and holiday visitors struggle to find a parking spot, and park attractions are exceeding parking lot capacity by mid-morning.

Figure 4. Joshua Tree Park Map of Prioritized Congestion Hotspots
Congestion Assessment 13

Local communities have voiced concerns over traffic congestion and blocked driveways in neighborhoods leading up to the park’s West 

Entrance. The park is taking immediate actions to manage congestion, but requires mid-term and long-term solutions to better manage 

visitation in both the front and backcountry. 

While Joshua Tree is experiencing congestion park wide, several studies and efforts are underway to assist the Park in identifying longterm management strategies for visitor access. The outcomes of these studies will help determine what tools and strategies will be most 

effective to use in support of those management policies. As such, for the purpose of this congestion assessment, the park was asked 

to identify five priority areas where they could use help identifying tools to manage congestion in the short-term (next five years). 

The areas identified are as follows (and mapped in Figure 4):

Skull Rock: Demand for parking at the site exceeds capacity. Cars attempting to park routinely overflow into parts 

of roadway travel lanes and onto surrounding resources, creating a safety hazard for visitors milling around and 

crossing the road to access trails and vehicles.

Split Rock: Demand for parking at this site exceeds capacity. The lot is dirt with no stalls delineated. Parking 

overflows onto narrow roadway leading to the parking area, leaving only one lane for traffic entering and exiting 

the area.

Indian Cove: The Indian Cove area serves as a day-use parking lot along with parking for campground and 

amphitheater users. Regulations limit to 2 cars per campsite, but day-users and additional persons parking for 

camp sites leave no parking for other campers. There is not enough parking to serve the demand and the variety of 

users at the site.

Jumbo Rocks: Jumbo Rocks Campground is the biggest campground in the park and a constant flow of cars 

circulates through this site consisting of a mix of campers and day users in search of the “Jumbo Rocks”. There is 

not enough parking to serve the demand and variety of users at this site. Park staff is routinely dispatched there to 

manage the gridlock and maintain safe access through the area. They get stuck there for hours a day, taking away 

from their ability to perform other job functions.

Barker Dam / Wall Street Mill

Barker Dam and Wall Street Mill provide access to both day hiking, climbing and bouldering. There is no formalized 

parking for Wall Street Mill. Visitors park along the road and often use the Barker Dam Lot to access Wall Street 

Mill. These parking areas are routinely at capacity by 10AM.
Congestion Assessment 14

It would be difficult to expand parking in this area. Nearby Echo Tee offers parking that can be used by visitors 

wanting to access Barker Dam when its lot is full. The park would need to formalize a connector trail; current access 

is via a multitude of confusing social trails with no signage.

While some tools presented in the Recommendations for Congestion Management section do go beyond the short-term and beyond 

the priority areas identified above, the recommendations focus first on tools that might help these areas in the short-term. All other 

recommendations are things the Park can consider as it evaluates its long-term visitor use management strategies.

The park was also asked to provide answers to the questions presented in Table 1. These questions are derived from the original NPS 

Congestion Survey conducted NPS-wide in 2010. They are meant to baseline current conditions, and, in post-assessment follow-ups, 

track if and how congestion in the park has changed.

Table 1. Joshua Tree Park Overview of Congestion Impacts (Based on the NPS 2010 Congestion Survey)

Question (Select One or More Standard Answers) Park answers here

What are the impacts of congestion on 

visitor experience and resources?

(select one or more: visitor experience, 

safety, park operations, park facilities, 

natural resources, cultural/historic 

resources, other)

Natural resources, park operations, safety. 

Visitor experience impacts not quantified. 

How is safety affected by congestion? (select one or more: ped/bike conflicts with 

vehicles, delayed emergency response, 

clustering of vehicle crashes, ped/bike 

conflicts, other, or not an issue)

Delayed emergency response. Pedestrian 

conflicts with vehicles.

Where is congestion present in the park? (select one or more: parking areas, 

roadways providing access to the park, 

visitor center, park entrance station, 

primary park vehicle tour route, pedestrian 

loading areas, pedestrian paths/trails, 

trailheads, scenic overlooks, transit stops, 

other park attractions)

Parking areas, park entrance stations, 

roadways providing access to the park, 

primary park vehicle tour route.

What are the specific locations (hotspots) 

most affected by congestion

(identify unique locations on the 

assessment map. For each location, 

identify high, medium or low intensity 

problems and the type of problem at each 

See map Figure 3
Congestion Assessment 15

location)

During which of the following timeframes is 

congestion present?

(select one or more: special event only, 3-

day weekends, commuter peak periods, 

mid-day tourist, transit schedule, both 

commuters/midday tourist, both mid-day 

and transit schedule, both commuter and 

transit schedule, all of the above)

Special events, long weekends, free entry 

days, mid-day tourist, weekly (Thursdays 

and Fridays in campgrounds).

Is the park actively managing congestion?

If yes currently, what strategies does the 

park use?

(select: yes currently or yes in the past, or 

no)

(if yes, select: transit, traffic information, 

park ranger traffic management, 

reservation system, fast pass, VMS, HAR, 

remote parking with shuttles, expanded 

parking, worked with local communities, 

provided more visitor information on 

website, actively promoted bike/ped 

access?) 

Yes: traffic information, park ranger traffic 

management remote parking with shuttles, 

expanded parking, worked with local 

communities, provided more visitor 

information on website.

Has your current congestion mitigation 

strategy been successful?

Why or why not?

(select yes/no) 

(if yes, describe why)

(if no, describe why not)

Yes: Resource impacts have been reduced, 

but reduction in congestion is difficult to 

measure with increase in visitation.

Has the park been partnering with other 

groups or agencies to manage congestion? 

If yes, what groups or agencies? 

(select yes/no)

(if yes identify names of groups/agencies...)

Yes: Local transit provider, Chambers of 

Commerce and hotels in local towns, tribal 

partners at 29 Palms. There is also an Off 

Highway Vehicle (OHV) partner at south 

end of park.
Congestion Assessment 16

Reference: Cost/Timeframes for Implementing Congestion Tools

COST RANGE TIMEFRAME

Low: $0-$50,000 Immediate: Less than 1 year

Medium: $50,000-$100,000 Near-Term: 1-3 years

High: $100,000-$500,000 Long-Term: 4 years or longer

Highest: Over $500,000

Recommendations for Congestion Management

NPS’ Congestion Management Toolkit (www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/NPS-CMS_Toolkit.pdf) offers over 50 congestion mitigation 

tools specifically selected for NPS congestion conditions and concerns. Some tools, such as building parking or adding transit are often 

proposed; whereas other less capital-intensive tools, such as managing circulation, posting traffic information on social media, and 

special events management, can be as effective as or more easily implemented than high-cost solutions.

The table beginning on page 18 is a list of suggested congestion mitigation tools Joshua Tree should consider exploring. This table should 

be viewed as a menu, where park staff will have to decide which tool(s) they want to pursue and what further actions to take. The table 

presents a cost range and timeframe for each tool. This diagram explains those definitions: 

Tools with an asterisks (*) next to their name mean that elements of the tool are already being employed by the park. Tools at the top of 

the table shaded in brown denote steps the park will pursue in the next year.

This table designed to assist the park to understand what tools would be effective based on the problems identified during the 

congestion assessment process. It also includes information important to help the park understand key issues related to 

implementation of each tool. Long-term management of congestion and vehicle access to the park will largely be dependent on the 

outcomes of the Visitor Use Management Study. The Park needs to determine the number of visitors it wants to allow at Park 

destinations and what types of use it will allow at these places as well. Understanding that will help determine which tools in the table 

could be most effective to achieve those management objectives. Further if the Park chooses to pursue implementation of any of these 

tools, development and execution should be closely coordinated with the Regional Federal Lands Transportation and Alternative 

Transportation Coordinators. Implementation contacts are:

Regional Federal Lands Transportation Program Coordinator(s): Justin DeSantis and Dianne Croal

Park Point of Contact for Implementation: Jane Rodgers
Congestion Assessment 17

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT / SPECIAL EVENT 

MANAGEMENT * 

Traffic incident management is about developing and 

implementing an incident management plan (this can 

also be used for special event management). This 

solution does not directly involve tangible hardware or 

infrastructure improvements, but is highly regarded 

method to integrate multiple operational tools that 

may involve Law Enforcement responsibilities. 

Developing an ICP may be an effective way to 

manage congestion during peak season and 

special events. Would also help with 

determining boots on the ground staffing 

needs and potentially scoping for third-party 

traffic management. Park is paying staff 

overtime to manage traffic so at some point 

this may be cost effective.

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

The park annually reviews its approach to managing peak use and special events 

within the park. Park staff will continue to modify and expand the ICP for peak season 

based on ‘Action Review’ outcomes from the spring 2017 review and they could look 

to PWR for funding for a pilot project.

In addition to operations developed in spring 2017, the park will apply Strategic 

Recruiting of VIPs and/or new hires for parking lot, trailhead, and entrance station 

traffic control. Hiring ideas include using Military Spousal Hiring Authority, adding 

funding on to existing Shuttlebus Ambassador project staffing, converting seasonal 

hires to intermittent, creating "bench strength" with flexible staffing to meet sporadic 

needs. A new Military VIP/staffing coordinator position could be created to focus on 

recruiting staffing to support peak traffic management needs. Also outreaching to 

area high schools and community colleges that have service hour requirements to 

graduate may help the park find volunteers who are interested in helping out and 

learning more about the park.

MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS *

With smart phones rising in popularity, the use of social 

media (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr, 

Instagram, blogs, and other programs) and mobile 

device apps have also become acceptable low cost ways 

to provide information.

The use of common social media applications 

or already existing visitor applications about 

touring Joshua Tree (from outside providers) 

to disseminate information about park 

conditions, when to come, where to go, etc. is 

an easy and affordable way to provide visitors 

timely information on park conditions.

Webcams can also be considered at multiple 

locations to give staff and visitors a method to 

check current conditions. A link can be added 

to the NPS website.

Cost: Low to 

Medium

Timeframe: 

Immediate 

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Work with common app providers to coordinate information provided to the public, 

particularly regarding park rules and regulations, and to conduct social outreach. 

Improve upon existing social media program by a) developing a social media strategy 

specific to traffic management, b) develop tools to inform visitors "real time" what 

lots are full, and c) provide alternative attraction sites/parking lots (in conjunction 

with adding signage and wayfinding). 

In the long term, as capability improves, review where and how other parks or 

agencies are using cameras (for example Mt. Rainier: 

https://www.nps.gov/mora/learn/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm ). Identify 

locations in the Park this could help and establish pilot to test.

DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN *

Dynamic/Variable message signs (both portable and 

permanent) are used to provide en-route information 

and alerts to visitors.

Sign placed in advance of congestion locations 

could inform visitors when parking is full and 

what action the park wants them to take (e.g. 

‘Proceed to Overflow Lot’, ‘Proceed to Another 

Location’, etc.). The intersection prior to the 

road to Split Rock would be an ideal location 

for DMS/VMS, so visitors would not proceed 

all the way down the road only to find full 

parking.

Cost: Low to 

Medium to High

Timeframe: 

Immediate 

PMIS needed? Yes if signs 

will be purchased (no if they 

will be rented)

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Identify/refine locations to test out DMS/VMS. Develop a Concept of Operations, 

including messaging for testing out the effectiveness of the signs. The park has a PMIS 

to purchase more DMS/VMS signage.

Coordinate with Caltrans to complete agreements for using DMS/VMS in Caltrans 

ROW.

SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING *

Signage and wayfinding techniques guide visitors to 

their destinations and are particularly helpful in an 

unfamiliar environment.

Park is currently providing signage on 

highways leading up to the park. 

Eastbound 62 & westbound 62 coming into the 

town of Joshua Tree, and at the intersection of 

Hwy 62 and Park Drive, there is signage to the 

effect of "Reduced congestion at 29 Palms 

Entrance"/Alternate entrance. 

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: 

Immediate 

PMIS needed? Maybe

EA/EIS needed? Maybe

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

There is a funded FLREA project to update wayside exhibits. This is a great 

opportunity to include wayfinding in the congestion assessment toolkit. Guided 

circulation is a great tool to move people around and improve experience and 

resource protection. 

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC/ TRAFFIC 

CONTROL DEVICES) 

Intersection improvements include two-way or yield 

control, multi-way stop control,

roundabout, and signalization.

Campground intersections such as at Black 

Rock and Jumbo Rocks CG as well as 

Intersection Rock should be reviewed for 

function and traffic flow improvements. 

Cost: varies, Low to 

Medium to High to 

Higher

Timeframe: Near 

Term to Longer 

Term

PMIS needed? Maybe

EA/EIS needed? Maybe

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Plans are underway for park entrance improvements at Joshua Tree Entrance.

The Park may want to look into converting pull- in angle parking at West Entrance to 

parallel parking to improve safety in short term. Could be piloted using traffic cones 

and paint.

Year one focus on Jumbo Rocks Campground intersection. Replace current directional 

signage to emphasize "Campground" to discourage day-users/visitors mistaking the 

campground for an attraction site.
Congestion Assessment 18

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH * 

There are many potential partners that parks/units can 

engage/outreach to in helping to solve transportation 

congestion problems.

Ongoing collaboration and engagement with 

park partners can help resolve common access 

issues, and improve the visitor experience.

Cost: Low to 

Medium to High to 

Higher

Timeframe: 

Immediate

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

In conjunction with the ICP, continue to engage and inform partners quarterly about 

visitor access to the park. Include preferred messaging that the park wants partners 

to share with visitors about when to access, what to expect, new rules or regulations, 

etc.

AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES /ENCOURAGE VISITATION 

TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS / USE SUGGESTED 

ITINERARIES TO SUGGEST WHERE TO GO*

Electronic systems can be used to warn visitors of busy 

times and potential delays and to encourage them to 

travel to the park during non-peak seasons, such as 

shoulder seasons or non-peak travel times.

Encouraging visitors to go to attractions in less 

congested areas can decrease congestion and increase 

visitor experiences.

Take advantage of opportunities to inform 

visitors while they are traveling to the park. 

Many visitors may not be aware of other 

venues / attractions within the region or park 

vicinity.

Cost: Low to 

Medium to High

Timeframe: 

Immediate 

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Park provides messaging through local media outlets and via signage along CA Hwy 

62. 

In the short term consider giving visitors suggested itineraries when they enter during 

congested times. Also have the messaging set expectations about what to expect 

regarding congestions and camping availability. Continue to work with Caltrans to 

expand messing possibilities.

In the long-term evaluate the feasibility of opening up more day use areas in the 

north and south ends of the park. Also work in collaboration with surrounding FLMAs 

to determine if there are other places outside the park visitors can be encouraged to 

check out too. Can visitors get a quality experience in these areas? What are the 

resource impacts?

PARKING MANAGEMENT

Parking management includes a variety of strategies to 

actively manage congested parking. One strategy is to 

inform visitors by sign or in person that certain parking 

areas are full. Another strategy could be regulating 

parking for a specific use where congestion frequently 

occurs. Another strategy could be to set parking time 

limits at congested parking locations to increase 

turnover (ex: 20 minute parking, 2 hour parking max, 

etc.).

Jumbo Rocks – Having campground hosts 

and/or gating at the campground will only 

allow a specific type of user (campers) to 

access certain areas which would reduce 

conflicts between campground and other 

types of visitors.

Parking time limits can be used effectively 

where a destination is extremely popular for 

short-duration trips and has a number of users 

that utilize the parking for hours or days (long 

duration). By encouraging the longer duration 

users to park elsewhere, parking is made more 

readily available. 

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? Yes if capital 

improvements included

EA/EIS needed? Yes if capital 

improvements included

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Park will consider piloting parking time limits at congested locations, and/or testing 

parking pass/access options to congested locations (a certain amount of cars are 

issued a permit to park at a popular destination).

In the long term they need to pilot and then develop a plan to flesh out a permanent 

parking permit concept, in conjunction with increased signage and wayfinding. 

Park will continue deploying vast quantities of "no parking" sandwich boards along 

road edges to protect resources until a longer term plan is formulated.

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS

This tool involves management techniques such as oneway or reversible lanes for changing traffic flow 

patterns and circulation to reduce congestion.

Converting Queen Valley to a one-way 

westbound could alleviate outbound 

congestion to Pine City, and mitigate off road 

travel and proliferation of visitor created pull 

outs damaging soils and vegetation on this 

road.

Cost: Medium

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

The park is going to pilot test making Queen Valley one-way westbound.

SPEED MANAGEMENT 

Speed management has three variations (1) increase 

compliance of existing posted speed limits, (2) reduce 

the maximum posted speed limit, and (3) implement a 

variable speed limit.

Speeding is a problem on Park Blvd. and down 

by Cottonwood. Road design is such that 

geometry supports speeds. 

Cost: varies, 

Medium to High to 

Higher

Timeframe: 

Continuous

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

The park will continue to constantly evaluate speed issues and solutions. FHWA has a 

couple websites to help explore and evaluate solutions:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm

The park can also reach out to the Safety Engineer at Central Federal Lands to further 

evaluate speed issues and solutions.
Congestion Assessment 19

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE 

SERVICES/OPERATIONS/ADD CAPACITY *

Transit/shuttle services is a method to transport visitors 

to and around the park/unit without the use of a 

private automobile. Adding capacity to the transit 

system can be completed by adding more shuttles, by 

decreasing headway between shuttles, or by adding 

additional routes.

Transit service, especially to popular park 

destinations, could reduce the need for 

additional parking or parking management at 

congested destinations.

In the long run, expanded, permanent service 

to destinations such as Skull Rock or Jumbo 

Rocks could reduce vehicle parking needs, but 

may increase visitation and subsequent 

resource damage at these sites. 

Cost: High to Higher

Timeframe: NearLong Term

PMIS needed? Yes

EA/EIS needed? Yes (if 

pursuing permanent) 

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Alert: NPS has a 

moratorium on new transit 

systems, contact Regional 

Transportation Coordinator 

for more information. 

Requirements include: 

transit pro forma, approval 

by: Regional Transportation 

Coordinator, Regional 

Director, WASO 

Transportation Program 

Manager, PFMD Director, 

and NPS Director

Park is proceeding with shuttle bus implementation once the cooperative agreements 

are approved. Consider leveraging PMIS project to increase number of NPS bus 

guides/staff to assist with traffic control at parking lots, fee stations, and trailheads.

Evaluate effectiveness of initial pilot, including where expansion (by reducing 

headways to pilot route, or adding destinations could be useful). If pilot is effective, 

and park wants to pursue a permanent system, work with Regional Transportation 

Coordinator staff to identify steps to take.

Consideration of a permanent shuttle system should also evaluate locations for 

support infrastructure such as bus shelters, park and ride facilities, and bicycle racks 

(to promote combining bicycle and transit trips). Additionally, carrying capacity of 

park destinations should be carefully considered and examined by the park in 

conjunction with making any transit service permanent.

NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES

(INCLUDING PROMOTION) 

Park-and-ride facilities allow visitors to leave their car 

and travel through the national park via transit.

This could be especially useful in campground 

areas that are also popular with day users.

The park can also support the development of 

a park-and-ride facility in nearby communities 

as well. One such means for support could be 

to utilize FLREA money as Federal Lands Access 

Program (FLAP) match for an offsite park-andride facility that would benefit both the park 

and local businesses.

Cost: Higher

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? Yes

Suitable for a pilot project? 

no

EA/EIS needed? Yes

Alert: NPS has issued a 

moratorium on new transit 

systems, contact Regional 

Transportation Coordinator 

for requirements which 

include: transit pro forma, 

approval by: Regional 

Transportation Coordinator, 

Regional Director, WASO 

Transportation Program 

Manager, PFMD Director, 

and NPS Director

Evaluate as well as using in conjunction with the pilot shuttle service. It can take years 

to gather support and build coordination for these types of projects. 

Expand park/ride options, look at Yucca Valley Welcome Center as potential location. 

Consider "Slug Line" concepts. Use this tool in conjunction with promotion of ‘no car’ 

options

PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 

Implementing transit or ridesharing for access to/from 

and within a park or unit will help improve congestion 

issues only if visitors know about these systems and 

utilize them. A marketing campaign can help with 

getting the word out to visitors and incentives can help 

to encourage transit use.

Shuttle business plan addresses this Mobility 

Partners 2016 business plan.

Cost: Low

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Shuttle pilot already contains actions/ideas for promoting use of transit. Evaluate 

effectiveness and modify to support expansion in transit service, rideshare 

opportunities, or opening of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Park can also work with park partners and local hotels to promote ride-sharing 

activities such as “Meet Up” groups and/or “Slug Lines”, where people assemble then 

travel into the park, and also provide incentives for carpooling (park at nearby hotels, 

etc.).
Congestion Assessment 20

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN 

FACILITIES 

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities allow visitors to travel 

to destinations by an alternate mode. Facilities could 

include widened road shoulders, a separated multiuse/non-motorized paved pathway, and unpaved trails 

and bike racks

While it is unlikely that bicycle paths would be 

developed inside the park, active 

transportation development in gateway 

communities can still reduce vehicle traffic 

coming into the park.

The park could provide parking and shaded 

areas at visitor centers outside of park that tie 

into the community development plans. 

Additional bicycle racks and benches at shuttle 

stops will make the transit pilot more 

desirable.

Look at connecting biking with transit use to 

alleviate parking in town. This would include 

any shuttle stops in transit network. Having 

bicycle parking at Visitor Centers will free up 

valuable spaces for visitors who stay a shorter 

length.

Cost: High-Higher

Timeframe: Longer 

Term(6+ Years)

PMIS needed? Yes 

EA/EIS needed? Yes 

Suitable for a pilot project? 

No 

Seek out opportunities to collaborate with active transportation development in the 

community such as the ongoing Morongo Basin Active Transportation Plan. Dedicate 

park staff time to attend meetings. In the long term the park would like to see bike 

lanes on major park routes.

ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 

Roadway pull-outs can be used as space for passing 

traffic, as additional parking for visitor attractions, as 

shuttle stops, as locations to repair breakdowns, and as 

wayside areas that may provide visitors with limited 

bathroom facilities (if provided) and information.

Shoulders can also be specified as ‘no parking’ areas to 

promote better circulation through a congested area.

Disturbed roadside areas can either be 

formalized for visitor use or rehabilitated and 

evaluated for the safety and purpose of each 

disturbed area. Formalizing areas can provide 

additional parking capacity while minimizing 

further resource impacts.

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: Near 

Term 

PMIS needed? Yes

EA/EIS needed? Yes

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Confirm with PWR ATP 

Program Manager

A roadway pullout study could be developed by the park to determine where 

roadside parking could be added or removed to improve safety, access, and to better 

manage use. These studies are typically developed for the entire park. However, since 

Pinto Basin Road is newer, there may be a desire to only perform this study in the 

northern sections of the park.

Park would need to prepare a pilot study proposal or a proposal for a Roadway 

Pullout Study for both paved and unpaved roads Lost Horse Road trailhead would be 

ideal for this type of study. There is a 6 mile loop trail that provides a primitive 

experience, even with a lot of people parking, but parking on Lost Horse Road is 

limited. It is a 2-way road that is 1.5 cars in width plus people are parking on the road 

shoulders. Increasing capacity here would not have as much negative resource 

impacts as other places like Hidden Valley.

Similar to #7 and #17; need to scope out and develop a pull out/parking plan. PMIS 

242905 in RFCP to delineate a 4-mile section of Geology Tour Road. 242925 to 

rehabilitate and delineate Split Rock and Live Oak Day Use parking lots, and 242926 

delineate and rehab Queen Valley Road network.

VISITOR USE MANAGEMENT *

Managing visitor access and use for congested parks is 

complex. A solid understanding of the number of 

visitors and where they go, what they do, related 

impacts, and potential tools (such as indicators, 

thresholds and monitoring) /strategies for managing 

those impacts may be beneficial for park management 

and partners.

The park currently welcomes all visitors to the 

park. Without managing that visitation park 

resources and visitor experience will continue 

to be degraded.

Cost: high-highest 

Timeframe: 

Immediate

PMIS needed? Yes

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Maybe

EA/EIS needed? Yes

Conduct NPS 2016 Visitor Use Management Framework 

visitorusemanagement.nps.gov and evaluate forthcoming recommendations 

presented with in the study.
Congestion Assessment 21

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND 

ANALYSIS *

Data can be used to help a park/unit better understand 

their existing conditions and issues, and more precisely 

determine when, where and why congestion occurs.

There is a potential need for data collection at 

top priority locations to determine parking 

duration / turnover rates and entrance station 

patterns and queue lengths. 

These data will inform on current conditions 

and establish a baseline to monitor future 

changes from. If the park decides to consider 

implementing a parking reservation system, 

these data will help structure that system.

Cost: Higher

Timeframe: 

Immediate 

PMIS needed? Maybe

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

No

Partner with VUM study efforts to collect data on duration/turnover rates, and 

entrance station queues. This will assist in determine where the Park want to manage 

use and how in the future.

EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY 

Overflow parking on roadway shoulders and in “no 

parking” areas can be a source of congestion. In some 

cases, demand management and/or promoting the use 

of park and ride facilities can lessen this impact, but in 

others, the best option may be to increase parking 

supply. To lessen the insatiable demand for parking, 

increases in parking supply can often be coupled with 

other visitor management techniques (e.g. increased 

enforcement, reservation systems, etc.).

Expanding the parking supply can be considered in the 

short-term by creating temporary overflow lots for peak 

times or events. In the long-term expanding the parking 

supply would consider locations where permanent 

parking supply can be added. 

Barker Dam/Wall Street Mill/Echo Tee -

Temporary: encourage overflow parking and 

starting hike at Echo Tee in conjunction with 

formalizing shorter path to Barker Dam from 

Echo Tee. Consider temporary stalls 

delineation to best utilize Wall Street Mill 

parking. Improve signage to improve visitor 

wayfinding for parking options at all three lots.

Permanent: Consider expanding Barker Dam 

lot by removing center island for lower impact.

Skull Rock – Potential to expand east on road 

in disturbed area

Permanent: In conjunction with formalized 

pullout study, evaluate disturbed areas 

northeast and southwest of Skull Rock. 

Improve pedestrian facilities to prevent 

walking on the roadway.

Split Rock – Temporary – Existing road width 

by turnaround can be utilized for parking and a 

short one-way loop for vehicles could be 

developed exiting at toilet facility. Temporary 

parking stall delineation will improve usage of 

space.

Cost: Higher

Timeframe: Longer 

Term

PMIS needed? Yes if paved 

parking is proposed

EA/EIS needed? Yes if paved 

parking is proposed

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Temporary overflow lots 

initially used for events could 

be evaluated for feasibility to 

convert to/build permanent 

parking lots.

Identify areas to expand parking through a Parking/Pullout study and complete 

compliance for areas that the Park would consider suitable for temporary overflow 

and/or permanent expansion. 

RESERVATION SYSTEMS 

Reservations systems strongly manage the demand 

placed on a destination within a unit that has limited 

capacity by allowing the number of visitors entering a 

location to be capped/limited to a maximum number. 

Can also be used to address carrying capacity issues.

Reservation systems are being used in many 

public lands to control the number of visitors 

that can be at a site at any given time. They 

can reduce negative resource impacts, 

improve the visitor experience, and often 

reduce the amount of staff resources 

necessary to manage a congested area.

Most systems are site-specific (versus parkwide). Timed entry components can also be 

added to the reservation to let people know 

exactly when to enter or exit by, and allow for 

more visitors getting the opportunity to visit a 

popular site.

Cost: Medium to 

High to Higher

Timeframe: Long 

term

PMIS needed? Yes

EA/EIS needed? Yes

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Other: contact Regional 

Transportation Coordinator 

for more information

A reservations system should be evaluated following or in conjunction with a broad 

park-wide Visitor Use Management Study (VUM study). Capacities would need to be 

set through the VUM planning process. Additional research on how the reservation 

system could be designed would be necessary.

Similar effort underway at Yosemite, which is completing a pilot reservation study. 

Cost is $1.50 and reserved seat if arrival occurs before 11:00 am. This fee just covers

cost of system.

Mt. Rainier is using a color card system correlating to lots for Mt. Rainier. Cards are 

passed out at the park entrance points and drivers are directed to specific lots to 

park.

See the TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS tool as well.
Congestion Assessment 22

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TOOL (from NPS 

Congestion Management Toolkit)

WHAT SPECIFIC PARK PROBLEMS 

WOULD THIS TOOL ADDRESS?

COST AND 

TIMEFRAME

CONSIDERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION 

PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES

Prepayment of entrance fees and transit fees allows 

visitors to pay for entrance or transit fees prior to 

entering the park. Usually Prepayment is done online, 

at an automated fee machine (kiosk for self-paying fees) 

in the gateway community, via third party sales vendors 

in the community, or via a smartphone application.

Promoting to visitors to prepay before they 

reach typically congested entrances should 

allow park staff to move cars through the 

entrance stations more quickly and reduce 

congestion there.

Cost: varies, LowHigh

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Other: coordinate with 

Regional Transportation 

Coordinator and Regional 

Fee Manager

Park will continue to explore/expand prepayment options, including payment kiosks 

at offsite locations. The park will also explore third party sale options.

ADD ENTRANCE LANES STATIONS/BOOTHS *

Adding entrance lanes/stations /booths can increase 

visitor throughput and decrease congestion and delay 

time.

Additional entrance lanes, stations, or booths 

would alleviate queueing delays at the West 

Entrance Station (and at Cottonwood and 

Twentynine Palms when necessary).

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: Near 

Term

PMIS needed? Yes

EA/EIS needed? Yes

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Maybe

The park is in the process of redesigning the West Entrance Station. The fee booth 

will move 1 mile further into the park and add a second lane. Construction should 

begin in 2020.

Also consider moving the Entrance sign to the existing restroom parking with the 

relocation of the entrance booth.

LANE SEPARATION/ DELINEATION Lane separation and 

delineation techniques focus on clearly defining travel 

lanes (through striping or other methods), so that

visitors/motorists know where to travel.

At the West entrance there is no fog line or 

striping to inform visitors where or how to 

park, specifically at the restroom 

Making certain segments of road in 

campgrounds 1-way only will free up space 

and striping will allow for additional day-use 

parking.

Cost: Medium to 

High

Timeframe: longer 

Term

PMIS needed? No

EA/EIS needed? No

Suitable for a pilot project? 

Yes

Delineation of parking along roadsides using some type of curbing enables 

enforcement of roadside parking.
Congestion Assessment 23

Congestion Management Tools Dismissed at This Time

The following tools were discussed but dismissed at this time, for the reason noted below. It is possible these tools may be considered at a 

future date if conditions in the park change.

PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 

Visitation via tour buses rather than private automobiles can assist the unit in decreasing congestion related to automobiles and can also provide an 

opportunity to enhance the visitor experience.

PEAK HOUR LANE REVERSAL AT ENTRANCE STATIONS

Short term use of the exit (or entrance) lane to bring vehicles into (or out of the park). Enforcement is typically a necessary component of this tool.

Next Steps

Within 60 days of the final report, the Congestion Assessment team will contact meet with the park point of contact and region to which 

recommendations are the park’s high and medium priority congestion mitigation recommendations. The WASO CMS team requires parks to 

implement 1-3 of the recommendations from the CMS. Follow up to the 3rd conference call will confirm the top recommendations to be 

implemented during the year following completion of the CMS. 

Park support for development of PMIS statements, field support and testing, potential funding resources, data collection/analysis and other 

implementation activities is available from the Pacific West regional transportation program coordinator. Technical assistance is available from 

NPS’ Denver Service Center Transportation, FHWA’s Federal Lands Highway Division, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and/or 

private sector consultants. 
Congestion Assessment 24

Congestion Management Assessment Contributors:

Congestion Assessment Team

Patricia Sacks, Project Manager / Landscape Architect, DSC Transportation Division

Guy Headland Project Specialist / Landscape Architect

Todd Johnson, Project Engineer, FHWA – CFLHD

Laurie Miskimins, Transportation Planner, FHWA – CFLHD

Dianne Croal, ATP Program Manager, NPS- PWR

Sky Skach

Rafael Wood

Joshua Tree National Park

Anna Tegarden Carroll, GIS Specialist

Chuck Heard, Safety Officer

David Smith, Superintendent

Jane Rodgers, Chief Science & Resource Stewardship

Jay Theuer, Branch Chief Cultural Resources

Jennifer Albrinck, Chief Interpretation 

Jimmy Pritchett, Interpretive Ranger

Karin Messaros, Management Assistant

Karyl Yeston, Chief Ranger

Kirk Diamond, Chief Facilities

Liz Roberts, Former Chief Administration

Luke Sabala, Branch Chief Physical Sciences

Michael Vamstad, Branch Chief Wildlife

Neil Frakes, Branch Chief Vegetation 

Patty Gerhardt, Executive Assistant