Congestion 

Management

Toolkit

MARCH 2014

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Table of Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................1

Understanding Congestion and the Congestion Management Process...........................2

How Congestion Relates to Other Issues.....................................................................5

Using the Toolkit......................................................................................................5

Categories of Tools...................................................................................................6

How to Evaluate Tools...............................................................................................7

Managing Expectations.............................................................................................7

Important Considerations/Cautions............................................................................8

Conclusion...............................................................................................................9

Solution/Tool Summary............................................................................................10

Individual Tools.......................................................................................................19

Index....................................................................................................................178

References............................................................................................................191

MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 1 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Introduction 

Congestion is not a new issue for national parks or the National Park Service (NPS). 

Many national parks experience a level of visitation that often exceeds the capacity of 

the parks’ facilities and resources. While congestion can result from too many people at 

a trailhead or on a trail, a crowded visitor center with a waiting line for a film about the 

park, or even too many bicyclists using a pathway, this Congestion Management Toolkit 

focuses on motor vehicle congestion (cars, trucks, buses, etc.). 

Congestion can occur at individual or multiple locations including: gateway communities, 

on roadways leading to the park, at entrance stations, on roadways within the park, in 

parking at visitor centers, trailheads, and other attractions. Causes of congestion vary, from 

bottlenecks to visitors congregating at an attraction, or from normal traffic fluctuations and 

commuter traffic. In short, congestion occurs when (and where) there is more demand than 

supply. Parks may experience mild, moderate or severe congestion. Some parks see visitation 

spikes on holiday weekends, special events, or throughout their peak season. Other parks 

may experience congestion all year long from commuter traffic. The most common issues 

impacted by congestion are visitor experience, safety and park operations.

This Toolkit provides a list of congestion mitigation solutions or tools that can be applied 

to address specific congestion problems and issues in NPS settings. Key features include 

implementation considerations, cost and financial information as well as examples of 

where these tools have been used and expected outcomes based on previous applications. 

Finding the right tool involves a “diagnosis” of the problem(s), so they can be matched 

with the best solutions.

The Congestion Management System/Process uses a step-by-step process to solve 

congestion, based on adaptive management. The steps are as follows:

• Step 1: Identify the congestion problem(s)

• Step 2: Determine the location(s), frequency, and impacts of congestion 

• Step 3: Consult the Toolkit to identify potential solutions 

• Step 4: Analyze alternatives and select preferred solution(s) 

• Step 5: Implement solution(s)

• Step 6: Test/monitor effectiveness of solution(s)

• Step 7: Revisit Toolkit if problems are not adequately resolved 

It is important to remember that this Toolkit is to be used as part of a problemfirst approach to dealing with congestion. If you are using the Toolkit, you should 

have already identified if your unit has congestion issues, and analyzed factors 

such as: where congestion is occurring, how frequently it occurs, how long 
MARCH 2014

2 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

the congestion lasts, etc. The Toolkit should not be used (reviewing potential 

solutions) Steps 1 and 2 in the above list have been completed. 

Finally, while each individual park unit may have congestion issues to address, 

implementing solutions must take into account broader issues such as the NPS mission, 

national Environmental Policy Act provisions, other Federal requirements and 

Director’s Orders, regional priorities and the Capital Investment Strategy. 

A common mistake has been to apply for and to accept highway program funding, 

but to be unprepared to complete the project, and/or operate and maintain the 

project after its completion. Sufficient staffing resources are required for the 

design, on-the-ground work, administrative assistance, maintenance, and the 

determination of sources for matching funds. The FLMA should understand the level 

of commitment required and be fully prepared to commit the resources necessary to 

implement, operate, and maintain a project prior to beginning the first phase of the 

transportation planning process. Partners can, and often do, assume responsibility 

for operating or maintaining a project or service after they are implemented.1 

Understanding Congestion and the 

Congestion Management Process

The Congestion Management Process is linear, and the order of the seven step process 

is important (Figure 1). In the process of evaluating and selecting the right solutions for 

addressing congestion issues, each park needs to: 

• Focus on a defined-problem approach 

• Explore the full range of potential tools and alternatives

• Explore realistic outcomes 

• Work with their regional transportation coordinator in order to ensure that 

resources and the latest technologies are available

Step 1: Identify the congestion problem. This step defines the basic question; is 

there congestion? From there, determine the type of congestion and where it manifests 

itself. Where is congestion occurring? Does staff notice long lines at the entrance gates? 

Are there cars always driving around looking for parking spots in the parking lots? 

Does it seem that traffic is always backed up on certain roads?

Step 2: Determine the location(s), frequency, and impacts of the 

congestion. This step identifies the specific location, measures the frequency, and 

detects the effects of congestion. Where is the congestion occurring? How often is the 

congestion occurring? Is it only a couple of days per year, or is it more frequent? How 

many cars may be parking along a roadside or driving around looking for a parking spot? 

Is it only a few cars, or a significant number of vehicles? Are there resource impacts related 

to the congestion? How does it affect the visitor experience? After this step, the park 

should be able to determine if the congestion is significant enough to warrant action.

Step 3: Consult the Toolkit to identify potential solutions. In this step 

the Congestion Management Toolkit is used to characterize the findings in Steps 1 

and 2, and to develop solutions. After completing Steps 1 & 2, if you believe there is 

a congestion issue to be addressed, then alternatives should be developed, reviewed 

and analyzed for measures to address the congestion issue(s). This Toolkit is designed 

specifically for this step. It lists specific congestion solutions, and provides information 

that can help in selecting the most appropriate solution(s).

Step 4: Analyze alternatives and select preferred solutions(s). In this step, 

the information provided for each solution in the Toolkit can be reviewed associated 

with the specific congestion issues in the park. Some of the solutions may have higher 
MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 3 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

capital costs, while others may require more manpower. A benefit/cost analysis is one 

tool that can be used to determine which solution is preferred. Make sure to utilize all 

available resources from the NPS, and perhaps even consultants, when determining the 

best solution(s) to implement, and identify potential secondary impacts.

Step 5: Implement solutions. This step seeks to implement the solutions from Step 

4. Once the appropriate solution(s) has been selected and funded as part of an identified 

project, it is time to move forward with implementation. The Toolkit provides information 

on the timing and other factors to consider when implementing the project/solution(s).

Step 6: Test/Monitor effectiveness of solution(s). Once the solution(s) has 

been implemented, there must be a monitoring plan to determine if the solution(s) have 

had the desired effect. Monitoring does not have to be complex and expensive, and 

can often be based on personal observation (e.g., “there never is a line at the entrance 

gate now”). There does need to be some level of monitoring, however, to determine if 

the implemented solution(s) are having an effect in reducing congestion. A suggestion 

would be periodic monitoring for three years.

Step 7: Revisit Toolkit if problems are not adequately resolved. Sometimes 

solutions may have an immediate impact, but their effectiveness can be reduced over time. 

Therefore, there needs to be long-term monitoring to make sure that the solutions are 

still reducing the congestion. The monitoring may be periodic, which means that data 

collection such as parking lot counts or wait times at entrance stations can be done on an 

infrequent basis (such as once per week, or even once or twice per season). Continuous 

monitoring means that there is on-going monitoring, which can often involve automatic 

data gathering, such as gathering roadway speeds through “road tubes” or gathering 

parking lot usage through an automated parking monitoring system. 

If the implemented solution does not appear to be adequately addressing congestion, 

the park can then apply an adaptive management approach, adjusting aspects of the 

solution implemented or trying new solutions/tools as may be appropriate. In many 

cases, a progressive level of intensity can be applied in addressing congestion problems, 

piloting and testing various measures to determine those that are most effective. An 

adaptive approach involves analyzing feedback from implementation of a solution, and 

then exploring alternative ways to meet objectives. There can be many reasons why 

a particular solution may not have a desired outcome, and adaptive management is 

the process of analyzing the situation, determining if changes need to be made to the 

implemented solution (or if a different solution needs to be implemented), and then 

using the “feedback loop” to again analyze the situation and then using the results to 

update knowledge and adjust management actions/solutions as necessary. 

If the park has questions, they should contact either the regional FLHP Coordinator or 

the DSC Transportation Division for assistance.
MARCH 2014

4 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

 Identify 

congestion 

problem(s)

NPS Congestion Management Process

Problem

Identification

Adaptive

Management

 Determine the 

location(s); frequency & 

impacts of congestion

Determine if 

congestion problem(s) 

need to be resolved

 Consult the Toolkit 

to identify potential 

solution(s)

 Analyze alternatives 

and select preferred 

solutions(s)

 Test/monitor the 

effectiveness of 

the solution(s)

 Revisit the Toolkit if 

congestion issues are 

not adeqately resolved

1

NO

YES

2

3

4

5

6 7

 Implement 

solution(s)

End 

Process

FIGURE 1: NPS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 5 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Potential Solutions

Visitor Access/

Experience

Resource

Protection

To an extent, a transportation system can be thought of somewhat like an ecosystem, 

whereby the “health” of the system depends on the interrelationship between elements 

such as air, water, soil, flora and fauna. The elements of the transportation system that 

need to be balanced include entrance roads and entrance gates/stations, roads within 

the unit, parking spaces/lots and the interaction between vehicular traffic and other 

modes such as bicycles and pedestrians. 

How Congestion Relates to Other Issues

Unlike solving congestion on county roads, state highways, or the national interstate 

system, addressing congestion in national parks must consider the enabling legislation 

and mission of the NPS: 

“The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources 

and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration 

of this and future generations.” 

Solving congestion issues in a park is a part of a much larger process. As shown in 

Figure 2, the right types of transportation and congestion solutions often can help to 

address the demands of visitor access, while also preserving and enhancing visitor 

experience and protecting natural and cultural resources.

FIGURE 1: NPS CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS

To find an effective congestion management tool, parks must consider management 

of the entire transportation system (roads, parking, safety, visitor use patterns). 

Eliminating congestion at one location can create congestion problems elsewhere; 

therefore a system approach is needed. For example, using dynamic (or variable) 

message signs to send visitors to one attraction because another area is “full” may 

create congestion at the second location. Use of transit can relieve parking demand at 

specific destinations, but will likely create heavy visitor pulses, and can increase overall 

parking demand. Potential impacts on visitor experience, safety, and natural and 

cultural resources in the park will be primary concerns.

Using the Toolkit

In addition to this Introduction, this Toolkit provides the following:

Congestion Management Toolkit Summary Table

The summary table provides a “snap-shot” view of the solutions/tools available, with 

the following information: 

• Solution type/category

• Solution name and brief description

• Strategies achieved/effects of the solution when implemented (abbreviated)

• Location/emphasis areas for implementation (abbreviated)

• Relative costs—both capital and operating

Low = $0 to $50,000

Med = $50,000 to $100,000

High = $100,000 to $250,000

Higher = $250,000 +

• Time to implement

Immediate = Less than 1 year

Near Term = 1 to 3 years

Longer Term = 3 to 6 years

Beyond 6 years

• Examples (places where the solution has been implemented or other information) 

Solution/Tool Fact Sheets

More specific information is provided for each solution/tool to help park staff evaluate 

those that might best address their congestion problem. Each fact sheet contains:
MARCH 2014

6 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

• Solution Type; Solution Number; and Solution/Tool Name

• Photographic example of the solution, and a General Description

• Location/Emphasis Area: locations that should benefit from the implemented 

solution/tool

• Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution (when implemented)

• Implementation Considerations (including pros and cons)

• Coordination/Partnerships: other parties that may have a role in implementation

• Time to Implement (how long it typically takes to implement the solution/tool)

• Cost/Financial Information: includes estimated capital costs as well as estimated 

operating and maintenance costs

• Examples of Implementation: where the solution/tool has been implemented

• Performance Standard/Measure: how the solution/tool is monitored/measured 

• Additional Resources: additional information pertinent to the solution/tool

Appendices

• Acronyms and frequently used terms/glossary

• Links to related documents, resources, etc.

• References

Categories of Tools

This Toolkit provides a comprehensive set of potential solutions/tools for addressing 

congestion in national park settings. These solutions are categorized by the five types 

of congestion management approaches listed below. The solutions are presented first in 

a summary format in the Congestion Management Toolkit Summary Tables, and then 

described in more detail in the fact sheets.

Types of Congestion Management Approaches(types/categories):

Additional Capacity (AC): These solutions focus on creating more capacity in the system 

(creating more parking spaces or adding additional travel lanes). Note that this approach 

includes some of the most costly, lengthy, and difficult solutions to implement. 

Electronic Systems (ES): These solutions are often referred to as “intelligent” 

system (or intelligent transportation system “ITS”). These solutions include systems 

that can both collect information (such as how many parking spots may be available in 

a parking lot), and present information to travelers, through dynamic message signs or 

other visitor notification methods.

Public Transportation (PT): Often referred to as a “shuttle” or “bus” service, public 

transportation solutions include putting multiple carloads of people on a van, bus, tram, 

or other higher capacity vehicle to get them to a destination or destinations. Public 

transportation solutions can often reduce the number of vehicles on a roadway or parking 

area, but can be costly to operate and maintain and can have unintended consequences 

which could simply move crowding and reduced visitor experience downstream.

Traffic Operational Improvements (TOI): These solutions may include static 

signage that improves “wayfinding” so that visitors find their destinations more quickly, 

adding a turn lane to reduce traffic conflicts, or other improvements, such as reducing or 

increasing speed limits on roadways.

Visitor Demand Management (VDM): These solutions influence the choices 

that visitors make about how, when, where, whether, and which way they travel to their 

destinations. As used within this Toolkit, which focuses on vehicular congestion, the 

VDM solutions are “traffic” or “transportation” focused. These solutions include tools 

such as reservation systems to try and influence when people may enter a park, or may 

include Electronic Systems (ES) that may provide information to travelers that a certain 

location/feature may be crowded.
MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 7 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

How to Evaluate Tools

As you review the potential solutions, remember to compare them to the problems 

occurring at your park, and in the context of the park’s entire transportation system. 

Review potential solutions to determine which may be the most cost-effective. 

Remember that congestion can occur at various locations, and for various reasons. 

According to a 2010 park survey, the common areas where congestion occurs include:

1. Parking lots

2. Roadways providing access to the park and within gateway communities

3. Visitor centers/trailheads/major attractions

4. Park entrance stations

5. Vehicle tour routes in parks/internal roadways

Typical issues affected by congestion include the visitor experience, visitor and 

employee safety, and overall park operations. When reviewing the tools (potential 

solutions), keep in mind that there are some common reasons for congestion in parks. 

Further, some causes of congestion are easier to remedy than others. Physical or 

“system” issues, which are generally easier to define and address, can include: 

• Limited capacity at entrance gates which leads to queues (a significant number of 

visitors try to enter the park at the same time, such as “the peak entrance time”);

• Exceeding capacity of parking lots (a significant number of visitors want to see the 

same attraction at the same time, such as “the main attraction” at the park);

• Under-designed or improperly controlled intersections (visitors who want to travel 

straight through an intersection may be delayed behind visitors who want to make 

a left-hand turn to another roadway, or having a type of intersection control that is 

inappropriate for the traffic volume); and

• The number of vehicles exceeding capacity on roadways leading to the park or in 

gateway communities (there are simply more vehicles on the roadway than there is 

capacity within the roadway network).

Non-recurring or “behavioral” issues may be more difficult to define, are generally more 

fluid, and may be more difficult to address. These issues include:

• “Animal Jams” (visitors pull over on a roadside, or stop in the middle of the road to look at 

a bear, moose, etc., and reduce or eliminate the ability of vehicles to move through the area); 

• Sightseeing from vehicles (visitors may stop unexpectedly to view and photograph 

sights and features in the park); and

• Speed, not in terms of excessive speed, but that visitors may travel slowly within the 

park or along a more scenic part of a route. 

While there are various locations and reasons for congestion occurring within 

and approaching parks, planning for congestion mitigation is part of a holistic 

‘transportation system’ approach. There are numerous factors to consider such as 

safety; circulation; up-front costs and available funding; total cost of ownership; visitor 

experience; and public perceptions.

Managing Expectations

When considering congestion management tools, realistic expectations of the amount of 

“shift” in visitor use patterns needs to be modest. Unless a tool like a reservation system 

is deployed, parks can typically expect a shift of about 5-15% of visitors by using the 

solutions noted in this Toolkit. Using multiple solutions can increase these percentages. 

However, using multiple tools raises complexity and can affect the amount of park staff 

time needed to manage the transportation system.

Managing congestion, at least some causes of congestion, is often difficult as the cause of the 

congestion is human behavior. As noted earlier, sometime congestion can be caused when 

drivers stop suddenly on a roadway to take a picture of a site or animal, or drive more slowly 

to enjoy the scenery. “Animal jams” occur suddenly and without notice. It is difficult to 

address some of these issues, although solutions such as quickly dispatching a Park Ranger 

or other personnel to control traffic are tools that can be used.
MARCH 2014

8 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

In addition, some of the solutions have unintended consequences. As noted earlier in 

this document, while a shuttle (or transit) system may alleviate the number of vehicles 

from a roadway or parking lot, the bus has the ability to disembark a large number of 

visitors at one location (a visitor center, trailhead, etc.) at one time. 

Finally, congestion in the National Parks is often the result of simply too many people 

wanting to visit a park, or see a particular site or feature, at the same time. Our National 

Parks have been created to protect specific sites, features and natural landscapes. As noted 

in this document, parks must strike a balance between the visitor experience, and the 

protection of resources. While the tools herein can provide solutions to congestion issues, 

parks must remember that simply solving congestion isn’t the only issue, and is part of a 

broader context and planning effort.

As noted herein, the Toolkit should be used as part of a process to determine if there 

are congestion issues and if so, the extent of the congestion issues. The information 

herein should help in the process to determine the most cost-effective solutions to be 

implemented. As noted earlier in the document: 

A common mistake has been to apply for and to accept highway program funding, 

but to be unprepared to complete the project, and/or operate and maintain the 

project after its completion. Sufficient staffing resources are required for the 

design, on-the-ground work, administrative assistance, maintenance, and the 

determination of sources for matching funds. The FLMA should understand the level 

of commitment required and be fully prepared to commit the resources necessary to 

implement, operate, and maintain a project prior to beginning the first phase of the 

transportation planning process. Partners can, and often do, assume responsibility 

for operating or maintaining a project or service after they are implemented.2

Important Considerations/Cautions

The information contained in the Summary Table and more importantly in each tool/

solution “fact sheet” is the most current information available from public sources. It is 

important to remember three components of the process and information noted herein:

Planning and Implementation Timelines

The information provided on planning and implementing the various tools does not necessarily 

include the time for the overall planning and implementation process. The information 

provided in the fact sheets focuses more on the time to implement the specific tool/solution, and 

may not include the time to plan, design, obtain funding, procure and implement the solution. 

Also, when coordinating with other agencies, remember that the Regional Federal 

Lands Highway Office (FHWA) often provides design and construction project 

management, however, they do not own the roads within a park (their role is spelled out 

in an interagency agreement), and the Park Service typically doesn’t consult them on 

routine operational and maintenance issues or in minor road/parking lot projects.

Costs

The cost information provided for each tool/solution is based on the most current and 

publicly available data. It is important to realize that costs can vary significantly 

based on location, terrain, the number of units to be ordered and other factors, 

such as the cost of staff to manage or implement a solution. Therefore, while the 

fact sheets for the tools may contain what appears to be “detailed” cost estimates 

understand the variability that may exist between parks. 

It is also important to consider the operational costs of implementing a tool overtime 

(the long-term or life-cycle costs of the solution). For example, operating a bus/shuttle 

system over a number of years can cost a significant amount of money, and operating 

costs such as fuel, maintenance, etc., tend to increase annually. When calculating costs, 

remember the lifecycle of the transportation components as follows: 

Lifecycle of Transportation Components

As shown in Figure 3 and described below, there are four primary stages that affect 

consideration, implementation, and ongoing management of various transportation solutions.

• PLANNING

Utilizing the planning process and congestion management process to determine if 

transportation/congestion projects need to be implemented

• IMPLEMENTATION

Initial capital expenses associated with construction and/or procurement

• OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE 

Annual costs of operating and maintaining the systems, such as shuttle systems, trails, 

roadways, etc.

• REPLACEMENT/EXPANSION

Expanding the system (adding capacity), or replacing vehicles (shuttles/buses) or 

rehabilitation of trails, roadways, etc.

Performance Measures

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System 

Process, the park/unit should have quantified the level of congestion to determine 
MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 9 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Determine 

needed 

transportation/

congestion 

projects

Replace or

expand systems 

to serve needs

Procure 

capital to 

implement 

solutions

Commit to 

ongoing 

operations and 

maintainance

PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATI

O

N

MAINTENANCE

EXPANSION

REPLACEMENT/ OPERATIONS/

FIGURE 3: LIFECYCLE OF TRANSPORTATION COMPONENTS

if mitigation is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of a particular tool on 

reducing (improving) that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 

should be repeated, and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the tool. However, 

each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness 

of the tool itself, but may not necessarily correlate to a reduction in congestion. 

For example, a transit/shuttle service may have increasing ridership each year, but 

congestion may not be reduced, due to an overall increase in visitation to the park. 

Ultimately, each tool/solution that is implemented should be judged on how well 

it reduces congestion.

Conclusion

Many parks, and areas surrounding the parks, experience congestion. Further, many 

parks have already implemented solutions to try and manage the congestion that is 

occurring. In understanding and managing congestion, it is important to go through 

the seven-step congestion management process. By going through the first few steps of 

the process, a park will be able to determine if the congestion that may be occurring 

should be addressed. 

From there, this Toolkit will help the park in understanding what potential solutions/

tools exist. The process then provides a roadmap for the evaluation of alternatives, 

which may lead to the implementation of a particular solution or solutions. A park 

should monitor the solutions that are implemented to determine if they are having an 

effect on congestion. If not, the Toolkit should be revisited to determine if additional 

tools/solutions should be implemented.
MARCH 2014 | SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY

10 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

ADDITIONAL 

CAPACITY 

(AC)

ALTERNATIVE 

MODES 

(AM)

DEMAND 

MANAGEMENT 

(DM)

INCREASE 

THROUGHPUT 

(IT)

GATEWAY 

COMMUNITIES (GC)

PARK ENTRANCES/

ENTRANCE 

STATIONS (PE)

PARKING AREAS (PA)

ROADWAYS WITHIN 

THE PARK (RWP)

ROADWAYS 

PROVIDING ACCESS 

TO THE PARK (RPA)

VISITOR CENTERS (VC)

LOW 

($0 TO $50,000)

MEDIUM 

($50,000 TO 

$100,000)

HIGH 

($100,000 TO 

$250,000)

HIGHER 

(ABOVE $250,000)

IMMEDIATE 

(LESS THAN

1 YEAR)

NEAR TERM 

(1 TO 3 YEARS)

LONGER TERM 

(3 TO 6 YEARS)

BEYOND 6 YEARS

AC-1 ADD ENTRANCE LANES/STATIONS/BOOTHS

If tools for more efficiently operating the entrance stations do not reduce 

congestion to an acceptable level, then adding entrance lanes/stations/booths may 

be necessary to increase throughput and decrease congestion and delay time.

19 AC, IT PE, RPA Medium to High Near Term

AC-2 LIMITED ACCESS ONLY LANES AT ENTRANCES

A limited access lane is a lane that can only be used by a certain portion of the 

vehicle traffic (employees, concessionaires, delivery trucks, passholder, etc.). By 

removing this portion of vehicle traffic from the normal flow, visitors will have 

decreased delay, shorter queues, and possibly an increased visitor experience.

21 AC, IT PE, RPA Medium to High Near Term

AC-3 EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY

Trying to find parking at a popular attraction within a park can be a source of 

congestion as vehicles drive around looking for parking, perhaps even leading 

to parking on roadway shoulders and other “no parking” areas. In some cases, 

parking management/parking area improvements or promoting the use of park 

and ride facilities can lessen this impact, but in others, the best option may be to 

increase the parking supply. 

23 AC PA, RWP Higher Longer Term

AC-4 EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Providing additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities allow visitors to travel to these 

major destinations by an alternate mode. Facilities could include widened road 

shoulders, a separated multi-use/non-motorized paved pathway, and unpaved trails. 

25 AC, AM RWP, RPA Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years

Solution/Tool Summary
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 11 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

AC-5 INCREASE ROAD CAPACITY

Increasing roadway capacity can reduce congestion by increasing the available 

space for vehicles, increasing throughput, and allowing space for vehicles to 

pass slow moving or turning vehicles. However, this tool should not be utilized 

purely for congestion management; it should be considered only when the 

improvement would also improve safety.

28 AC, IT RWP Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER

511 is America’s Traveler Information Phone Number. 511 systems provide local 

traveler information such as traffic congestion, maintenance, construction, 

tourism, road conditions, and public transportation.

30 AM, DM GC, PE, RWP, RPA Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

ES-2 AUTOMATED GATE ACCESS

Automated gates can be installed at entrance stations in conjunction with 

limited access only lanes to allow staff and concessionaires (or others who 

enter regularly) to more quickly pass through entrance points and bypass the 

congested entrance lines by using a similar to how “EZ Pass” works on a tollway.

33 IT PE, RPA High to Higher Near Term

ES-3 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 bus or the park. Generally prepayment is 

done online or at an automated fee machine (kiosk for self-paying fees) in the 

gateway community.

35 AM, IT GC, PE, RPA, VC Low to Medium 

to High

Near Term

ES-4 CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION

Closed circuit television allows information to be gathered that can be utilized 

in visitor demand management such as monitoring traffic congestion, length of 

lines at entrance lanes, and parking lot capacity. Cameras can also be used to 

view weather and road conditions, both of which can influence traffic speeds 

and perhaps lead to congestion issues. 

38 DM PE, PA, RWP Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN

Dynamic/Variable message signs (both portable and permanent) are used to 

provide en-route information to travelers. 

40 AM, DM GC, PE, RWP, RPA Low to Medium 

to High

Immediate to 

Near Term

ES-6 ELECTRONIC FARE PAYMENT SYSTEMS

Electronic fare payment systems are available onboard transit to allow visitors 

to quickly pay when boarding. 

43 AM, IT GC, PE Low to Medium Near Term
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

MARCH 2014 | SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY

12 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO

Highway advisory radio is a low-powered radio broadcast on AM stations. It 

can be obtained in both permanent and portable form and communications to 

update the repeated message can be either cellular or satellite. Motorists are 

alerted to tune to an AM station to listen to the radio broadcast via a sign with 

flashing beacons.

45 AM, DM GC, PE, RWP, RPA Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

ES-8 KIOSKS

Kiosks are an interactive, computerized way of providing traveler information 

such as less crowded attractions/destinations to visit, parking conditions, status of 

transit. Kiosks can also be used for prepayment of entrance fees and transit fees.

48 AM, DM GC, PE, PA, RWP Low to Medium Near Term

ES-9 ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Road weather information systems use sensors located within or alongside 

the roadway to measure weather’s effect on the roadway so motorists and 

maintenance staff can be warned; however, they must be used in conjunction 

with a traveler information tool such as 511, dynamic/variable message signs 

and/or media/social media/mobile device apps.

50 DM RWP, RPA Medium Near Term

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION

Transit signal prioritization is a traffic signal that provides prioritization for 

transit vehicles (over private automobiles) through intersections and is generally 

utilized in highly urbanized areas. 

52 AM, IT PE, RWP, RPA Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS

Transit/shuttle services is a method to transport visitors to and around the 

park/unit without the use of a private automobile.

54 AM, DM, IT RWP, RPA High to Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM

Addint capacity to the transit system can be completed by adding more shuttles, 

by decreasing time between the shuttles arriving at a destination, or by adding 

additional routes. 

57 AM, DM, IT GC, RWP, RPA, VC High to Higher Immediate to 

Near Term

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI

Unlike a bus that typically uses the same roadways as visitors’ vehicles, ferries 

and water taxis provide visitors an alternative route that they would not 

experience in their personal automobiles. 

60 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 13 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES

New or expanded multimodal facilities include those facilities necessary for 

transit, ferries (or water taxis), bicycling, and walking. Examples of these facilities 

may include bus stops, bus shelters, ferry docks, bike racks, shared use paths, 

canoe launches/landings, intermodal centers, and other types of improvements.

63 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Low to Medium to 

High to Higher

Immediate to 

Near Term to 

Longer Term

PT-5 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. "

65 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

PA, RWP, RPA Higher Longer Term

PT-6 RAIL

In a national park setting, rail is generally utilized in two ways (1) for visitors to 

access the park/unit such as with commuter rail, subways, or Amtrak service, and 

(2) as part of the visitor experience of moving within the park/unit on a tour.

69 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION

Travel lanes on the roadway or at entrance stations reserved specifically for use 

by transit.

72 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

PE, RWP, RPA Higher Near Term to 

Longer Term

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS

Carpools (or carpooling) are typically connected with ridesharing using cars/

privately owned automobiles, whereas vanpools are ridesharing in vans (often 13-15 

passenger vans) that are purchased, leased, or rented specifically for ridesharing. 

74 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

Transit technology applications can include automated vehicle location systems 

(AVL), which are electronic systems that focus on tracking buses through GPS; 

automated passenger counting (boarding) systems; systems that automatically 

track maintenance issues; in-vehicle electronic information such as stop 

annunciation and electronic display boards; and transit status signs to provide 

users with bus arrival times (often referred to as “next bus” signs).

76 AM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Medium to High Near Term

TOI-1 ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES

Acceleration/deceleration traffic lanes, also known as “climbing” or “passing” 

lanes allow faster moving vehicles to use a separate lane to pass slower vehicles. 

79 AC, IT RWP, RPA Higher Longer Term to 

Beyond 6 years
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

MARCH 2014 | SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY

14 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT

Access management includes a set of techniques that a park/unit, as well as state 

and local governments can use to control access (closing or moving some, etc.) to 

and along highways, major arterials, and other roadways to improve traffic flow.

81 DM, IT GC, PA, RWP, RPA Medium to High Near Term

TOI-3 ANIMAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS

Wildlife crossing structures can be overpasses or underpasses and can vary in width 

(roadway length) from a few meters (such as a box culvert) to 50 meters or wider. 

84 IT RWP, RPA Higher Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES)

A “complete street” is a street that is a safe, comfortable, integrated 

transportation network for all users (and modes), regardless of age, ability, 

income, ethnicity, or mode of transportation. Complete streets are achieved 

both by having a policy (or policies) that encourage them, as well as having the 

infrastructure/facilities that serve all modes of transportation. 

87 AC, AM, DM GC, PE, RWP, RPA High to Higher Near Term

TOI-5 ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Specifying the road shoulder as a no-parking area through clear signing, striping, 

and/or additional enforcement will improve traffic flow and safety of the roadway. 

90 DM, IT PA, RWP Low Near Term

TOI-6 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS

Geometric improvements include alternative intersection designs, right/left turn 

lanes, and passing lanes.

92 AC GC, RWP, RPA Low to Medium to 

High to Higher

Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Providing a bridge or underpass for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross roadways or 

highways not only can improve the safety, comfort, and visitor experience for 

non-motorized visitors, but also can reduce congestion on the roadway.

95 AC, AM, IT RWP, RPA High to Higher Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

(GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES)

Intersection improvements include two-way or yield control, multi-way stop control, 

roundabout, and signalization.

98 AC, IT GC, RWP, RPA Low to Medium to 

High to Higher

Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Traffic incident management is about developing and implementing an incident 

management plan. This solution does not directly involve tangible hardware or 

infrastructure improvements, but is highly related to other tools that speed up 

detection of incidents.

101 DM, IT GC, PE, RWP, RPA Medium to High Near Term
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 15 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-10 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. 

103 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES 

(INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES)

This tool involves management techniques such as one-way or reversible lanes 

for changing traffic flow patterns and circulation to reduce congestion. 

105 AC, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Low to Medium 

to High

Near Term

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS

Parking management is a solution whereby visitors are informed either by 

a person/staff or by signage that a parking lot is full, and that they need to 

proceed to another lot. Parking area improvements may include modifying 

the lot to decrease traffic conflicts and limiting the number of access points 

(entrances and exits) to a parking area.

109 AC, DM, IT GC, PA, RWP Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS

Roadway pull-outs can be used for slower traffic to move out of the travel lane 

and allow faster traffic to pass by, 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.

112 AC, IT PA, RWP, RPA Medium to High Near Term to 

Longer Term

TOI-14 ROAD WEATHER MANAGEMENT

Managing park/unit roadways for these types of weather events can cause safer 

conditions and less congestion. Management techniques include road closures 

(temporary or seasonal), providing traveler information about road closures and 

weather advisories, and roadway weather related maintenance and management.

114 DM RWP, RPA Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

TOI-15 SERVICE/COURTESY PATROLS

Examples of assistance provided by a service/courtesy patrol include servicing 

disabled vehicles, removing stranded or disabled vehicles, removing debris from 

the roadway, transporting stranded motorists, assisting motorists locked out of 

their vehicles, providing traffic control, and providing directions or a cell phone.

117 IT PA, RWP, RPA Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING

Signage and wayfinding techniques guide visitors to their destinations and are 

particularly helpful in an unfamiliar environment.

120 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

MARCH 2014 | SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY

16 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-17 SPEED MANAGEMENT

This tool has three variations of implementation (1) increase compliance of 

existing posted speed limits, (2) reduce the maximum posted speed limit, and (3) 

implement a variable speed limit. 

123 IT RWP, RPA Medium to High 

to Higher

Near Term

TOI-18 TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming is used to slow traffic down primarily for safety reasons, such as 

slowing vehicles down in high pedestrian areas. Some common traffic calming 

measures include traffic humps, narrower travel lanes and islands and medians.

126 DM, IT RWP, RPA Low to Medium Near Term

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data is a tool that can be used to help a park/unit understand their existing 

conditions and determine their transportation issues (help define the frequency 

and magnitude of congestion issues). 

129 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Higher Immediate to 

Near Term

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS

Prohibiting or restricting turning movements at intersections, parking lots, and/

or visitor centers can improve traffic flow by eliminating the slower/stopped 

traffic attempting to turn left which improves efficiency.

132 IT PA, RWP, RPA, VC Medium Near Term

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS

Prohibiting or restricting certain vehicles (or certain sized vehicles) from areas 

in a park/unit can help improve traffic flow (reduce congestion), enhance visitor 

experience, and protect resources. 

134 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT

Proper management of a work zone can decrease the impact the work zone will 

have on congestion. Work zone management includes monitoring traffic and 

providing traveler information. 

137 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES

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, which may be from March through June and 

September through November in some areas, or non-peak travel times.

140 DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Low to Medium 

to High

Immediate to 

Near Term
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 17 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS

Tours can be offered to ‘undiscovered gems’ as well as popular park destinations. 

They can be used to (1) shift visitors to a different mode of travel by offering tours 

via foot, bicycle, and transit; (2) encourage visitors to avoid of peak travel times by 

offering tours before and after peak times and (3) encourage visitors to visit less 

congested areas by adding these locations to the tour route. 

143 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA

Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

Congestion pricing adjusts the cost of transportation facilities, such as roads 

and parking lots. Increasing costs during congested or peak visitation periods 

and decreasing costs during off-peak periods can encourage visitors to visit a 

park during off-peak periods (hours, days, seasons) or to use alternative modes. 

146 AM, DM GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Medium to High 

to Higher

Near Term

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS

Encouraging visitors to go to attractions in less congested areas can decrease 

congestion and increase visitor experiences. 

149 DM, IT PE, PA, RWP Low to Medium 

to High

Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-5 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 to an abundance of people.

152 AM, DM GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Low to Medium Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-6 PARKING FEES

Adjusting parking fees by increasing costs at congested/high-utilization times or 

decreasing costs during non-congested times can encourage visitors to visit the parks 

during off-peak periods, adjust their visitation times, or to use alternative modes. 

155 AM, DM PA, RWP, RPA, VC Medium to High 

to Higher

Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-7 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.

158 AC, AM, DM, 

IT

GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Low to Medium to 

High to Higher

Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

(INCLUDING BIKE SHARING)

Promoting bicycle and pedestrian access can be done by (1) marketing, (2) 

providing necessary facilities, (3) providing incentives/promotions, and (4) 

through national programs.

161 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term to 

Longer Term
TOOL # TOOL NAME/DESCRIPTION

PAGE

#

STRATEGIES 

ACHIEVED

LOCATION/

EMPHASIS AREA CAPTIAL COSTS

TIME TO 

IMPLEMENT

MARCH 2014 | SOLUTION/TOOL SUMMARY

18 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VDM-9 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.

164 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, RWP, RPA Low Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-10 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. 

167 AM, DM, IT GC, PE, RWP, RPA Medium to High Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS

Reservations systems are a great way to 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. 

170 DM, IT PE, PA, RWP Medium to High 

to Higher

Immediate to 

Near Term

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS

A simple and inexpensive way to help manage congestion would be to take 

advantage of the existing visitor centers and their role within the park and gateway 

community to provide information to visitors related to congestion management. 

173 AM, DM PA, RWP, VC Low to Medium Immediate

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION

(VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES)

A simple, low-cost technique to utilize existing services (e.g., website, hotels, 

and gateway communities) to provide traveler information about congestion 

management to visitors. 

175 AM, DM GC, PE, PA, RWP, 

RPA, VC

Low to Medium Immediate
AC

Congestion Management Toolkit 19 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

General Description

If tools for more efficiently operating the entrance stations do not 

reduce congestion to an acceptable level, then adding entrance lanes/

stations/booths may be necessary. Additional capacity allows for more 

throughput which decreases congestion and delay time. 

In conjunction with adding capacity at entrance stations, other operational 

efficiencies can be considered such as changing geometric configurations 

for locating booths in tandem so two cars can be assisted at once similar 

to toll booths and border crossings; adding separate limited access 

only lanes for a portion of the traffic such as pass holders, employees, 

concessionaires, and transit (see AC-2); or adding technology such as 

automated gate access (see ES-2) or automated fee machines (see ES-3).

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Consideration

PROS

•	 Adding entrance stations/booths can allow for increased throughput.

•	 Additional capacity can allow for geometric reconfigurations.

•	 This can be accomplished in conjunction with adding limited access only lanes for

pass holders, employees, and/or concessionaires (see AC-2) potentially by automated

gate access (see ES-2).

•	 Staffing of the additional booth(s) may only be necessary during times of congestion.

CONS

•	 Environmental analysis will be needed to ensure that additional entrance lanes/

stations/booths can be constructed without impacting natural and cultural resources

that the park may be trying to protect.

•	 Additional entrance lanes/stations/booths can increase the number of vehicles entering

the park/unit at a time which can raise the parking demand downstream in the park/unit.

•	 Additional staffing would be needed for additional booths.

•	 Tandem booths would not increase capacity as much as an additional lane because a

vehicle at the first booth would sometimes block the second booth.









1

SOLUTION/TOOL: Add Entrance Station/

 Booths and/or Lanes

TYPE: Additional Capacity
20 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

•	 Although there may be adequate space in a rural park/unit to consider adding

entrance lanes/stations/booths, an urban park/unit is generally limited on available

space for these types of improvements.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination/Partnerships The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement,

obtaining funding, planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study,

coordination/partnership outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/

implementation) for this tool is near term (1 to 3 years). The construction portion of this

project will take less time if the existing roadway has sufficient width for the planned

improvements as opposed to if additional roadway must be constructed.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). The construction portion of this project will take less time if

the existing roadway has sufficient width for the planned improvements as opposed to if

additional roadway must be constructed.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the construction portion only typically ranges from $25,000 for

a basic structure up to $100,000 or more for a more detailed design (expanded apron,

booth, and technology improvements)1. The costs associated with an automated gate are

provided in tool ES-2. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include the cost to staff the additional booth(s)

and maintenance such as upkeep on the entrance booth; repaving and restriping the

entrance lane; and plowing/sanding the additional lane. The costs associated with an

automated gate are provided in tool ES-2.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Grand Canyon National Park increased the number of entrance booths at the South

Rim entrance to reduce congestion.

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44253/Visitor_Access_and_Transportation_Guide.pdf

•	 Arches National Park created a new entrance in 2004 with an additional entrance

booth and additional space for queuing.

•	 http://moabtimes.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Arches+National+Park+op

ens+new+entrance-+fee+booth%20&id=67467

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduction in process time.

•	 Reduction in queue length.

Additional Resources

•	 Service Times and Capacity at National Park Entrance Stations - http://www.nps.

gov/transportation/pdfs/NP_Entrance_Stations_Study.pdf
AC

Congestion Management Toolkit 21 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Additional capacity can allow for increased throughput.

•	 Limited access only lanes can decrease delay time for those using the lanes as well 

as visitors.

CONS

•	 Repurposing an existing entrance lane as a limited access only lane can reduce the

overall entrance station capacity; therefore increasing congestion. A limited access

only lane should only be considered when adding another lane (see AC-1)2.

•	 While taking some traffic out of the congestion stream will have positive impacts, in

some cases, a greater impact may be seen by adding additional entrances for visitors

(see AC-1).

•	 If geometric constraints exist at the entrance, those using the limited access only

lanes may still get stuck in visitor congestion.

•	 Environmental analysis will be needed to ensure that limited access only lanes can be

constructed without impacting natural and cultural resources that the park may be

trying to protect.

General Description

A limited access lane is a lane that can only be used by a certain portion 

of the vehicle traffic. By removing this portion of vehicle traffic from 

the normal flow, visitors will have decreased delay, shorter queues, and 

possibly an increased visitor experience. In a park/unit, a limited access 

lane is typically available to those that do not need to pay entrance fees 

or ask questions such as employees, concessionaires, delivery trucks, 

and transit (see PT-7). This lane can also be used by pass holders if used 

in conjunction with an automated gate (see ES-2) or visitors who prepay 

the entrance fees (see ES-3). 

This tool provides benefits to those using the limited access lane, by 

increasing efficiency, decreasing delay, and increasing their ability to 

stay on schedule. This tool is essentially identical to the add entrance 

lanes/stations/booths tool (see AC-1) except that it is for a particular 

portion of the vehicle traffic. 









2

SOLUTION/TOOL: Limited Access Only Lanes

 at Entrances

TYPE: Additional Capacity
22 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

•	 Although there may be adequate space in a rural park/unit to consider adding

entrance lanes/stations/booths, an urban park/unit is generally limited on available

space for these types of improvements.

Coordination/Partnerships

The park may need to coordinate or partner with the gateway community or a jurisdiction

that owns or operates the roadway where the limited access only lanes will be added.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). The construction portion of this project will take less time if

the existing roadway has sufficient width for the planned improvements as opposed to if

additional roadway must be constructed.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the construction portion only typically ranges from $25,000 for

a basic structure up to $100,000 or more for a more detailed design (expanded apron,

booth, and technology improvements)1. The costs associated with an automated gate are

provided in tool ES-2. 

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Grand Teton National Park has one entrance lane dedicated for season pass holders

and employees.

•	 Yellowstone National Park also has an entrance lane dedicated to employees.

•	 Beaver Meadows entrance station at Rocky Mountain National Park has automated

entry for annual pass holders, employees, and vendors.

•	 Zion National Park has an automated lane for employees.

•	 Bryce Canyon National Park has an automated lane for employees, vendors, and

transit vehicles2.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is

needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that

congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduction in average flow time.

•	 Reduction in queue length.

Additional Resources

•	 AVI at Yellowstone National Park - http://www.coe.montana.edu/ce/patm/pubs/

gyrits/Work%20Order%20II-2D%20AVI%20final.pdf

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include the cost to staff the additional booth

(if necessary) and maintenance such as upkeep on the entrance booth; repaving and

restriping the entrance lane; and plowing/sanding the additional lane. The costs

associated with an automated gate are provided in tool ES-2.
AC

Congestion Management Toolkit 23 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

General Description

Trying to find parking at a popular attraction within a park can be a 

source of congestion as vehicles drive around looking for parking, 

perhaps even leading to parking on roadway shoulders and other 

“no parking” areas. A lack of parking can also be a major source of 

frustration for visitors. In some cases, parking management/parking 

area improvements (see TOI-12) or promoting the use of park and ride 

facilities (see PT-5) can lessen this impact, but in others, the best option 

may be to increase the parking supply. 

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Additional parking can reduce circling/idling of vehicles waiting for parking.

•	 Expanding the parking supply can reduce parking lot congestion.

•	 The need for staffing to manage parking can be reduced by providing more parking.

CONS

•	 Environmental analysis will be needed to ensure that additional parking can be

constructed without impacting natural and cultural resources that the park may be

trying to protect.

•	 Additional parking can increase the number of people able to visit an attraction at

any given time, which can increase crowding.

•	 Parking expansion may help in the short-term, but if visitation increases in the longterm, the issue may occur again3

.

•	 Although there may be adequate space in a rural park/unit to consider adding parking, an

urban park/unit is generally limited on available space for these types of improvements.

•	 If the parking will be located outside the park/unit, it should be noted that land

acquisition in an urban area will cost significantly more than in a rural area.







3 SOLUTION/TOOL: Expand Parking Supply

TYPE: Additional Capacity
24 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination with the gateway community would be necessary if the parking lot will be

constructed in the gateway community. Coordination would also be necessary with the

transit provider if the new lot will be a park-and-ride lot (see PT-5).

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is longer term (3 to 6 years).

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 and 2010 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation would be

higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the average developmental cost per parking space for a surface

lot is around $4,000 to $5,000 per space4. This was corroborated as the Grand Canyon

National Park park-and-ride cost around $4,700 per parking space5.

Costs vary by type of facility. Multi-level, above grade, or below grade facilities will cost

significantly more than a surface lot.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Grand Canyon National Park added new parking lots in 2009.

•	 http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-canyon-national-park-new-visitorcenter-parking-should-be-open-for-thanksgiving

•	 Haleakala National Park improved parking lots for handicapped visitors in 2013.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/hale/parknews/haleakala-national-park-parking-lotimprovements-continue.htm

•	 National Park Service staff are proposing adding a parking lot to help with parking

for Muir Woods National Monument.

•	 http://millvalley.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/parks-serviceproposes-180vehicle-parking-lot--shuttle-at-muir-woods-some-residents-oppose

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is

needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that

congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Calculation of parking lot occupancy.

•	 Reduction in number of vehicle circling the parking and/or idling lot per hour.

Additional Resources

•	 Contact the park/unit’s National Park Service region’s transportation coordinator or

the Denver Service Center as an additional resource.

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include $400 per space annually for items

such as cleaning, lighting, maintenance, repairs, security services, landscaping, snow

removal, fee collection, enforcement, insurance, labor and administration6.
AC

Congestion Management Toolkit 25 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations









General Description

Many parks have trails that allow visitors, who drive to and park at 

trailheads, to enjoy walking and biking at major destinations. Providing 

additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities allow visitors to travel to 

these major destinations by an alternate mode. Facilities could include 

widened road shoulders, a separated multi-use/non-motorized paved 

pathway, and unpaved trails. 

Even with minimal facilities (only a narrow paved shoulder on the roadway) 

most national parks have some visitation by bicycle and pedestrian modes. 

National parks in northern climates will often have a short period when 

roads are closed to traffic, but snow has been removed. During these 

times, often there is significant bicycle use of the major roadways when 

they are closed to traffic. Additional facilities can increase the use of 

bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel into and through the park.

4

SOLUTION/TOOL: Expand or Improve Bicycle/

 Pedestrian Facilities

TYPE: Additional Capacity

PROS

•	 Provides an alternative visitor experience to auto-touring.

•	 Bicycle/pedestrian facilities can shift auto traffic to alternative modes.

•	 Offers opportunity to expand access to outdoor activities (Healthy Parks, Healthy People).

CONS

•	 A shared use pathway can create parking lot congestion if there is a tendency for

visitors to park at a specific location (i.e., say near park entrance or at the top of a hill)

to begin the bicycle/pedestrian portion of the trip. 

•	 Additional bicycle/pedestrian facilities will typically widen the footprint of the

transportation corridor and can negatively impact wildlife.

•	 Non-motorized facilities can create opportunities for closer interaction with wildlife

creating hazards to visitors and animals.

GENERAL

When considering a pedestrian/bicycle facility to connect major destinations consider

the following:
26 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination for new or expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities should include local

bicycle advocacy groups, local bicycle rentals companies, and gateway communities.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

(assuming a separate multi-use/non-motorized paved trail or pathway) ranges from

longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years.

Separated multi-use/non-motorized paved trails or pathways are generally designed and

constructed in segments or portions due to the cost and time to implement an entire

trail or pathway at one time. The design and construction portion of the first segment

of pathways in Grand Teton National Park took two years after initially proposed

in the transportation plan. If there are no complicated grades or water crossings,

construction can be accomplished within a few months. 

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 1997 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher

(above $250,000).

Capital costs for a separated multi-use/non-motorized paved pathway vary considerably

depending on many factors such as type of materials (such as natural surface, asphalt,

concrete, and/or if materials are available locally) and topography, which affects the

amount of earthwork and cut/fill, the need for drainage structures, etc.) In general, a 10

foot-wide asphalt trail ranges in cost from approximately $50 to $100 per linear foot7 for

the design and construction portion or some practitioners use $500,000 to $1,000,000

per mile for cost estimates8.

Facilities including bicycle lanes and signed bicycle routes are generally less expensive

than a multi-use/non-motorized separated pathway. On average a bicycle lane

costs around $90,000 while a signed bicycle route costs around $27,000 without

improvements and $240,000 with improvements9.

Bicycle racks range in cost from approximately $500 to $1,000 or more including

installation and materials for traditional or wave bicycle racks10.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In

addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include maintenance of the bicycle/

pedestrian facility such as debris cleaning, soil mitigation, removing wildlife droppings,

lawn mowing, and snow removal. Maintenance of the facilities may improve visitor

satisfaction with the facility, particularly for road shoulders. Consideration should be

given to the additional entrance fee collection needs that a pathway may create.

•	 Provide bicycle parking and evaluate need for additional visitor comfort stations at

major destinations.

•	 Plan for a connected non-motorized network.

•	 Consider the need for entrance fee collection of non-motorized visitors.

•	 Compare a widened road shoulder to a separated pathway. A bike lane utilizing a

widened road shoulder may be less expensive, while a separated pathway can be safer

and provides an improved visitor experience.

•	 Consider aesthetics of a pathway from the perspective of non-motorized and

motorized users.

•	 Consider extra treatments (i.e., warning signs, pavement markings) at locations where

non-motorized facilities cross vehicle paths (i.e., approach roads and parking lots).

•	 Consider the sight distance for pathway users as there can be a wide range of speeds

from high speed cyclists to walking visitors.

•	 Consider distance to destinations. Serous cyclists may travel 50 miles or more, where

recreational visitors will typically not travel much more than 10 miles.

•	 Provide way-finding specific to non-motorized visitors.

•	 Provide bicycle rental or bike sharing facilities to increase the use of the pathways/trails.
Congestion Management Toolkit 27 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Grand Teton National Park has more than 100 miles of paves roads and multi-use

pathways for bicycling.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grte/planyourvisit/upload/Bike_12.pdf

•	 Valley Forge National Historical Park has more than 20 miles of bicycling trails

including the Joseph Plumb martin Trail and the Schuylkill River Trail.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/vafo/planyourvisit/hikingtrails.htm

•	 Cape Cod National Seashore provides miles of bicycling trails as well asa bike shuttle

availableonweekendsduringthesummerseasonto/fromshuttle bicycliststonearbytowns.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/caco/planyourvisit/upload/2012biketraillweb.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Increase in number of non-motorized users.

•	 Increase in number of bicycle rentals.

Additional Resources

•	 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities-

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119

•	 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities- http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/ped_bike/docs/b_aashtobik.pdf

•	 Exploring Bicycling Optionsfor Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals and Employee Fleets

-

http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Exp_Bike_Opt_Fed_Land.pdf

•	 Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands- http://www.triptac.org/

Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Exp_Bike_Opt_Fed_Land.pdf

•	 Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements- http://katana.hsrc.

unc.edu/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
AC

28 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ADDITIONAL CAPACITY

General Description

Increasing roadway capacity can reduce congestion by increasing the 

available space for vehicles, increasing throughput, and allowing space 

for vehicles to pass slow moving or turning vehicles. However, this tool 

should not be utilized purely for congestion management; it should be 

considered only when the improvement would also improve safety.

Increasing the roadway capacity can be accomplished in several ways: 

(1) using shoulders as lanes during peak hours and in peak directions, (2) 

reducing lane width to allow for additional lanes on existing pavement 

width, and (3) increasing the number of lanes through reconstruction.

Reconstruction of a roadway, especially in a national park, is a large 

undertaking and very complex. The types of challenges that would need 

to be overcome include complex terrain (including grades, curves, and 

rivers), lack of alternative routes for detours due to reconstruction, lack 

of funding, environmental challenges, and the timing of construction 

season (generally during peak visitation).

This is a highly expensive tool and should only be used in rare circumstances.

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

•	 Reconstruction of a roadway will require an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

PROS

•	 Adding capacity through additional lanes can reduce congestion while 

increasing throughput.

CONS

•	 While using shoulders or decreasing current lane widths allow additional lanes

to be added without reconstruction, these methods may decrease safety and 

increase accidents8.

•	 Additional lanes will typically widen the footprint of the transportation corridor and

can negatively impact wildlife and the resources the park is protecting.

•	 Many national parks do not have enough width near roadways to increase road

capacity due to terrain constraints.

•	 Construction of a roadway in a national park has many challenges including complex

terrain (including grades, curves, and rivers), lack of alternative routes for detours







5 SOLUTION/TOOL: Increase Road Capacity

TYPE: Additional Capacity
Congestion Management Toolkit 29 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY | MARCH 2014

due to reconstruction, lack of funding, environmental challenges, and the timing of

construction season (generally during peak visitation).

•	 Very expensive and complicated tool to implement.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with National Park Service regional staff and/or the

Denver Service Center, the local transportation departments, and the appropriate

regional federal lands highway office.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher

(above $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the design and construction of a lane in a rural setting is $1.6

million to $3.1 million per lane-mile; however, in an environmentally sensitive area the

costs could be larger and range from $5.8 to $9.9 million per lane-mile11. The cost is

significantly less if only utilizing a shoulder, or adding a lane by narrowing the existing

lanes through re-striping.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Massachusetts Department of Transportation allows for shoulder travel during peak

hours in the peak direction on I-95/Route 128 traveling into Boston.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Traffic counts.

•	 Average hourly volume per lane.

Additional Resources

•	 Contact the park/unit’s National Park Service region’s transportation coordinator or

the Denver Service Center as an additional resource.

•	 Park road standards - http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/library/

park-road-std.pdf

•	 A policy on geometric design of highways and streets - https://bookstore.transportation.

org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110

•	 State roadway design manuals - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/

statemanuals.cfm

•	 Project development and design manual - http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/

manuals/pddm/

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications include restriping roads; repaving or resurfacing; patching

potholes; snow removal; sand application and removal; and other maintenance.
ES

30 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 With better information visitors can make more informed decisions about alternative

modes, travel times, or locations to avoid congestion.

CONS

•	 Adding a national park to a 511 system may require (1) the existing main menu that

callers hear to be reconfigured to allow for national park information, (2) restructuring

of the current 511 database used to push information to the phone system to

accommodate new information, and (3) discussion of how to get the information

from the national park and through the firewalls into the database.

•	 There are ongoing costs for maintenance, database upgrades, and per call charges

that need to be negotiated.

•	 Static signing informing motorists of 511 may need to be installed.

GENERAL

•	 The information must be timely, reliable, and accurate as it is a direct reflection of the

owner of the 511 systems (i.e., usually the state department of transportation).













General Description

511 is America’s Traveler Information Phone Number. 511 systems 

provide local traveler information such as traffic congestion, 

maintenance, construction, tourism, road conditions, and public 

transportation. Travelers typically access this information by dialing 

511 on any phone and using a voice activated menu. 511 phone systems 

generally also have corresponding websites and mobile apps. Currently 

there are 45 systems across the nation12 and at least 16 national park 

units with information available via 5113.

1

SOLUTION/TOOL: 511 Traveler Information

 Phone Number

TYPE: Electronic Systems
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 31 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 511 systems are structured differently so typically there are three different ways

for national park information to be included on an existing state department of

transportation system (1) updating information in a database, (2) recording a message

on the system, and (3) transferring the call to a national park phone number/operator.

•	 511 systems are typically oriented towards commuters and freight users; therefore,

using the system for recreational congestion management may be new to a state

department of transportation.

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool will require close coordination with the owner of the 511 system. In most cases

the owner is the state department of transportation.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and implementation) for this tool ranges from immediate

to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement depends on the desired system attributes and capabilities of the

existing system. The design and implementation portion could be as simple as a few

weeks of discussion followed by immediate implementation or 6 to 12 months to design

and build the database structure and system components.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and implementation ranges from low ($0 to $50,000) to

medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital costs, if the current capability of the statewide 511 system can handle

additional park information, there is no design/implementation cost to the national

park. However, in some states an upgrade to the system may be needed that can range

from $1,500 to 30,00013 for design/implementation.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include a $0.25 to $2.00 charge per call13 that the

511 system receives. Typically this is paid by the state department of transportation even for

the national park calls, but this will need to be negotiated prior to implementation. Other

ancillary costs are park staff time to provide information updates and installing static signs.

Some states have investigated including the national parks on 511, but chose not to due

to the cost (e.g., Utah, Washington, etc.).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 511 Montana is operated by the Montana Department of Transportation and includes

information for Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park.

•	 1-800-226-7623

•	 511 Maine is operated by the Maine Department of Transportation and includes

information for Acadia National Park.

•	 1-866-282-7578

•	 511 Arizona is operated by the Arizona Department of Transportation and includes

information for Grand Canyon National Park.

•	 1-888-411-ROAD

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

32 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Calls per month.

•	 Percentage category (includes tourism and transfers).

Additional Resources

•	 511 Deployment Coalition – www.deploy511.org

•	 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/511/
ES

Congestion Management Toolkit 33 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Automated gate access manages vehicle flow in and out of the unit.

•	 In conjunction with a limited access only lane (see AC-2) this can remove pass

holders, employees, transit, and/or concessionaires from the main traffic stream.

•	 Automated gate access can collect accurate and automated usage data3.

CONS

•	 Automated gate access manages vehicle flow in and out of the unit.

•	 In conjunction with a limited access only lane (see AC-2) this can remove pass

holders, employees, transit, and/or concessionaires from the main traffic stream.

•	 Automated gate access can collect accurate and automated usage data3.

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool would require internal coordination to provide employees and concessionaires

with the necessary equipment to utilize the automated gate. If this service was being

provided to visitors, coordination would be necessary with communications staff for

advertising this service as well as those responsible for prepayment of entrance fees.







General Description

Automated gates can be installed at entrance stations in conjunction with 

limited access only lanes (see AC-2) to allow staff and concessionaires 

(or others who enter regularly) to more quickly pass through entrance 

points and bypass the congested entrance lines by using a similar to 

how “EZ Pass” works on a tollway. Automated gates can also be used in 

conjunction with automated fee machines (see ES-3) to collect entrance 

fees from visitors at smaller units. Several methods exist including a credit 

card key, remote control, radio frequency identification transponders, 

smart-card technology, and automatic vehicle identification. 

In a national park setting the easiest use of this tool would be for an 

“employee only” system so the proper equipment for opening the gate 

can be provided. However, if this was allowed for visitors, it could be 

combined with the prepayment of entrance fees tool (see ES-3).

2 SOLUTION/TOOL: Automated Gate Access

TYPE: Electronic Systems
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

34 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). The implementation time depends on the method and gate

type selected, as well as the infrastructure (lanes, geometry, etc.) at the entrance area.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2004, 2005, and 2011 dollars. Cost/

financial information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, 

number of units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be 

used as a magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/

unit. It should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement and installation portion will vary depending

upon the method chosen for the system. Typically gates cost more than $100,000 per

location3. The cost for gate systems begins around $1,000 for a simple swinging gate

and controllers. Systems capable of accommodating multiple users will be significantly

more expensive1. The system at Yellowstone National Park was estimated to cost

approximately $315,000 for two entrances14.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include additional tags which

cost approximately $2014 each, a monthly electricity charge, potential repair and

replacement parts (for example if a vehicle drives through the gate breaking the lever

or if the opening mechanism needs to be replaced). The costs associated with a limited

access only lane are provided in tool AC-2. 

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Little River Canyon National Preserve uses an automated gate for visitors to access

the Canyon Mouth Picnic Area.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/liri/planyourvisit/canyon-mouth-day-use-area.htm

•	 Grand Canyon National Park has a separate entrance lane for visitors who have

pre-paid. They also have some residents that live within the park boundaries. These

residents have a sticker with an RFID tag to allow them to travel through a “fast

lane.” At the entrance station.

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44253/Visitor_Access_and_Transportation_

Guide.pdf

•	 Yellowstone National Park installed automated gates in 2003 for permanent

employees and concessionaires.

•	 http://www.coe.montana.edu/ce/patm/pubs/gyrits/Work%20Order%20II-2D%20

AVI%20final.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is

needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that

congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Decrease in processing time.

•	 Reduction in queue length.

Additional Resources

•	 Automated Gate Access - http://www.cflhd.gov/TTOOLKIT/FLT/FactSheets/

Infrastructure/AUTOMATED%20GATE%20ACCESS.htm

•	 Reducing Congestion at Banff National Park’s East Gate - http://www.ite.org/

Membersonly/annualmeeting/2010/AB10H3904.pdf

•	 Service Times and Capacity at National Park Entrance Stations - http://www.nps.

gov/transportation/pdfs/NP_Entrance_Stations_Study.pdf
ES

Congestion Management Toolkit 35 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Prepayment can reduce congestion at entrance stations, as park staff does not have to

process payments for entrance fees, therefore reducing transaction times.

•	 If fees are prepaid then buses bringing visitors to the park can quickly move through

the entrance station due to the combination of entrance and transit fees.

CONS

•	 If visitors prepay at an automated fee machine or online, they may lose their first

contact with a park/unit staff member for interpretation or questions.

•	 If visitors prepay but the entrance does not have a separate lane for these visitors then

they may still have to wait in line behind others who did not prepay. While this will

still decrease the wait times overall, visitors may be frustrated.

•	 May need bus driver to verify that people have paid their entrance fee to the park.

•	 If an automated fee machine is used for prepayment, repairs to machines may be

costly and difficult, but necessary due to susceptibility to damage from environmental

conditions and vandalism15.

•	 Transaction processing by the visitor at an automated fee machine or online may be

slower than transactions processed by fee collection staff resulting in delay and long

wait times prior to getting to the park/unit2.













General Description

Prepayment of entrance fees and transit fees allows visitors to pay these 

fees prior to entering the bus or the park/unit. (It should be noted that 

the National Park Service is not permitted to ‘layer’ fees, so visitors do 

not have to pay a separate fee from the entrance fee to ride internal 

transit systems or access other park services.) Prepayment of fees 

can reduce (or eliminate) the transaction time at the entrance station 

therefore potentially reducing congestion and queue lengths. There 

is also a potential to have visitors who have prepaid enter through a 

limited access only lane at entrances (see AC-2).

There are multiple approaches available for prepayment of fees. 

These include with staff at hotels and visitor centers in the gateway 

community, online through park/unit websites, or at an automated fee 

machine (kiosk for self-paying fees) in the gateway community. 

3

SOLUTION/TOOL: Prepayment of Entrance 

 and Transit Fees

TYPE: Electronic Systems
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

36 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

GENERAL

•	 Promotion of prepayment methods (including signage) will be needed.

•	 If automated fee machines will be installed in the park/unit, an environmental

assessment and ADA compliance survey will be necessary.

•	 Consideration when locating an automated fee machine include sun glare, lighting

needs, drive-up versus walk-up machine, adequate shelter from weather, response

time for repairs, and potential for vandalism15.

•	 If the automated fee machine is located at an entrance station, integration with an

automated gate may be considered.

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool will require close coordination with visitor centers, hotels, and stores in the

gateway communities where prepayment may be accepter (manually or through an

automated fee machine), transit operators if the transit fee is to be prepaid, and the park

facility management team if the automated fee machine will be installed in the park/unit.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) forthistool is nearterm (1 to 3 years).

The implementation time will be dependent upon the methods chosen for prepayment.

It will take less time to implement a manual prepayment system with hotels and visitor

centers in the gateway community or an online prepayment system then it will to install

automated fee machines in the gateway community and/or in the park/unit.

The procurement process for automated fee machines is a minimum of 3 to 6 months

assuming the park has funding for the purchase when the solicitation is released and

the park site preparation (including NEPA clearance; adherence with ADA standards;

and installation of power and network cables) will take significant time15.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000)

depending on the approach taken.

If an automated fee machine is chosen, of the total cost, the procurement and

installation portion is around $25,000 to $35,000 per machine15. There may also be a

cost associated with the infrastructure such as power, communications, and potentially

a shelter to house the machine.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include coordinating with the hotels, stores,

and visitor centers in the gateway community (if using manual collection); software

updates (if using website); repairs and replacing parts on machines (if using automated

fee machines); collecting monies (all options); and monitoring use (all options).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park has prepayment fare machines available at the visitor

center in Estes Park as well as the visitor center before entering the park.

•	 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial recommends that visitors purchase their

tickets online prior to the day of arrival due to long lines and the possibility of selling

out. The cost for riding the tram includes a $3 National Park Service entrance fee.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/jeff/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

•	 http://ticketsforthearch.com/eStore/Content/Commerce/Products/

DisplayProducts.aspx?ActivityGroupCode=10&ActivityCategoryCode=100

•	 Grand Canyon National Park

•	 http://explorethecanyon.com/tour-types/national-parks-info-passes/

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 37 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Increase in number of fees prepaid.

Additional Resources

•	 RM22 Recreation Fee Guidelines, Appendix M, Fee Collection Equipment and

Software Options- inside.nps.gov/waso/custommenu.cfm?lv=3&prg=819&id=5211

•	 Fee Collection Solutions Sharepoint site- http://share.inside.nps.gov/sites/WASO/

fee/POS%20Equipment/default.aspx

•	 Cost of Collection Automated Fee Machine Guidelines

- inside.nps.gov/waso/

custommenu.cfm?lv=3&prg=497&id=738

•	 Service Times, Capacity, and operating Characteristics of Automated Lanes at National

Park Entrance Stations by Jonathan Upchurch (Transportation Scholar) July 2006

•	 Service Times and Capacity at National Park Entrance Stations- http://www.nps.

gov/transportation/pdfs/NP_Entrance_Stations_Study.pdf

•	A Toolkit for Self-Service, Barrier-Free Fare Collection (TCRP Report 80)- 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_80.pdf

•	 Yosemite National Park

– passes are available at several visitor centers in the 

gateway communities

•	 http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm
ES

38 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Cameras can also be used to monitor for motorists safety purposes.

•	 There is also a potential for visitors to have access to the camera images via the website.

CONS

•	 Data analysis can be costly if automated, and time consuming if done manually.

GENERAL

•	 National Park Service Policy requires a unit to notify the public if closed circuit

television is used for the purpose of security monitoring.

•	 This tool must be used in conjunction with other tools to address congestion issues as

this is solely a data collection tool.

•	 Cameras should be located in optimal areas for collecting transportation data such as

near entrance lanes, parking lots, and on sections of road with known weather issues.









General Description

Closed circuit television allows information to be gathered that can 

be utilized in visitor demand management such as monitoring traffic 

congestion, length of lines at entrance lanes, and parking lot capacity. 

Cameras can also be used to view weather and road conditions, both of 

which can influence traffic speeds and perhaps lead to congestion issues. 

Closed circuit television would need to be paired with other solutions as 

it is data gathering tool. Therefore, reducing congestion and improving 

safety can be accomplished by providing visitors with the information 

gathered through the use of cameras, but also through using this 

information to implement management techniques at the appropriate 

times. Examples include staffing additional entrance booths (see AC-1), 

promoting no-car park access options (see VDM-9), promoting bicycle 

and pedestrian access (see VDM-8), encouraging visitation to less 

congested areas (VDM-4), promoting use of park-and-ride facilities (see 

PT-5), and parking management (see TOI-12). 

4 SOLUTION/TOOL: Closed Circuit Television

TYPE: Electronic Systems
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 39 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than a year) to near term (1 to 3 years). Time to implement closed

circuit television will vary based on the design (size and automation) of the system, but

will be quicker than some tools because this is an “off-the-shelf” technology.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total cost, the typical procurement portion for a traffic monitoring camera (color video

camera with pan, tilt, zoom, and installation) ranges from $8,000 to $16,000 per camera.

The higher cost cameras would be needed for extreme weather conditions. The tower for

a camera costs $5,000 to $14,000 depending on the height of the tower (35 feet to 90 feet)16.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for analyzing data and

implementing management techniques based on this data, power and communications

costs (typically ranging from 1,000 to $2,3001 per year), software updates, and

technology repairs/replacement parts.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Shenandoah National Park has webcams, one of which is located at Rockfish Gap for

traffic information.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/shen/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm

•	 Mount Rainier has webcams, some of which show parking lot capacity.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/mora/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Decrease in queue length.

•	 Number of available parking spaces.

Additional Resources

•	 Transportation Toolkit - http://www.cflhd.gov/TTOOLKIT/FLT/FactSheets/ITS/

CCTV.htm

•	 Public notice for closed circuit television use - http://www.nps.gov/jela/parkmgmt/

upload/Closed-circuit-TV-announcement-for-web.pdf

•	 Closed circuit television policy - http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/uspp-cctv_

policy-070903.pdf

•	 Gateway National Recreation Area – Sandy Hook Unit Parking Management Study -

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/nps/docs/gateway-sh.pdf

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool requires coordination with the park service law enforcement for security purposes.
ES

40 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 With better information visitors can make more informed decisions about alternative

modes, travel times, alternative parking locations, or locations to avoid congestion.













General Description

Dynamic/Variable message signs are used to provide en-route 

information to travelers. Dynamic/Variable message signs can be both 

permanent (large signs which are not movable and have power and 

communications hard wired) and portable (trailer-mounted, small sign 

which can be deployed to multiple locations and typically are solar 

powered and either cell phone or satellite enabled). 

Dynamic/Variable message signs in national parks or their gateway 

communities can be used for informing visitors about road closures, 

road construction, congestion at entrance stations, parking lot status, 

arrival of transit, alternative entrances, alternative hours of travel, and 

park and ride lots.

5

SOLUTION/TOOL: Dynamic/Variable

 Message Sign

TYPE: Electronic Systems

CONS

•	 Limited cellular coverage will require that the portable dynamic/variable message

signs either (1) only be located in areas of service, (2) be manually updated by national

park staff who would need to drive to the sign for every update, or (3) be equipped

with satellite communications or radio relay.

•	 Only a small amount of information can be displayed. It is recommended that only two

frames be used. Each frame equals three lines with generally 8-10 characters per line.

•	 Locating a rental company for portable dynamic/variable message signs may be

harder in rural areas than urban areas. This may also increase the rental cost in a

rural area due to demand as well as increase the delivery charges due to distance

travelled for delivery.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 41 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

GENERAL

•	 As with any traveler information dissemination piece, the information must be

accurate, timely and reliable for travelers to continue to utilize the technology.

•	 The location and message should be chosen to allow the driver to make a decision.

For example, it should be placed upstream of a junction allowing for an alternate

route or where there are several destination options. Note that if signs are placed in

locations where there is no alternative, there may still be a benefit in reduced driver

stress by knowing what congestion delays to expect.

•	 The messages and sign placement must follow the rules provided in the Manual of

Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

•	 Considerations are needed for maintenance and for portable units’ storage and

transportation.

•	 The potential for hazard impact, which may require additional protection such as concrete

barriers or impact attenuators depending on the location chosen, must be considered.

The state department of transportation could be consulted for local guidelines.

•	 Although the state department of transportation has requirements for the appearance of

the dynamic/variable message signs, in some casesthere may be an opportunity to consider

some design exemptions to better fit the aesthetics and landscape of a national park.

Coordination/Partnerships

Close coordination will be needed with the state department of transportation. If

the portable dynamic/variable message sign will be placed on state highways, the

department of transportation will need to approve an application for placement of the

signs as well as approve the messages used.

In some cases, the state department of transportation may be willing to allow the national

park to borrow portable dynamic/variable message signs for a short amount of time.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The process for purchasing signs would require more time than renting signs from a

local vendor. However, regardless of the method, requirements, message sets, and

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion ranges from $15,900 to $21,000 for a

portable, trailer mounted dynamic/variable message sign to over $41,000 to $101,000 for a

permanent sign16. Rental prices for a portable sign range from $1900-2500 per month per

device but may not include the costs for maintenance, trainings, and delivery of signs17.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for information updates and

training of staff, power and communications costs, software updates, and technology

repair/replacement parts (typically $500 to $1,600 per year for labor and replacement

parts for a portable sign and $2,000 to $5,000 per year for a permanent sign).

location applications with the state department of transportation would need to be

completed. Permanent signs will also require design of posts, power, communication

and impact protection. 

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2008 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Muir Woods National Monument utilized a dynamic/variable message sign to

promote a park-and-ride lot.
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

42 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Shuttle ridership counts with and without dynamic/variable message signs.

•	 Calculation of the park-and-ride lot occupancy, with and without dynamic/variable

message signs.

Additional Resources

•	 Chapter 21 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices- http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

•	 Guidelines for dynamic/variable message sign messages - http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_383.pdf and http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_

te/8583.pdf

•	 https://trb.metapress.com/content/w127xn22061813m3/resourcesecured/?target=fulltext.pdf

•	 Grand Canyon National Park utilized a dynamic/variable message sign to promote a

park-and-ride lot.

•	 http://www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/4W2106_

Ops_Plan_Final.pdf

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park utilized a dynamic/variable message sign to promote

a park-and-ride lot.

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/ROMO_Ops_

Plan_08192011.pdf
ES

Congestion Management Toolkit 43 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Fareboxes can be used to collect ridership data.

•	 Onboard electronic fare systems are quicker than cash payments to the driver and

more convenient for riders then policies requiring exact change.

CONS

•	 The payment method with the least boarding delay/dwell time would be prepayment

of transit fares.

•	 Driver isresponsible for customerservice,safety, and monitoring forfare evasion onboard.

GENERAL

•	 Signage and a fare card will need to be designed.

•	 Partnership agreements will need to be completed with the transit agency and for any

installations of farecard purchasing machines located in areas outside the park/unit.









General Description

Electronic fare payment systems are available onboard transit to allow 

visitors to quickly pay when boarding. Onboard fare payment systems 

range from simple (fareboxes accepting coins, tokens, tickets, and 

dollar bills) to complex (contactless smart card readers) and in-between 

(fareboxes that automatically count the fare, magnetic stripe fareboxes, 

and smart card fareboxes).

Systems with card readers such as smart cards and magnetic strips can 

also allow visitors to prepay their transit fare via season passes, tickets, 

or stored value cards (see ES-3). It should be noted that the National 

Park Service is not permitted to ‘layer’ fees, so visitors do not have 

to pay a separate fee (from the entrance fee) to ride internal transit 

systems or access other park services. 

This tool should only be utilized in specialized circumstances due to the 

fee structure of the National Park Service.

6

SOLUTION/TOOL: Electronic Fare 

 Payment Systems

TYPE: Electronic Systems
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

44 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement this tool will depend on the type of farebox (simple, magnetic

stripe, smart card.), the number of transit vehicles, and whether prepayment systems

are needed at the transit stop. Implementation will also include considerations such

as signage, fare card design, agreements with outside entities, procurement and

installation of equipment.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to

$50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement and installation portion for electronic

fareboxes can cost from $4,000 to nearly $15,000, depending upon exactly what types of

payments (payment methods) are included16. In general, the costs have been declining as

the technology for the fareboxes has matured.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 King County Metro Transit (Seattle, WA) has a smart card for bus fares in the region.

•	 http://metro.kingcounty.gov/fares/orca/index.html

•	 TriMet (Portland, OR) uses a cash farebox.

•	 http://www.trimet.org/fares/howtopay.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of users.

•	 Number of riders found evading payment.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Transit Administration’s Fare Payment Fact Sheet - http://www.fta.dot.gov/

printer_friendly/12351_4362.html

•	 TCRP Synthesis 26 Bus Transit Fare Collection Processes – http://www3.cutr.usf.

edu/security/documents%5CTCRP%5CTSYN26farecollection.pdf

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination with the transit provider would be necessary to implement this tool.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longterm cost implications for this tool include communications costs, staff time, software

updates, and technology repairs/replacement parts (ranging from $30 to $50 per year16).
ES

Congestion Management Toolkit 45 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 With better information visitors can make more informed decisions about alternative

modes, travel times, alternative parking locations, or locations to avoid congestion.

CONS

•	 Because the highway advisory radio requires motorists to take an action (i.e., tune

their radio to the AM station) to hear the information, many motorists will not make

this effort and therefore will not receive the information.

•	 In rural and mountainous terrain sometimes the radio station signal is weak making it

hard to hear the available information and sometimes crosses with other radio stations.

•	 If cellular service is nonexistent or spotty, the highway advisory radio broadcast

message may need to be changed on location. In this case, national park staff would

need to drive to the transmitters and manually change it for every update.

•	 With the increase in smartphone usage, this technology may be becoming obsolete.













General Description

Highway advisory radio is a low-powered radio broadcast on AM 

stations. It can be obtained in both permanent and portable form and 

communications to update the repeated message can be either cellular 

or satellite. Motorists are alerted to tune to an AM station to listen to 

the radio broadcast via a sign with flashing beacons. 

Highway advisory radio is generally found on state highways for traveler 

and emergency information such as road closures due to weather 

conditions, road construction, and AMBER alerts. National parks 

typically include information about current roadway conditions and 

closures, hours of operations, entrance fee costs, road construction, 

public transportation and alternative routes and entrances. Currently, 

more than 20 national park units are using highway advisory radio3; 

however, this is an outdated technology due to smart phones and mobile 

apps and therefore should only be utilized in specialized circumstances.

7 SOLUTION/TOOL: Highway Advisory Radio

TYPE: Electronic Systems
MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

46 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool will require close coordination with the Federal Communications

Commission to obtain a license; the state department of transportation to obtain

permits if the highway advisory radio or signs will be placed on state highways; and the

vendor if a portable highway advisory radio will be rented.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement depends on the method for obtaining the highway advisory

radio. The process for purchasing a highway advisory radio would require more time

than a rental from a local vendor. Regardless of the method the system requires, defined

message sets/content, a Federal Communications Commission license, location permits

with the state department of transportation, and installation of signage.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to provide information

updates (which may include driving to the transmitters to update the broadcast

message), power and communications costs (between $600 and $1,000 per year), and

technology repair/replacement parts.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Grand Canyon National Park utilized highway advisory radio to promote a park-and-ride.

•	 http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/AC4B3EEEE1277C9E852578550

053AB97?OpenDocument&Query=Home

•	 http://www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/4W2106_

Ops_Plan_Final.pdf

•	 http://www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/4W2106_

Final_Report.pdf

•	 Yellowstone National Park, US 89 Project utilized highway advisory radio to provide

traveler information to tourists.

•	 Shenandoah National Park utilized highway advisory radio to provide traveler 

information to tourists.

GENERAL

•	 As with any traveler information dissemination piece, the information must be

accurate, timely and reliable for travelers to continue to utilize the technology.

•	 In order to obtain an AM radio station, a Federal Communications Commission

License must be obtained.

•	 Highway signage will need to be installed for effective implementation.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion ranges in cost from $15,000 to $36,000

for a 10-watt powered system and up to $46,000 for a highway advisory radio with a larger

antennae and stronger signal. One reference found that rental of a portable highway

advisory radio costs around $1600 per month per device. Static signs with flashing

beacons to accompany the highway advisory radio range in cost from $5000 to $900016.
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 47 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 ITS in National Parks and Other Public Lands– 2011 Update- http://ntl.bts.gov/

lib/44000/44200/44256/ITSinParks2011_update.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Shuttle ridership counts with and without highway advisory radio.

•	 Calculation of the park-and-ride lot occupancy, with and without highway advisory radio.
ES

48 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Kiosks allow traveler information to be provided without staffing a location.

CONS

•	 With the increase in smartphone usage, this technology may be becoming obsolete.

GENERAL

•	 The information must be timely, reliable, and accurate for visitors to keep using this tool.

•	 If the kiosk is placed outside the park/unit, rental of space may be necessary and

agreements will need to be created.

•	 Implementation will include designing and creating the content/pages for the kiosk.

•	 A cabinet to house the kiosk will need to be designed, built, and installed.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination with outside entities (i.e., airports, visitor centers, welcome centers, etc.)

would be necessary if the kiosk was located outside the national park unit. Coordination













General Description

Kiosks are an interactive, computerized way of providing traveler 

information such as less crowded attractions/destinations to visit, parking 

conditions, status of transit. Kiosks can also be used for prepayment of 

entrance fees and transit fees (see ES-3). Kiosks can be stationed near 

airports, in visitor centers, at welcome centers, or at unit’s entrance stations.

This is becoming an outdated technology due to smart phones and mobile 

apps and therefore should only be utilized in specialized circumstances.

8 SOLUTION/TOOL: Kiosks

TYPE: Electronic Systems
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 49 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

would also be necessary with staff in charge of the information that may be available on

the kiosk (i.e., transit agency, staff in charge of road conditions/closures, etc.).

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool is near

term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement will depend on locating/renting space for the kiosk, the services

provided through the kiosk (information only, or ability to make reservations and/

or pay entrance fees), whether communications are available or need to be installed,

design of the content, design and construction of the cabinet, and purchase of the

equipment and software.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion including hardware, enclosure, installation

a modem server, and map software typically ranges in cost from $9,000 to $20,00016.

from $1,000 to $3,800 per year16), staff time to keep the traveler information up to

date, location rental costs (if necessary), software upgrades, and technology repair/

replacement part costs.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Sequoia National Forest kiosk implemented by Service First.

•	 http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsbytes/2010/44xtra_servicefirst_kiosk.html

•	 Chiricahua National Monument has an interactive touch screen kiosk in their 

visitor center.

•	 http://www.chronosinteractive.com/work/national-park-service

•	 Sleeping Bear Dunes has an interactive touch screen kiosk at the Philip A. Hart visitor

center in Empire, MI.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/slbe/planyourvisit/hours.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of users.

•	 Amount of time a user spends at the kiosk.

Additional Resources

•	 Evaluation of Touch Screen Traveler Information Kiosks - http://www.coe.montana.

edu/ce/patm/pubs/gyrits/EvaluationReport%20kiosks%20Final.pdf

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include power and communications (ranging
ES

50 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Road weather information systems collect road condition information to be used for

treatment strategies and road closures.

•	 Information provided from system can be used to improve safety and increase mobility.

CONS

•	 Meteorology/forecasting services are provided at an additional cost.

•	 Some sensors require being placed in the pavement.

•	 Some of the equipment is unattractive.

•	 With the increase in smartphone usage, this technology may be becoming obsolete.

GENERAL

•	 Environmental compliance would be necessary prior to the installation of a road

weather information system.







General Description

Even in a national park unit, weather events can cause unsafe driving 

conditions which leads to congestion and maintenance challenges such as 

roadway damage and snow removal. Road closures and adverse driving 

conditions due to weather can cause congestion which can be decreased 

if motorists are warned of these closures/conditions beforehand. 

Road weather information systems use sensors located within or 

alongside the roadway to measure weather’s effect on the roadway 

(such as ice, snow accumulation, rain and flooding, wind speed, 

temperatures, and fog) so motorists and maintenance staff can be 

warned; however, they must be used in conjunction with a traveler 

information tool such as 511 (see ES-1), dynamic/variable message signs 

(see ES-5) and/or media/social media/mobile device apps (see VDM-5).

This may be becoming an outdated technology due to smart phones 

and mobile apps and therefore should only be utilized only in 

specialized circumstances.

9

SOLUTION/TOOL: Road Weather

 Information System

TYPE: Electronic Systems
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 51 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement will depend on the sensors chosen and whether communications

are available or need to be installed.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is medium

($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion for a road weather information

system including a CPU, workstation with software, and communications equipment

costs around $9,000 plus the cost of an environmental sensing station ($25,000 to

$42,000 depending on the sensors chosen16).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include communication costs,

optional weather forecasts (ranging from $200 to $1,000), environmental sensing station

operating costs (ranging from $1,600 to $3,000), software upgrades, CPU replacement

every 5 years (around $4,00016), and technology repair/replacement parts. Note that

some sensors are buried in the ground and to replace them would require patching that

section of roadway.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Denali National Park has a road weather information system at Raws Wonder Lake.

•	 http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/US/AK/Denali_National_

Park.html

•	 Glacier National Park has weather sensors located at St. Mary’s and West Glacier.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/weather.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of times road weather system information is used to inform motorists of road

conditions or closures.

•	 Number of times road weather system information is used for applying treatment

strategies to roadway.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Land Managers Transportation Toolkit - http://www.cflhd.gov/TTOOLKIT/

FLT/FactSheets/ITS/RWIS.htm

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination would be needed with the maintenance staff as well as those responsible

for traveler information. If meteorological/forecasting services are to be provided,

coordination with the vendor would be necessary.
ES

52 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Transit signal prioritization can decrease travel times and increase reliability.

•	 Transit signal prioritization can improve schedule adherence.

CONS

•	 Could potentially cause delays for non-transit vehicles.

•	 Can possibly cause challenges with traffic signal synchronization.

•	 Potentially negative visual impacts in a national park setting.

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool will require coordination with the gateway community, transit agency as well

as the traffic engineers that oversee the intersections (i.e., park staff, state department of

transportation staff, or gateway community transportation staff).

General Description

Transit signal prioritization is a traffic signal that provides prioritization 

for transit vehicles (over private automobiles) through intersections 

and is generally utilized in highly urbanized areas. Transit signal 

prioritization is a modification of the normal traffic signal process by 

increasing green time, reducing red time, reordering the signal phases, 

or adding a priority signal phase for transit when needed to allow 

transit vehicles to pass through. 

This tool decreases the amount of congestion, and therefore delay, that 

transit riders must endure. This is a benefit that may help promote transit 

use (VDM-9) and promote the use of park-and-ride facilities (VDM-11).











10 SOLUTION/TOOL: Transit Signal Prioritization

TYPE: Electronic Systems
ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 53 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement depends on the number of signalized intersections that need to

be modified, as well as the number of transit vehicles (buses) that need to be equipped.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion for a transit vehicle on-board signal

transit signal priority emitter ranges from $400 to $1,800, the roadside transit signal

priority system ranges from $4,000 to $5,000 (includes infrared detector, detector

cable, phase selector, system software, and installation for two directions), and if traffic

control equipment or systems at the intersection need to be replaced it could cost up to

$30,000 per intersection16.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the procurement portion for a transit vehicle on-board signal

transit signal priority emitter ranges from $400 to $1,800, the roadside transit signal

priority system ranges from $4,000 to $5,000 (includes infrared detector, detector

cable, phase selector, system software, and installation for two directions), and if traffic

control equipment or systems at the intersection need to be replaced it could cost up to

$30,000 per intersection16.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments uses traffic signal prioritization in

the National Capital Region.

•	 http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/ql5eXl020110505140547.pdf

•	 Pioneer Valley Transit Authority worked with the city of Springfield Massachusetts to

install in-vehicle transit signal priority on buses.

•	 http://www.vhb.com/SiteObjects/published//4FCC5B454FF7253000FE9B66206D

A365/59A4CE7B0FEB89ED0083C04A90F1E598/file/APTA%20Paper%20Chase%20

Doherty%20Herr%20Narriagan%2002-05-06.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Reduced travel time for transit.

•	 Reduced variability in operations or schedule adherence for transit.

Additional Resources

•	 Transit Signal Priority: A Planning and Implementation Handbook - http://www.fta.

dot.gov/documents/TSPHandbook10-20-05.pdf

•	 Planning and Deploying Transit Signal Priority in Small and Medium-Sized Cities:

Burlington, Vermont Case Study - http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT13-3Vlachou.pdf

Time to Implement
PT

54 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Increasing the occupancy (number of visitors) per vehicle can help decrease congestion

by removing personal vehicles from roadways. This can be accomplished by having

visitors switch to transit, which has higher occupancy than personal vehicles.

•	 Transit use can decrease environmental impacts and save visitors money.

•	 Transit use is a great option for non-drivers and those who do not own a car.

•	 Mandatory shuttle services, even if only on weekends, can prove the most beneficial for

alleviating traffic congestion and can open the roadway to bicycles and pedestrians.

•	 Having a shuttle within the park/unit can make it more feasible for visitors to arrive

at the park/unit via public transportation because then they have a way to continue

their visit within the unit without a private automobile.









General Description

Transit/shuttle services is a method to transport visitors to and around 

the park/unit without the use of a private automobile. 

Transit/shuttle services can reduce automobile congestion at popular 

destinations that lack parking capacity; however, there is the potential 

that the same service can increase pedestrian congestion at key sites 

and trailheads due to the transit/shuttle service allowing the number of 

people at the location to increase beyond the capacity of the parking lot.

Transit/shuttle services may be most successful when the park/unit has 

a loop road or specific destinations where most visitors start and end 

their visit, has the ability to close the road to private automobiles on 

peak weekends or has destinations that are not currently accessible to 

private automobiles.

Transit/shuttle services within the park/unit can also be linked/coordinated 

with transit services provided in the gateway communities. This allows 

visitors to arrive at the park/unit without a personal automobile or to utilize 

park-and-ride facilities within the gateway community (see PT-5).



1

SOLUTION/TOOL: Implement Transit/Shuttle

 Services/Operations

TYPE: Public Transportation

CONS

•	 The objective of a shuttle is to get people out of their personal automobiles and into

the shuttle (change their mode of transportation). However, sometimes if both the

parking lot and the destination are overcrowded, a shuttle can just add additional

people at a destination that is already at capacity20.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 55 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 In one park, managers believe that people are riding the shuttle first to “scout” where

they want to go in their cars and therefore they believe the shuttle has had a minimal

effect on congestion21.

•	 Although the goal of the shuttle is to alleviate traffic congestion, sometimes the

shuttle can get stuck in this same traffic congestion it is trying to prevent, which can

affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the service21.

•	 Consider total cost of ownership over a 20 year term, transit is expensive to operate

and maintain on an annual basis, and recapitalization cost are high22.

•	 A shuttle that provides access to and from the park/unit may be different from the

shuttle used to get around within the park/unit. If the park and ride lots within the

park/unit are full, then visitors may need to park outside the park/unit and take one

shuttle to transfer to yet another19.”

•	 Shuttles sometimes cause a “pulsing effect” where everyone gets dropped off at

one destination on a frequent basis. This can affect the resources and the visitor

experience at these locations by causing crowding. One park is currently conducting

a study to determine techniques for leveling out the flow of visitors19.

•	 Adding transit within a park/unit does not reduce parking demand unless visitors can

easily get to the park/unit via bus, bike, rail, etc. Many of the big parks with transit

have added or will add hundreds of parking spaces (GRCA, ZION, ROMO, etc.). 

GENERAL

•	 When choosing a shuttle, ensure that the vehicle selected is appropriate for the park/

unit, and if choosing a sustainable technology, that it is proven and mature. For

example, if considering electric vehicle technology, you need to factor in how long an

electric vehicle can run, and if the vehicle can handle the park infrastructure such

as grade of roads. For any transit vehicles, it is important to consider overhangs, tree

height, and turning radii along the proposed transit route. You may need to make

changes to accommodate the vehicles. Other considerations include if there are

maintenance and fueling facilities for the type of fuel selected, and if the vehicle can

withstand high or low temperatures.

•	 Unless the shuttle system is mandatory, incentives should be provided for visitors to

use the shuttle, or the system may wind up with low ridership. One unit found that

“although there was a 95% positive reaction to the shuttle, it was not well used18”.

•	 Promotion of the shuttle (see VDM-9) will be needed. One promotional tool includes

a signage plan detailing where to best locate signs to communicate to visitors where

to catch the shuttle as well as which parking areas have availability19.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years.

An example outline for a transit launch from start to finish include developing a PMIS

statement (1 month); conducting a transit feasibility study; creating a financial pro

forma and funding plan (12 to 18 months); securing approval from regional office and

WASO (1 to 2 years); conducting public outreach for transportation fee (optional, 1 year);

securing funding for buses and visitor facilities (signs, shelters, etc.) (1 to 5+ years);

purchasing or leasing buses; building/installing visitor facilities; creating schedules and

routes; promoting the transit service; hiring and training drivers; and operating a pilot

program (2 to 3 years).

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

Coordination/Partnerships

Transit/shuttle services are complex operations requiring a significant amount of

coordination. Coordination can be required well beyond the park boundary and

gateway community, and can involve local transit agencies, regional federal lands

highway office, regional federal transit administration office, other land management

agencies, and/or the state. Coordination will also be needed with owners of potential

bus stop and park and ride locations outside the park/unit. Depending on who will

operate and maintain the shuttle service, partnerships may be necessary with a

concessionaire, local friends group, and others.
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

56 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total costs, procurement costs will include the costs of any vehicles, passenger

shelters (if provided), bus stop amenities (such as benches, bus stop signs, sidewalks,

walking paths, etc.) and any facilities for storing or maintaining the buses. Several

parks have opted not to own their own vehicles and instead have contracted for shuttle

services. The contractor provides the vehicles and operates, and maintains the vehicles

as part of the shuttle services offered at the park. Then, contractors typically pass the

cost for leasing, operation, and maintenance of vehicles through to the owner as part of

their proposal/bid for services). 

Depending upon the type and size of vehicles selected, the costs can range from

approximately $50,000 (for a small accessible van) to nearly $500,000 for an accessible

motor coach. Passenger shelters can range from $5,000 to over $20,000 depending

upon the size of the shelter and the materials used.

Parking needs should also be considered when implementing a transit/shuttle service.

The costs associated with parking are provided in tools AC-3 and PT-5. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include the labor costs of a transit/shuttle

system (which is a major component of the overall costs); insurance; fuel costs; repairs

and replacement costs for vehicles; recapitalization costs; utility costs for shelters and

maintenance facilities; marketing; and repair and upkeep costs for facilities.

Further, the location of the park (where services are offered) will likely also have an

impact on operating costs. In general, expect operating costs will vary from $50 to $150

(or more) per hour for transit or shuttle services. The operating costs associated with

parking are provided in tools AC-2 and PT-5. 

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Devils Postpile National Monument has a mandatory shuttle system.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/depo/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

•	 Examples of three shuttle bussystems(Grand Canyon, Zion, and Acadia) in national parks.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/transportation/busses_shuttles.html

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Ridership counts on shuttle/transit.

•	 Decreasing private automobile volumes at trailheads and parking lots.

Additional Resources

•	 Transportation Planning Process for Transit in Federal Land Management Areas -

http://www.triptac.org/Help/ProductSpotlight/ArchivedSpotlights/Default1.html

•	 Introduction to Alternative Transportation Systems Planning for FLMAs - http://

www.triptac.org/TRIPTACResources/TRIPTACTrainings/Default.html#ATSPFLMA

•	 (Module 7) Cost Estimating and Financial Sustainability Analysis Training - http://

www.triptac.org/TRIPTACResources/TRIPTACTrainings/Default.html#mod7

•	 Financial Planning for Transit Services in the National Parks - http://www.triptac.

org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Fin_Pl_for_Transit.pdf

•	 Guidebook for Start-up Transit Agencies - http://www.triptac.org/Documents/

RepositoryDocuments/Gdbk_startup.pdf

•	 Lessons learned from the Lewis and Clark shuttle.

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42500/42568/DOT-VNTSC-NPS-06-05.pdf

•	 National Park Service National Transit Inventory.

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/47000/47800/47871/NPS_WASO_2013_Transit_Inventory.pdf

•	 Grand Teton National Park Public Transit Business Plan

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grte/parkmgmt/upload/public-transit-business-plan.pdf

•	 Other examples include Rocky Mountain National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,

and Harpers Ferry.

Performance Standard/Measure
PT

Congestion Management Toolkit 57 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Expanding the transit service coverage, increasing the service frequency or hours or

operation, and/or adding additional routes can improve access to the park/unit and

improve the service quality.

•	 Adding transit capacity can decrease the number of private automobiles coming to,

and operating within, the park, therefore decreasing congestion.

•	 Transit use is a great option for non-drivers and those who do not own a car.

•	 Transit use can decrease environmental impacts and save visitors money.

CONS

•	 Simply adding capacity may not be enough to get visitors to change from their private

automobile to transit. Getting visitors to change their behavior will likely require

promotion of the transit system.

•	 Increasing shuttle capacity can lead to pulsing, over use of resources adjacent to

shuttle stops and crowding on popular trails and attractions.

•	 Increased capacity can lead to increased congestion at entrance stations, parking

lots, visitor centers, and roadways outside the park (example Zion NP).

•	 Although the goal of the shuttle is to alleviate traffic congestion, sometimes the







General Description

If the transit system at the park/unit is well used and running at capacity 

(the shuttle is always full, there is always a wait at shuttle stops, etc.), 

adding capacity to the transit system may be necessary. This can be 

completed by adding more shuttles, by decreasing time between the 

shuttles arriving at a destination, or by adding additional routes. 

Prior to making any changes to the existing system, an evaluation of 

the current operations should be done to determine what changes will 

be most efficient, effective and beneficial to the service and visitors 

and which will be most financially sustainable. This type of analysis is 

typically called a comprehensive pro forma operational analysis.









2

SOLUTION/TOOL: Adding Capacity to the

 Transit System

TYPE: Public Transportation
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

58 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

GENERAL

•	 Given the high cost of transit, it would be best to target service to peak times.

Coordination/Partnerships

Transit/shuttle services are complex operations requiring a significant amount of

coordination. Coordination can be required well beyond the park boundary and

gateway community, and can involve local transit agencies, regional federal lands

highway office, regional federal transit administration office, other land management

agencies, and/or the state. Coordination will also be needed with owners of potential

bus stop and park and ride locations outside the park/unit. Depending on who will

operate and maintain the shuttle service, partnerships may be necessary with a

concessionaire, local friends group, and others.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement additional capacity to the transit service will depend on whether

additional shuttles are available on hand or need to be purchased, and whether

additional drivers are able to be deployed immediately or need to be hired and trained.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include the labor costs of a transit/shuttle

system (which is a major component of the overall costs); insurance; fuel costs; repairs

and replacement costs for vehicles; recapitalization costs; utility costs for shelters and

maintenance facilities; marketing; and repair and upkeep costs for facilities.

Further, the location of the park (where services are offered) will likely also have an

impact on operating costs. In general, expect operating costs will vary from $50 to $150

(or more) per hour for transit or shuttle services. The operating costs associated with

parking are provided in tools AC-2 and PT-5. 

shuttle used to get around within the park/unit. If the park and ride lots within the

park/unit are full, then visitors may need to park outside the park/unit and take one

shuttle to transfer to yet another19.”

•	 Adding transit within a park/unit does not reduce parking demand unless visitors can

easily get to the park/unit via bus, bike, rail, etc. Many of the big parks with transit

have added or will add hundreds of parking spaces (GRCA, ZION, ROMO, etc.).

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total costs, procurement costs will include the costs of any vehicles, passenger

shelters (if provided), bus stop amenities (such as benches, bus stop signs, sidewalks,

walking paths, etc.) and any facilities for storing or maintaining the buses. Several

parks have opted not to own their own vehicles and instead have contracted for shuttle

services. The contractor provides the vehicles and operates, and maintains the vehicles

as part of the shuttle services offered at the park. Then, contractors typically pass the

cost for leasing, operation, and maintenance of vehicles through to the owner as part of

their proposal/bid for services). 

Depending upon the type and size of vehicles selected, the costs can range from

approximately $50,000 (for a small accessible van) to nearly $500,000 for an accessible

motor coach. Passenger shelters can range from $5,000 to over $20,000 depending

upon the size of the shelter and the materials used.

Parking needs should also be considered when implementing a transit/shuttle service.

The costs associated with parking are provided in tools AC-2 and PT-5.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 59 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Ridership numbers.

•	 Frequency of service.

Additional Resources

•	 Alternative Transportation System Demand Estimation for Federal Land

Management Agencies - http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44243/ATS_Demand_

Estimation_1_.pdf

•	 Best Practices in Transit Service Planning - http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf

•	 Evaluating transit service operations - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm62.htm

•	 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation Services Report

Number: R-140 http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_140.pdf

•	 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System Report

Number: R-088 http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_88.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The Northeast Region uses a Transit Evaluation Matrix tool to assess existing and

proposed alternative transportation services. The evaluation matrix scores projects

based on nine categories – Critical Access, Resource Protection, Safety, Visitor

Experience, Visitor Diversity & Car-Free Travel, Regional Economy & Partnerships,

Recreation & Education, Ridership & Productivity, and Cost Effectiveness.

•	 Harpers Ferry evaluated adding shuttle routes to distribute visitors to other areas

of the park. This study was documented in an alternative transportation study

conducted in 2011 by a National Park Foundation transportation scholar.

•	 Etic document #119919 found at http://etic.nps.gov

•	 Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System has evaluated their existing systems

in order to create a short term transit plan for future changes to the system.

•	 The Northeast Region uses a Transit Evaluation Matrix tool to assess existing and

proposed alternative transportation services. The evaluation matrix scores projects

based on nine categories – Critical Access, Resource Protection, Safety, Visitor

Experience, Visitor Diversity & Car-Free Travel, Regional Economy & Partnerships,

Recreation & Education, Ridership & Productivity, and Cost Effectiveness.

•	 Harpers Ferry evaluated adding shuttle routes to distribute visitors to other areas

of the park. This study was documented in an alternative transportation study

conducted in 2011 by a National Park Foundation transportation scholar.

•	 Etic document #119919 - http://etic.nps.gov

•	 Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System has evaluated their existing systems

in order to create a short term transit plan for future changes to the system.

•	 http://www.yarts.com/documents/2011/srtp2011.pdf

•	 An evaluation was conducted to determine the feasibility of adding transit capacity

between the city of Fresno and Yosemite National Park and Sequoia and Kings

Canyon National Parks.

•	 http://agendas.fresnocog.org/itemAttachments/36/Fresno_NPS_Draft_Final_

Report_(1_31_2011)_FINAL_version_(3).pdf

•	 http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/Transit_Planning/

ITEM_I_E_Fresno-SEKI_Draft_Service_Plan_and_Comments.pdf

•	 Adams National Historical Park conducted an evaluation of their transit system and

the possibility of expansion.

•	 http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/adamsnational-historical-park-expanded-transit-service

•	 Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine conducted a feasibility study

for transit implementation. The recommendation implemented was to add capacity

and routes to the existing city transit system to accommodate the park.

•	 http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/fort-mchenrynational-monument-and-historic-shrine-shuttle
PT

60 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 A ferry or water taxi can be seen as a visitor experience in and of itself.

•	 Ferry use is a great option for non-drivers and those who do not own a car.

•	 Having a shuttle within the park/unit can make it more feasible for visitors to arrive

at the park/unit via ferry because then they have a way to continue their visit within

the unit without a private automobile.

CONS

•	 Launching a ferry system has the same issues as transit; however, this faces even more

daunting odds because there are very few ferry systems in NPS, outside parks whose

only access is by water.

•	 Ensure that the boat size is large enough to be able to withstand the

weatherconditions in the area so that visitors will not be stranded at the park/unit if

bad weather arrives24.

•	 There are t-class (6 to 150 passenger boats) and k-class (more than 149 passengers)

challenges that need to be considered. All boats are certified by the USCG as to the

number of allowable passengers and the approved passenger capacity determines the

regulatory requirements for licensing, inspections, crew staffing, and safety equipment.













General Description

Alternative public transportation is not limited to land based options. 

For those parks/units along rivers, lakes, coastal bays, or other bodies 

of water, an alternative mode of transportation may be ferry service 

or water taxis. Unlike a bus that typically uses the same roadways as 

visitors’ vehicles, ferries and water taxis provide visitors an alternative 

route that they would not experience in their personal automobiles. 

Ferries can be passenger-only or can allow for at least one deck for vehicles, 

as well as, decks for passengers. Smaller ferries for a limited number of 

passengers are known as water taxis and typically do not carry vehicles.









3 SOLUTION/TOOL: Ferry Service/Water Taxi

TYPE: Public Transportation
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 61 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

The typical regulatory thresholds are (1) up to 49 passengers, (2) 50 to 149 passengers,

and (3) more than 149 passengers. The higher the capacity, the more regulatory

requirements (and associated costs). For example, a 49-passenger ferry requires a

minimum of two crew while a 149-pasenger ferry requires three crew.

•	 May need to add a landside shuttle to get ferry passengers around the park/unit.

•	 Consider total cost of ownership over a 20 year term, a ferry is expensive to operate

and maintain on an annual basis, and recapitalization cost are high22.

•	 Ferries sometimes cause a “pulsing effect” where everyone gets dropped off at

one destination on a frequent basis. This can affect the resources and the visitor

experience at these locations by causing crowding.

•	 Adding a ferry within a park/unit does not reduce parking demand unless visitors can

easily get to the park/unit via bus, bike, rail, etc. 

GENERAL

•	 Implementing a ferry system includes many considerations beyond just the boat.

These include landside facilities (such as docks, ramps, parking lots, shelters, and

information centers) to support the water service; ticketing; scheduling; ferry routes;

licensing; inspections; crew staffing; and safety equipment.

•	 When choosing a ferry type and size, consider the need to transport bicycles and

visitors’ gear/equipment.

•	 Plan time in your implementation schedule for the ferry to undergo sea trials and

certification by the Coast Guard24.

Coordination/Partnerships

Ferry services are complex operations requiring a significant amount of coordination.

Coordination can be required well beyond the park boundary and gateway community,

and can involve local transit/ferry agencies, regional federal lands highway office,

regional federal transit administration office, the Coast Guard, other land management

agencies, and/or the state. Coordination will also be needed with owners of potential

dock/shelter and park and ride locations outside the park/unit. Depending on who

will operate and maintain the ferry service, partnerships may be necessary with a

concessionaire, local friends group, and others.

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years.

An example outline for a ferry launch from start to finish include developing a PMIS

statement (1 month); conducting a ferry feasibility study; creating a financial pro forma

and funding plan (12 to 18 months); securing approval from regional office and WASO (1

to 2 years); conducting public outreach for transportation fee (optional, 1 year); securing

funding for ferries and facilities (docks, ramps, signs, shelters, etc.) (1 to 5+ years);

purchasing or leasing of ferries and safety equipment; building/installing facilities;

creating schedules, ticketing, and routes; promoting the ferry service; hiring and

training ferry crew; sea trials and certification by Coast Guard; and operating a pilot

program (2 to 3 years).

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

Of the total costs, procurement costs for passenger only ferries ranges from $90,000 to

$11,400,000 with the lower end having a passenger capacity of 12 to 30 and the higher

end having a capacity of 151 to 300. The capital costs for vehicle ferries range from

$1,000,000 to $43,000,000, with the less expensive ferries having a passenger capacity of

25 to 100, and vehicle capacity of 2 to 15 and; and the most expensive having a passenger

capacity of 250 to 500 and a vehicle capacity of 50 to 100. Additional costs will be

incurred for dock and ferry facilities (around $3 million)25.

Time to Implement
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

62 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Water transportation alternatives in national parks - http://www.nps.gov/

transportation/atp_fact_sheet_water_based_transportation_systems.html

•	 Bus and Ferry Life Cycle Cost Model for FLMAs archived webinar training - http://

www.triptac.org/TRIPTACResources/TRIPTACTrainings/Default.html#busFerry

•	 Bus and Ferry Lifecycle Cost Modeling - http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportationplanning/public-lands/department-interior-bus-and-ferry-lifecycle-cost-modeling

•	 Partnership Case Study: Grand Island National Recreation Area

Alternative Transportation Project - http://www.triptac.org/Documents/

RepositoryDocuments/GINRA_CStudy_web.pdf

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include coordinating with the hotels, stores,

and visitor centers in the gateway community (if using manual collection); software

updates (if using website); repairs and replacing parts on machines (if using automated

fee machines); collecting monies (all options); and monitoring use (all options).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine is accessible by water

transportation from the Baltimore Inner Harbor by using the Baltimore water taxi.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/fomc/planyourvisit/directions.htm

•	 Sandy Hook National Recreation Area can be accessed by ferry from Manhattan on

weekends from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/gate/planyourvisit/shumasstransit.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of ferry passengers.

Additional Resources

•	 Feasibility study for waterborne transportation at the National Parks of New York

Harbor - http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30200/30287/gnra-nyharbor.pdf

•	 Water transportation alternatives in national parks - http://www.nps.gov/

transportation/atp_fact_sheet_water_based_transportation_systems.html

•	 Feasibility study for waterborne transportation at the National Parks of New York

Harbor - http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30200/30287/gnra-nyharbor.pdf
PT

Congestion Management Toolkit 63 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Providing alternative transportation facilities can increase visitors’ safety, comfort,

convenience, and improve visitor experience.

•	 Alternative transportation facilities provide additional locations at which to provide

visitors with information about the transportation system as well as interpretive

information about the park/unit.

•	 Alternative transportation facilities can highlight the presence of alternative modes

and act as a marketing platform for alternative transportation modes to and within

the park/unit.

CONS

•	 Depending on the facility alternative transportation facilities can be expensive to

construct and maintain.

•	 Environmental analysis will be needed to ensure that these facilities can be

constructed without impacting the natural and cultural resources that the park/unit

may be trying to protect.









General Description

New or expanded multimodal facilities include those facilities necessary 

for transit, ferries (or water taxis), bicycling, and walking. Examples of 

these facilities may include bus stops, bus shelters, ferry docks, bike 

racks, shared use paths, canoe launches/landings, intermodal centers, 

and other types of improvements.

These facilities provide safety and comfort to visitors increasing their 

visitor experience and may increase their willingness to use alternative 

modes of transportation.











4

SOLUTION/TOOL: New or Expanded

 Multimodal Facilities

TYPE: Public Transportation
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

64 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years).

Implementation of facilities will vary based on the scope and extent of the facility.

Small facilities such as bus stops, bus shelters, and bike racks will take a relatively short

amount of time (less than 1 year). Time to implement a larger facility such as a shared

use path or a multi-modal facility can take years for planning, design, environmental

analysis, funding, and construction.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to $50,000)

to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000)

Costs will vary based on the scope and extent of the facility. Of the total costs,

procurement costs for small facilities are low such as bus stops, passenger shelters (ranging

from $5,000 to over $20,000), and bike racks (range from $150 to $530 for traditional or

wave bicycle racks10). The procurement and construction costs for a larger facility are

high such as a shared use path (in general, a 10 foot wide asphalt trail can range in cost

from $50 to $100 or more per linear foot depending on the amount of earthwork and other

construction required7), ferry docks (around $3 million), or a multi-modal facility.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Gulf Islands National Seashore and Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve both

received Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program grants to replace the ferry docks.

•	 Acadia National Park implemented a multi-agency, intermodal center with partial

funding from the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program.

•	 http://www.maine.gov/mdot/agc/Documents/pdf/phase2&3/

AGCFinalPreliminaryDesignReport2012_12_21.pdf

•	 http://www.maine.gov/mdot/mainedotnews/agc12182009.htm

•	 http://www.maine.gov/mdot/agc/phase1/index.htm

•	 Acadia and Zion both received Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks grants for new bus stops.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine the need for mitigation.

In order to quantify the effectiveness of this tool on improving congestion, the data

collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool has specific

performance measures that can quantify effectiveness. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Number of visitors switching from personal vehicle to alternate mode.

Additional Resources

•	 Tusayan Transit Shelter Design Project - http://cpcesu.nau.edu/current/documents/

TusayanTransitSheltersFinalReportwAppendices.pdf

•	 Cape Canaveral National Seashore Shelter Project - Etic document #206551 (May

2003), Etic document #178297 (Feb. 2004), Etic document #D394-215842 (July 1, 2008),

and Etic document #4064-215858 (July 16, 2008) found at http://etic.nps.gov

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination may be needed with local transit/ferry agencies, the local gateway

community, and/or local bicycling organizations.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include repair and replacement parts, staff

time, utilities, and maintenance of facilities (including mowing, trail clean-up, repaving

every ten years, etc.) depending on the scope and extent of the facility.
PT

Congestion Management Toolkit 65 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

General Description

Park-and-ride facilities allow visitors to leave their car and travel through the 

national park via transit. This allows for protection of resources due to decreasing 

the need for parking outside of designated areas, increased visitor experience when 

interpretation is provided on the transit, decreased traffic congestion by removing 

vehicles from the roadway, and increased parking availability. Park-and-ride facilities 

can be located in the gateway community (such as Grand Canyon and Muir Woods) 

and in the park/unit itself (such as Rocky Mountain). 

However; even the best planned and designed park-and-ride facility will not be 

successful without effective marketing. The marketing activities need to be 

exceptionally robust when the park-and-ride operation is first implemented and then 

must remain strong thereafter. 

The most important part of any promotion is to ensure that a consistent message is 

provided and that the information is timely, accurate, and reliable. One way to ensure 

that a consistent message is provided is to have a communications staff member who 

can develop press releases as well as presentations and provide “train the trainer” 

events for unit staff as well as in the local gateway community for businesses and 

lodging establishments. If the park/unit does not have staff for these activities, 

the chamber of commerce or local business association can often assume these 

responsibilities, working as partners with the park/unit.

The messages provided should ensure that visitors understand any fees that exist 

(e.g., bus fare, parking fees, entrance fees, etc.); where/how to pay these fees; 

which public transportation routes to use/times available; and how to get around the 

park/unit once there.

This information can be promoted through the use of other tools listed in this toolbox 

such as: dynamic/variable message signs (see ES-5), 511 traveler information phone 

number (see ES-1), websites (see VDM-14) and media/social media (see VDM-5). Park-andride information can also be published in the park/unit’s newsletter, static signs for the 

park-and-ride lot, “rack cards” which can be placed at local hotels and in the bus itself, 

and by word of mouth at visitor centers at the park/unit and in the gateway community.

SOLUTION/TOOL: New or Expanded Park-and-Ride Facilities (Including Promotion)

TYPE: Public Transportation

PT

5
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

66 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Visitors using park-and-ride facilities will create less demand for parking spaces in

congested areas.

•	 Park-and-ride facilities promote mode shift to transit therefore decreasing the

number of personal automobiles.

CONS

•	 While addressing traffic congestion, park-and-ride facilities may allow more people

to access an area. For example, a trail head or visitor center which used to have

access limited by the number of parking spaces available, will now be available to

not only those parking in the area, but also those parking off site and riding public

transportation. This could affect the resources and the carrying capacity of those

locations in negative ways (pulsing of people arriving at attractions, visitor centers, etc.).

•	 It may be difficult to verify visitors have paid an entrance fee if they come through the

entrance gate in a bus, so alternative payment systems need to be provided.

•	 Further, if more people ride the transit system, the same consequences that occur 

for a transit service may occur (such as pulsing of people arriving at attractions,

visitor centers, etc.).













•	 It should also be noted that just informing the public of a park-and-ride may not be

enough for them to use it, incentives such as interpretative information available on

public transportation or cost savings for parking or reduced entrance fees may need

to be offered.

GENERAL

•	 Park-and-ride capacity needs to be larger than the capacity of the parking lot it is

replacing since the parking duration at a park-and-ride is longer due to travel time.

•	 The location of the park-and-ride facility may change how visitors access/use the

visitor center. To address this, the park/unit will need to work with interpretive staff.

•	 Incentives and marketing efforts must be implemented to push users/visitors to these

park-and-ride lots, and the associated alternative modes.

•	 Ensure that a consistent message is provided and that the information is timely,

accurate, and reliable.

Coordination/Partnerships

This tool will require close coordination and partnership with the gateway community

if the park-and-ride will be located there. It will also require close coordination and

partnership with the transit provider. For the promotion aspect, partnerships will be

needed with chamber of commerce, local business association, visitor centers in the

gateway community, local businesses and lodging establishments, and media.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is longer term (3 to 6 years).

Creating a new park-and-ride will take years for land acquisition, planning,

engineering/design, and construction. Promotion of park-and-ride lots through a

media/social media campaign can be implemented in a short time. Implementing a

promotional campaign using dynamic/variable message signs (see ES-5) may take

longer, unless the park already owns or leases dynamic/variable message signs.


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 67 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Calculation of parking lot occupancy.

•	 Shuttle ridership counts from park-and-ride.

Additional Resources

•	 Contact the park/unit’s National Park Service region’stransportation coordinator orthe

Denver Service Center as an additionalresource.

•	 Park and Ride information - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm27.htm

•	 Park and Ride Planning andDesign Guidelines- http://www.pbworld.com/pdfs/

publications/monographs/spillar.pdf

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

Of the total cost, the design/construction portion averages $4,000 to $5,000 per parking

space for a surface lot4. For example, Grand Canyon National Park park-and-ride cost

around $4700 per parking space5. Costs vary by type of facility. Multi-level, above grade, or

below grade facilities will cost significantly more than a surface lot.

The promotional costs vary depending on the methods used. For some of the methods

such as social media and “train the trainer” the majority of the cost will be staff salaries;

however, there will also be costs associated with printing promotional materials. The costs

associated with a dynamic/variable message sign are provided in tool ES-5.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include $400 per space annually for items such

as cleaning, lighting, maintenance, repairs, security services, landscaping, snow removal,

fee collection, enforcement, insurance, labor and administration6. Operating costs for

promotion will include staff time to continually keep promotional materials updated and

distributed, as well as, printing costs for promotional materials.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park has a park-and-ride lot in the park along Bear Lake

Road, at the fairgrounds in Estes Park, and plans to build a second multi-level lot at

the visitors’ center in Estes Park. For promotion, Rocky utilized their website,

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 and 2010 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

dynamic/variable message signs, highway advisory radio, “rack cards,” press releases,

the unit newsletter, and presentations in the gateway community to promote multiple

park-and-rides as part of the Bear Lake Road construction mitigation in 2011 and

2012. The park and ride concept was so successful that the Town of Estes Park

received a grant to create a three story parking garage where the surface lot is now

located at the town visitor center.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/shuttle_bus_route.htm

•	 Grand Canyon National Park has a park-and-ride lot in the gateway community of Tusayan.

•	 Yosemite National Park has park-and-ride lots in Curry Village and Yosemite Village.

•	 Muir Woods National Monument has a park-and-ride lot off Highway 101 called the

Pohono park-and-ride lot and a second at the Sausalito ferry terminal. A dynamic variable

messages sign has been used to promote the Muir Woods shuttle and park-and-ride lots.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/muwo/planyourvisit/directions.htm

•	 Bryce Canyon also has park-and-ride lots outside the park including the shuttle

staging area (near Ruby’s Inn) and Ruby’s campground.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/brca/planyourvisit/shuttle.htm 
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

68 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Leveraging social media – http://www.nationalrtap.org/Resources/

ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=leveraging%20

social%20media

•	 Use ofsocial media in public transportation (TCRP Synthesis 99)- http://onlinepubs.trb.

org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf
PT

Congestion Management Toolkit 69 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Rail service can potentially increase passenger throughput and decrease traffic

congestion by relocating visitors from their private automobiles to rail transport.

•	 Rail may be seen as higher quality service than a bus due to being more comfortable,

faster, and the provision of more options (such as a bathrooms and a food car).

•	 Rail can provide energy and emission reduction benefits depending on the 

propulsion method.

•	 Rail use is a great option for non-drivers and those who do not own a car.

CONS

•	 Even if a local rail service exists, it is not typically as easy to add a stop or adjust a

route to include the park/unit as it would be with a bus/shuttle. This is due to the

infrastructure required to implement rail service18.”

•	 Rail service generally requires public subsidy as the revenues tend to not equal the

cost of the system.

•	 Consider total cost of ownership over a 20 year term, rail is expensive to operate and

maintain on an annual basis, and recapitalization cost are high22.









General Description

In a national park setting, rail is generally utilized in two ways (1) for 

visitors to access the park/unit such as with commuter rail, subways, 

or Amtrak service, and (2) as part of the visitor experience of moving 

within the park/unit on a tour.

In some parks, such as Yellowstone National Park, visitors originally 

accessed the park/unit by rail. Now, the majority of visitors to most 

parks arrive via private automobiles (or other vehicles). By working with 

partners, it may be possible to reestablish rail access in parks/units that 

once had such access or as a new way to access parks/units.

This is a very complex tool that should only be considered in special 

circumstances.







6



SOLUTION/TOOL: Rail

TYPE: Public Transportation
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

70 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include fuel and oil; repairs and maintenance;

staff time for managing sales, operating the equipment, and maintaining the equipment;

insurance; and marketing. Cuyahoga Valley National Park operating expenses were $2.4

million in 2010 and $2.8 million for 201127.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Cuyahoga Valley National Park has a railroad through the park which provide access

to park sites and tours. A comprehensive study was recently completed to provide

recommendations for adjustments to the existing system. Cuyahoga also promotes a

bike on board program with one rail car specifically designated for bicycles.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/depo/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

•	 Lowell National Historical Park usestrolleysto tourthe park sites. In 2002, a study was

conducted on the feasibility ofreplacing the trolleys with a lightrailsystem. The park also

promotes accessing the visitor center via commuterrail. The Lowellsystem is both for

congestion and visitor experience.

•	 http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/lowellnational-historical-park-historic-trolley-planning-study

•	 http://www.nps.gov/lowe/planyourvisit/publictransportation.htm

•	 Visitors can access Grand Canyon NP by rail from Williams, AZ. This system provides

both access and visitor experience.

•	 http://www.thetrain.com/

•	 Visitors can access Big South Fork National Recreation Area by rail from Stearns, KY.

This system provides both access and visitor experience and contributes to reducing

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the local transit/rail agencies, the local gateway

community, Amtrak, and/or other rail service providers. Working with local transit agencies

to further connect visitors from rail stations to park/unit sites also may be needed.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years.

Generally it will take years to decades to plan and implement rail service. The time to

implement service will be shorter if existing infrastructure exists and can be used or

rehabilitated for use. Another time savings would be to purchase or lease of rail cars

from an existing local service.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 and 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

Costs will vary depending upon the scope of the project and whether or not there are

existing facilities and/or infrastructure.

GENERAL

•	 Having a shuttle within the park/unit can make it more feasible for visitors to arrive

at the park/unit via rail because then they have a way to continue their visit within

the unit without a private automobile.

Of the total costs, the design and construction portion range from $3.5 million per mile

to $44 million per mile with increases in cost for electric versus non-electric, terrain

changes from plains to mountains, and land use from rural to urban26. The costs to

implement a rail service with existing infrastructure will cost approximately $1.25

million per mile to purchase existing track and $250,000 per mile to rehabilitate the

track. Station rehabilitation is around $1.5 million. The cost of a used rail car ranges

from $20,000 to $250,00027.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 71 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Planning methodology for rail construction costs- http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/

viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=etd

•	 National Association of Railroad Passengers- http://www.narprail.org/resources/

links/state-passenger-rail-groups

•	 Association of American Railroads

- https://www.aar.org/Pages/Home.aspx

•	 Rail resources- http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Pages/

Rail.aspx

•	 Evaluation of the benefits of rail travel- http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf

crowding in the parking area and carries bikes creatinga nice one-way bike

experience. This type of tool is appropriate fora national recreation area which has

emphases on different activities thana national park.

•	 http://www.bsfsry.com/

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Number of visitors using rail.
PT

72 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Reserved transit travel lanes allow transit to avoid the traffic congestion caused by private

automobiles and other motor vehicles; therefore, decreasing the travel time for the buses.

•	 Reserved transit travel lanes can provide congestion-free routes for emergency vehicles.

CONS

•	 If the reserved transit lanes are only available at the entrance station, congestion at the

main entrance gate lines could back-up far enough that those using the reserved transit

lane still have to wait until they can access the faster lanes due to geometric constraints.

•	 Using shoulders or decreasing current lane widths to allow for reserved transit lanes

without reconstruction may be possible, but safety analysis will be needed11.

•	 Adding travel lanes for transit will typically widen the footprint of the transportation

corridor and environmental analysis will be required to determine that the

improvements won’t negatively impactwildlife and other resources.









General Description

In a national park setting, one reason for implementing transit is to 

decrease traffic congestion. However, the transit service (buses) may 

get stuck in the same traffic as the private automobiles if alternative or 

exclusive routes/travel ways are not provided for the transit vehicles. 

This can cause delays and unpredictability in the schedule of the buses/

shuttles. One way to avoid this is to have reserved travel lanes for transit.

Implementation for this tool in a national park setting is very 

underdeveloped. Creation of a transit-only lane would likely require 

either a road expansion as most park roads are relatively narrow 

(expensive and resource intensive) or a re-evaluation of park circulation 

patterns such as a one-way loop. The only known examples of transitonly lanes in national parks exist an entrance stations (see AC-2).

Another option may be to allow buses to travel on shoulders during times 

of congestion (such as on the interstate in St. Paul, MN)28. However, this 

creates a variety of concerns related to safety and cross traffic control, 

and the shoulder has to be wide enough to accommodate the buses. 

This is a highly specialized tool that should only be considered in special 

circumstances.





7

SOLUTION/TOOL: Reserved Travel Lanes for

 Transit Operation

TYPE: Public Transportation

GENERAL

•	 Reconstruction of a roadway to include transit-only lanes will require an

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 73 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 The method for delineating the reserved lanes can determine how effective the lanes

will be. Providing barriers such as curbing or planting strips to separate the reserved

lane is more effective than simply painting the lanes29.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the gateway community, the local transit agency, the

local transportation agency if the roadways are outside the park’s/unit’s jurisdiction,

and the regional federal lands highway office.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years).

The time to implement reserved travel lanes for transit will depend on the size of the area

and the existing roadway width and structure. For example, deploying at an entrance station

will take less time (1 to 3 years) than reconstructing roadway throughout an entire park/unit

(3 to 6 years). Less time will be needed if roadway width is sufficient to add a separate lane or

if abandoned tunnels or rail trails can be used instead of constructing additional width.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

The costs associated with adding a limited access only lane at an entrance are provided

in tool AC-2. The costs associated with increasing road capacity are provided in tool

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include restriping roads; repaving or resurfacing;

patching potholes; snow removal; sand application and removal; and other maintenance.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 There are no known examples in a national park setting.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

• Number of riders on transit.

• Reduced travel time for transit.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s Managed Lanes Website/Resources - http://ops.

fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/managed_lanes.htm

•	 Minnesota Department of Transportation discusses buses on shoulders - http://

www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/docs/bosupdate.pdf

•	 North Carolina Department of Transportation allows buses to operate on roadway

shoulders - http://www.ncdot.gov/nctransit/boss/

•	 Park road standards - http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/library/

park-road-std.pdf

AC-5. The cost is significantly less if utilizing existing shoulders, or adding a lane by

narrowing the existing lanes through re-striping.
PT

74 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Increasing the occupancy (number of visitors) per vehicle through ridesharing/

carpooling (filling seats that otherwise would have been unoccupied) can help decrease

congestion by removing personal vehicles from roadways and entrance stations.

•	 Ridesharing and vanpooling can decrease environmental impacts by reducing

pollution and other effects of single occupant vehicle use and can save employees/

concessionaires money.

•	 Ridesharing and vanpooling are both great options for non-drivers and those who do

not own a car.

CONS

•	 Simply setting up a ridesharing and/or vanpooling system is not enough to get drivers

to leave their private automobiles. Changing visitor behavior will often require the

promotion of ridesharing/vanpooling and/or offering incentives such as discount

coupons or reduced fees or preferred parking spaces.

•	 Using ridesharing or vanpooling does not allow drivers the same flexibility as a

personal vehicle in both the ability to access sites on their own schedule and to bring

all of their personal equipment with them.









General Description

Increasing the number of people per vehicle can help decrease 

congestion by removing personal vehicles from roadways and entrance 

stations. Two ways to accomplish this is by having people rideshare 

(carpool) or vanpool, therefore filling seats that otherwise would have 

been unoccupied. Carpools (or carpooling) are typically connected with 

ridesharing using cars/privately owned automobiles, whereas vanpools 

are ridesharing in vans (often 13-15 passenger vans) that are purchased, 

leased, or rented specifically for ridesharing. Carpools/vanpools can 

originate either from a personal residence or from a centralized meeting 

place such as a park-and-ride (see PT-5). Organization of a carpool/

vanpool can be accomplished by an individual through social media (see 

VDM-5) or through specific carpooling software or websites.

Ridesharing, carpooling, and vanpooling are typically used in urban as 

congestion management techniques for commuters and incentivized 

by employers; however, these techniques can also be effective in 

a recreation setting for visitors, employees and concessionaires to 

decrease vehicular congestion.







8



SOLUTION/TOOL: Ridesharing/Vanpools

TYPE: Public Transportation
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 75 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with vanpooling companies and with local agencies that

provide ride matching services such as transportation management associations, transit

agencies, and community transportation organizations.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement ridesharing services (carpooling and/or vanpooling) will depend

on whether or not those services are already available in the area (gateway communities)

near the park. If so, ridesharing to the park could be implemented almost immediately. If

no services exist, then software programs and vehicles will need to be procured, and the

ridesharing options will need to be marketed to visitors, employees, and concessionaires.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total costs, the procurement costs for a computerized ridesharing software

can range from $25,000 to $80,000 (depending upon geographic coverage and other

features) and for purchasing of vans typically cost $40,000 to $60,000 for 13-15

passenger vans (depending upon options and engines).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longterm cost implications for this tool include staff salaries (which will be higher if a manual

ride matching program is implemented); software updates for automated ride matching;

fuel; insurance; promotional materials; and repair and replacement parts for vehicles.

Automated solutions will likely have a higher capital cost, but may have a lower annual

operating cost. If vanpooling is implemented, operating costs are typically incurred by

those riding in the vanpool, unless the park chooses to subsidize the vanpool program.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The National Park Service supports carpooling.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/involved/resources/staffvehicles.html

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

• Vehicle occupancy.

• Number of employees ridesharing.

Additional Resources

•	 How to find a rideshare - http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/04/03/how-to-finda-ride-share/

•	 Ridesharing - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm

•	 Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit - http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/

tsyn98.pdf

•	 General information about vanpools and where to find existing vanpools - http://

www.vpsiinc.com/Home/index.asp?OID=261
PT

76 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Real-time GPS bus tracking/mapping (automatic vehicle location) allows the capability

to tell visitors when the next bus will arrive, which can make a service successful by

reducing wait time perceptions and allows visitors to better plan their time at a site.

•	 Automated vehicle location can improve the efficiency and performance of a transit

system as information can be collected and analyzed in regards to schedule timing.

•	 Automated annunciation can improve a visitor’s experience, as information is

provided as to the current bus/shuttle stop.

•	 Systems that monitor engine performance can identify maintenance issues before

they result in on-road equipment failure.

•	 There may be opportunities to combine the function of automated systems with

conveying visitor information and interpretation.

CONS

•	 Portions of this technology will require electricity onsite. If these locations are

remote and do not currently have electricity, this is a complex process.

•	 Portions of the technology will require communications which may not be available

or may have a weak signal due to the landscape.







General Description

Transit technology applications can include automated vehicle location 

systems (AVL), which are electronic systems that focus on tracking 

buses through GPS; automated passenger counting (boarding) systems; 

systems that automatically track maintenance issues; in-vehicle electronic 

information such as stop annunciation and electronic display boards; 

and transit status signs to provide users with bus arrival times (often 

referred to as “next bus” signs). These features can help to encourage 

visitors to use buses/transit services for access to/from and within 

parks/units, and they can make transit use more efficient and effective.

This tool can be a very complex technique to deploy in a national park setting.











9

SOLUTION/TOOL: Transportation Technology

 Applications

TYPE: Public Transportation
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 77 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 For a small fleet, the benefits of transit technology may not outweigh the costs.

•	 As with any technology, operation and maintenance of the systemsrequireslearning each

technology, and how they may be integrated into the vehicle and transit/shuttle service.

•	 This technology can contribute more to increasing a visitor’s comfort level and

satisfaction with a transit system than to increasing a transit system’s effectiveness.

•	 This tool will require having specialized IT staff at the park/unit to monitor the

automated vehicle location system and GPS applications. 

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the gateway community, the local transit agency, the

park’s transit provider, and the park interpretive plan.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this is

near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement transit technology applications will depend on which options

are selected. Stand-alone systems such as automated passenger counters will take less

time to deploy then a fleet maintenance tracking which requires equipment on the

vehicles as well as hardware and software to analyze the data. It will take more time if

communications and electricity need to be installed.

Cost/Financial Information

(Life cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion includes in-vehicle automated

annunciation or electronic display boards (around $4,000 per vehicle), automated

vehicle location systems that track a vehicles location ($500 to $2,500 per vehicle),

transit status signs ($4,000 to $8,000 per location), real-time processing hardware

and software necessary for analyzing the vehicle locations ($10,000 to $1,000,000),

passenger counting technologies ($1,000 to more than $10,000 per vehicle), mobile data

terminals for maintenance tracking ($1,500 and $5,000 per vehicle), vehicle diagnostics

($2,000 per vehicle), and a computer aided dispatch system for analyzing the data

($25,000 for a small fleet system)3. There will also be costs associated with upgrading

transit stops with the appropriate shelters and with utilities.

A park/unit may be able to negotiate the use of transit technology applications into

a contract when procuring shuttle/bus services. Many contractors may already be

utilizing some of these technologies, as it makes their services more efficient (capturing

the benefits noted herein).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time, repair and replacement parts

for technology, software updates, and utility costs.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Acadia National Park implemented two way voice communications on their transit

(Island Explorer), automated vehicle location, arrival sign systems, an automated

annunciator system, passenger counters, and a traveler information system.

•	 http://www.exploreacadia.com/satellites.htm

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13196.pdf

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13861/13861.pdf

•	 Yosemite National Park produced an RFQ for automated vehicle location systems and

arrival status signs for their transit system in 2011.

•	 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad553bc14ffb459ab

eaf5a16de306124&tab=core&_cview=0
MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

78 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 AVL Systems for Bus Transit: Update - http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/

tsyn73.pdf

•	 Automated Passenger Counting Systems - http://publictransport.about.com/od/

Transit_Technology/a/Automated-Passenger-Counting-Apc-Systems-How-DoThey-Work.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

• Ridership.

• Reduced vehicle down time for maintenance.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 79 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)







General Description

Traffic flow in parks can be influenced by the speed of vehicles, which is 

affected by factors such as site seeing, turning movements, as well as 

the grade (or steepness) of roads.

Acceleration/deceleration traffic lanes, also known as “climbing” or 

“passing” lanes allow faster moving vehicles to use a separate lane to 

pass slower vehicles. The separation of slower vehicles from the traffic 

stream allows for greater capacity on roads especially at steeper grades 

where vehicles such as recreational vehicles will have a more difficult 

time in maintaining their speed. 

Acceleration/deceleration lanes are commonly used in urban areas to 

manage congestion related to speeds on steep roads. It should be noted 

that increasing speed and efficiency is not the focus of parks. Taking 

that into account along with the fact that adding a lane to a roadway 

through reconstruction is a complex undertaking in a park, this is a tool 

that should only be used in special circumstances.

Roadway pull-outs or turn-outs (see TOI-13) are sometimes implemented as 

lower cost alternatives to construction of climbing or passing lanes (see AC-5).



1

SOLUTION/TOOL: Acceleration/

 Deceleration Lanes

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

PROS

•	 Acceleration/deceleration lanes can separate slow moving vehicles from the traffic

flow (for a segment of the roadway), and improve the overall flow of traffic, especially

on roadways with steep grades.

•	 Acceleration/deceleration lanes are especially valuable in parks/units that have a

significant number of recreational vehicles because these motorists often have a hard

time maintaining speeds on roads with steep grades (slopes).

CONS

•	 Adding acceleration/decelerations lanes means adding new lanes to park roads, which

need to be carefully designed to avoid or minimize impacts to natural resources.

•	 Adding lanes to roadways can be an expensive option. It may be possible to get a

similar affect by creating pull-outs or turn-outs (see TOI-13) instead.

•	 Adding acceleration lanes can lead to excessive speed. The perception is that roadway

capacity is greater and therefore the design speed is greater. This has the opposite

effect of traffic calming measures.

Implementation Considerations
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

80 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the local gateway community and local and/or state

department of transportation if the lanes are added outside of the park; and with the

appropriate federal lands highway division if the lanes are added inside the park. If

roadway prism is enlarged, close coordination with natural and cultural resource staff

is required to maintain a balance of visitor access and preservation.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from longer term (3 to 6 years) to beyond 6 years. 

Adding an acceleration/deceleration lane can take a significant amount of time,

given that these lanes are often added in areas with significant road grades (slopes).

Adding lanes typically will require planning, design, environmental review, and

construction over a multiple year process. The only instance where this may not be the

case is if there is a roadway with an adequate shoulder that could be converted to an

acceleration/deceleration lane.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the design and construction of a lane in a ruralsetting is $1.6 million

to $3.1 million perlane-mile; however, in an environmentally sensitive area, the costs could be

larger and range from $5.8 to $9.9 million per lane-mile11. The cost is significantly less if only

utilizing a shoulder, or adding a lane by narrowing the existing lanes through re-striping.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Better traffic flow on roadways with significant grades/slopes.

•	 Increased capacity and speed on roadway sections with a significant grade/slope.

Additional Resources

•	 Texas A&M Transportation Institute - http://www.triptac.org/Help/http://mobility.

tamu.edu/mip/strategies_pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/AccelerationDeceleration-Lanes-4-Pg.pdf 

•	 Utah DOT Document - https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.

gf?n=9711832185598340

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications include restriping roads; repaving or resurfacing; patching

potholes; snow removal; sand application and removal; and other maintenance.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Mount Rainier National Park has acceleration lanes in some steep sections of the road.

•	 Zion National Park has implemented pull-outs (TOI-13) versus acceleration lanes for

RV’s and other vehicles that have difficulty maintaining speeds on the steep grades

leading up to the tunnel. The pull-outs give the added advantage of safer locations for

picture taking and enjoying the scenery.

•	 Parks contemplating the addition of acceleration/deceleration lanes includes: Petersburg

National Battlefield and Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 81 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

•	 Access management can reduce the number of “conflict points” along a roadway

improving traffic flow and reducing potential accident situations.

•	 The access management process should start with analysis of the number of access

points along the roadways in the park/unit.

PROS

•	 Access management can be one of the more simple approaches for reducing traffic

“conflict points” and increase traffic flow (such as reducing congestion).

•	 A good access management plan can help improve safety on roadways and access

points along roadways.

•	 Implementing access management solutions can be relatively inexpensive, such as

using boulders or other natural materials to close a parking lot entrance/exit or

other access point. Reducing access points in large parking lots can improve flow and

increase the number of parking spaces.

•	 Reduced vehicle access points can be beneficial to pedestrians and bicyclists by

reducing the crossings and conflict points along their route.







General Description

Access management includes a set of techniques that a park/unit, as 

well as state and local governments can use to control access to and 

along highways, major arterials, and other roadways. The benefits of 

access management include improved movement of traffic, reduced 

crashes, and fewer vehicle conflicts. Access management also can be 

beneficial to pedestrians and bicyclists by reducing the amount of 

conflicts (such as driveways) along their route.

In a park, for example, there may be multiple entrances and exits to large 

parking lots, visitor centers and other attractions. Vehicular congestion 

can sometime occur because there are simply too many access points 

(entrances and exits) off a roadway. Access management allows for 

controlling these points (closing or moving some, etc.) to improve traffic 

flow. Access management is more commonly used in urban areas.

This tool would also be appropriate as a short term pilot project.







2 SOLUTION/TOOL: Access Management

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

82 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Reducing the number of access points to a parking lot, visitor center, etc., may cause

more congestion at the remaining access points.

•	 Access management may require a comprehensive review of all access points within a

park/unit, and may require additional infrastructure (such as turning lanes (see TOI6), additional pull-outs (TOI-13), and improved traffic control devices (see TOI-8)) to

be effective.

•	 Adding new pull-outs (TOI-13) as access management can reduce vehicle conflicts

by having pullouts designated right-in/right-out. This will eliminate left turns and

reduce accident situations but may result in the need for additional pull-outs on the

opposite side of the road.

Coordination/Partnerships

Depending upon the access management solutions to be implemented, coordination

may be necessary with gateway communities, the local and/or state departments of

transportation, and/or the regional Federal Land Highway Division.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). 

Analyzing and implementing basic measures (such as closing an entrance or exit to a

parking lot or restriping) will take less time than a comprehensive access management

review and implementing infrastructure improvements such as improving traffic control

devices, adding new pullouts, or added turning lanes.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include yearly repair and replacement of

materials used to close/move access points for parking lots, snow removal so visitors can

see closures materials, and staff time for additional enforcement of new access patterns.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The parking lot at Jacob Riis Beach in Gateway National Recreation Area has several

entrances as part of its historic design. The secondary ones are closed and only the

main one is used now. This change was most likely implemented a long time ago,

in part for safety reasons and in part for revenue control reasons.Harpers Ferry

evaluated adding shuttle routes to distribute visitors to other areas of the park. This

study was documented in an alternative transportation study conducted in 2011 by a

National Park Foundation transportation scholar.

•	 Florida Department of Transportation

•	 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/accman/pdfs/ampromo3.pdf

•	 Atlanta Regional Commission.

•	 http://www.atlantaregional.com/transportation/roads--highways/accessmanagement 

CONS CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Capital costs will vary depending upon the exact measures used to implement the

access management solution and upon how many access points will need to be closed or

otherwise modified.

Of the total capital costs, the construction/implementation portion is estimated at less

than $10,000 per location.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 83 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Reduction in congestion (delays) in and around access points (parking lots, visitor

centers, etc.) where access management has been implemented.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration- http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/

resources.htm and http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/amprimer/access_mgmt_

primer.htm

•	 Institute of Transportation Engineers- http://www.ite.org/technical/

IntersectionSafety/access.pdf 
TOI

84 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

TOI

General Description

Interactions between motorists and animals can cause 

congestion in three ways. First, animal-vehicle collisions can 

result in an animal carcass and/or a disabled vehicle in the 

roadway. Second, motorists may stop along a roadway to view 

wildlife at locations along the main highway where there are 

inadequate shoulders or pullouts (sometimes referred to as 

animal jams). Third, animals moving slowly will cause traffic 

to stop and wait for the animal to cross the roadway. 

There are a myriad of solutions for animal-vehicle conflicts 

including a temporary road closure during migration 

season (refer to Additional Resources at the end of this 

tool description for a link to the Report to Congress, which 

provides an extensive list of solution types). Although most 

solutions focus on only solving animal/vehicle collisions, 

this tool recommends providing separated crossings for 

wildlife to move over or under the roadway, which solves all 

three issues. Because wildlife viewing is important to visitor 

experience, this should only be implemented in areas where 

the level of traffic or lack of pull-outs causes a regular, 

significant congestion impact. 

Wildlife crossing structures can be overpasses or 

underpasses and can vary in width (roadway length) from 

a few meters (such as a box culvert) to 50 meters or wider. 

Earth berms and terrain can be used to hide the view so 

animals are not hindered from crossing by the sight of 

vehicles and to prevent motorists from seeing the animals 

and stopping at the wildlife structure where it may be 

unsafe to stop. These structures are typically combined with 

wildlife fencing to funnel animals to the structure.

3 SOLUTION/TOOL: Animal Vehicle Crossings

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 85 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Reduces animal vehicle collisions.

•	 Improves connectivity for animals across roadways where traffic volumes are high

enough to create a barrier to animal movements.

•	 Reduce animal jams.

•	 Reduce delays from vehicles waiting for animals to cross roads.

CONS

•	 Eliminates viewing of wildlife from roadway.

•	 Fencing associated with crossing structures on lower-traffic roadways can increase

the barrier effect for animal movement.

GENERAL

When implementing animal crossing mitigations, consider the following:

•	 Wildlife guards can be used to keep animals from getting into the roadway through

gaps where approach roads cross the fence.







•	 Various fencing end treatments can be used to minimize animals getting into the

fenced road corridor by going around the end of the fence.

•	 For animals that do get trapped in between the fence and are stuck on the roadway,

provide one-way escape opportunities for animals such as jump-outs.

•	 Consider vegetation and coverthroughout the crossing structure to encourage animal use.

•	 Dual use crossing structures can reduce overall costs. For example, adding a little length to

a bridge over a waterway can create enough room for animals to pass under the roadway.

•	 If the crossing is a vehicle bridge with wildlife access underneath, the structure

must be included in the FLHP bridge inspection program and will require regularly

scheduled maintenance of the structure.

Coordination/Partnerships

Non-profit advocacy groups with a wildlife mission may be able to provide financial

or other support for implementing and maintaining the structure. If the roadway

is outside the park/unit, coordination would be needed with the local and/or state

transportation agency or regional federal lands highway division.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years). 

Design, environmental review, and construction can take years depending upon the size

and location of the crossing. 

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

86 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include a good fence maintenance program,

regularly scheduled bridge maintenance and regular bridge inspections.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Banff National Park Alberta, Canada has constructed wildlife underpasses,

overpasses, and fencing.

•	 http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/transport/tch-rtc/passagescrossings.aspx

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Increased number of animals using crossing.

•	 Reduced number of animal vehicle collisions.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher

(above $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the construction/implementation portion is $100,000 for a

small box culvert (but this may not be very ecologically viable) and $1 to $2.5 million for

a typical structure designed for wildlife (50 meters wide or wider including the road

length they span). The design life of these structures is typically 30-50 years30.

Additional Resources

•	 Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress - http://http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/ 

•	 Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Best Practices Manual - http://www.

westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/4W1096_Best_Practices_

Manual.pdf 

•	 Wildlife Crossing Structure Toolkit - http://www.cflhd.gov/programs/

techDevelopment/wildlife/documents/01_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_

Handbook.pdf 
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 87 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations







General Description

A “complete street” is a street that is a safe, comfortable, integrated 

transportation network for all users (and modes), regardless of age, ability, 

income, ethnicity, or mode of transportation. Complete streets are achieved 

both by having a policy (or policies) that encourage them, as well as having 

the infrastructure/facilities that serve all modes of transportation. 

“A complete street may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved 

shoulders) (see TOI-10), special bus lanes (see PT-7), comfortable and 

accessible public transportation stops (see PT-4), frequent and safe crossing 

opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, 

narrower travel lanes, roundabouts, and more31.” A complete street in a 

rural area will look significantly different than that of an urban area.

Implementing a complete street can reduce congestion by making it safer 

and more convenient for visitors to choose multi-modal transportation 

options (such as walking, bicycling, and transit); make existing roads more 

efficient; and therefore adding capacity to the existing roadway. 

In a park setting, this would mean that the park would have policies in place 

that the streets (roadways) can be used by multiple modes (transit, cyclists, 

and pedestrians) in addition to automobiles. Further, the park would make 

sure that its streets/roadways are constructed as “complete streets”.









PROS

•	 Transportation modes such as cycling, walking, and transit have the ability to use the

“complete streets” within the park/unit, which can reduce congestion on roadways

and enhance the visitor experience.

•	 Complete streets policies focus on users of all ages and abilities, which addresses

provisions of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) and other equity considerations.

CONS

•	 Implementing complete streets requires initial planning, design, and budgeting

for full roadway improvements, and may require parks/units to add shoulders to

roadways or construct separated pathways for cyclists and pedestrians.

•	 Implementing complete streets concepts may require additional infrastructure

(such as paths and trails) that need to be carefully designed to avoid degrading the

resources that the park/unit is trying to protect.

4

SOLUTION/TOOL: Complete Streets

 (Policy & Facilities)

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

•	 Complete streets principles are often thought of as an “urban” issue, but can be

implemented in rural areas, including national parks. Complete streets policies focus
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

88 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from high

($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

The majority of cost for implementing complete streets is related design and construction

of relevant infrastructure. Costs will vary depending upon the scope of the project and

what facilities and/or infrastructure are implemented.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the gateway community, local and/or state departments

of transportation and/or the regional Federal Lands Highway Division, depending upon

where the complete streets will be implemented. 

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) forthistool is nearterm (1 to 3 years).

Implementation of a complete streets policy will take years, based upon necessary

studies and processes that the park/unit has adopted for other policies (including

public comment). Implementing complete streets infrastructure will vary depending

upon items that will be implemented (such as separated pathways, sidewalks, or trails)

and including time for planning, design, environmental review, and construction.

A planning study for complete streets policy can range from $150,000 to $500,000

depending on the size of the park/unit.

Of the total capital cost, the construction portion for sidewalks and pathways is

$100 to more than $200 per linear foot (for a 10-foot wide path). These costs can

vary significantly depending upon the grade (slope) of the roadway, or if culverts or

pedestrian/bicycle bridges have to be added to cross creeks, or other natural features.

Costs may be lower if a bike lane can be included on the roadway by simply striping the

lanes (see TOI-10).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include the normal maintenance of sidewalks

and trails/pathways (such as snow removal and sweeping). Operating costs will vary

depending upon the length of the trails, sidewalks, and pathways and any other

infrastructure added as part of a complete streets policy.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The City of Boston and the National Park Service are collaborating to connect historic

Boston via complete streets.Acadia National Park implemented a multi-agency, intermodal

center with partial funding from the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program.

•	 http://bostoncompletestreets.org/whats-new/city-of-boston-and-nationalpark-service-announce-connect-historic-boston/http://www.maine.gov/mdot/

mainedotnews/agc12182009.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 oftheNational Park Service’sCongestionManagement SystemProcess,the park/

unit quantified the level of congestion to determine ifmitigation is needed.In orderto quantify the

effectiveness of this particulartool on improving that congestion, the original data collection

from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool also has specific performance

measureswhich can quantify the effectiveness of the tool itself. Forthistool, examplesinclude:

•	 Percentage of streets/roads that allow for multi-modal use.

•	 Reduced congestion on roadways due to visitors shifting to other modes (measured

by reduced travel time).

on users of all ages and abilities, which addresses provisions of the Americans with

Disabilities (ADA) and other equity considerations.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 89 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Complete Streets Fact Sheets- http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets/complete-streets-fundamentals/factsheets

•	 Complete StreetsA toZ- http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/

a-to-z

•	 Complete Streets ina Box Toolkit for Connecticut- http://www.tstc.org/reports/ctcsbx/

•	 Rural Walking Toolkit- http://walkboston.org/ruralwalking

•	 Taking Action on Complete Streets:A Toolkit for Implementation- http://www.

smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/impl/taking-action-on-cs.pdf

•	 American Planning Association- http://www.planning.org/research/streets/
TOI

90 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Improved traffic flow on the adjacent roadway.

•	 Can improve safety by reducing illegal overflow parking in unsafe areas.

•	 Can improve access for emergency vehicles and local access by removing vehicle

blockages. (Congestion due to visitors looking for parking or parking illegally can

make it difficult or impossible to get emergency vehicles through32.

•	 Limits resource damage from illegal parking.

CONS

•	 Can result in a higher number of motorists recirculating through parking lots hunting

for empty spaces.

•	 Can lead to dissatisfaction with visitors whose vehicles may be ticketed and/or towed

for parking in no parking areas.

•	 Requires increased resources and staffing. “While the park rangers try to conduct

enforcement actions, we have fewer staff, and need to focus resources where they

will have the most impact18.







General Description

When major destination area parking lots are full, visitors will often 

park on the shoulder of the approach road to the parking lot or along 

other roadways nearby. Parked vehicles on road shoulders will reduce 

speeds of and capacity for through traffic. Specifying the road shoulder 

as a no-parking area through clear signing, striping, and/or additional 

enforcement will improve traffic flow and safety of the roadway. These 

efforts should be considered in conjunction with parking management 

tools/actions (see TOI-12).

This tool would also be appropriate as a short term pilot project.



5

SOLUTION/TOOL: Complete Streets

 (Policy & Facilities)

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 91 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Can result in visitors being turned away at the entrance gate or entrance traffic

backing up onto the access roadways outside the park.

•	 To be successful, this tool would require law enforcement staff to have the capacity

to actively patrol for congestion issues.

GENERAL

When implementing enforcement, consider the following:

•	 Provide clear indications of policies and fines to the motorists.

•	 Working with law enforcement staff during the planning and implementation stages

is essential to success. Law enforcement officers already have the ability to ticket

visitors, but typically do not.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination efforts should include enforcement agencies of gateway communities in

order to create consistent expectation of motorists regarding parking procedures. A

procedure may need to be put in place to monitor parking areas and inform entrance

station personnel so that visitors will know where they can park.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). 

Modifying parking regulations such as creating fines may require a regulatory change

that can take slightly longer than other changes. 

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

OPERATING COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include time paid to/salaries of enforcement

personnel, which sometimes can be offset by fine collections.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Bryce Canyon National Park closes viewpoints due to a lack of parking to discourage cars

circulating in these parking lots looking for a spot or parking illegally. One viewpoint

was closed for 59 days during different times of the day, due to a lack of parking22.

•	 Acadia National Park uses lawn signs (similar to campaign signs) to discourage parking

illegally on the roadside at the visitor center parking lot. Roadside signs also direct visitorsto

park in the right lane of the two-lane, one-way park loop road when parking areas are full.

•	 Anacostia National Park enforces parking during Nationals’ games.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/uspp/08316_ananatprk.htm

•	 Canaveral National Seashore monitors parking lots. Once all parking is full, visitors are

stopped at the entrance station where they can wait or turn around and return later.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Reduced number of illegally parked cars during parking inventories.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is low ($0 to $50,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion for “no parking” signs cost

approximately $75 each, depending upon the size of the sign.
TOI

92 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

TOI

6 SOLUTION/TOOL: Geometric Improvements

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

General Description

Geometric improvements covered in other tools include 

adding lanes (see AC-5), upgrading the level of intersection 

control (see TOI-8), adding acceleration or deceleration lanes 

(see TOI-1), and restricting turning movements (see TOI-20). 

This tool includes some additional geometric improvements 

that could be considered for use in parks/units33 such as:

• Alternative intersection designs that can increase the 

capacity of an intersection—these are typically used 

for signalized intersections where adding lanes is not 

feasible, but can be considered with two-way stop 

control intersections. The typical underlying mechanism 

is removing left turning vehicles from the intersection. 

The quadrant left turn, continuous flow, bow-tie, and 

displaced left turn intersections are a few examples. 

These solutions can be complicated and should be 

implemented with care.

• Right/left turn lanes that can be used at intersections to 

improve the capacity of the intersection—these lanes 

are only long enough to handle the expected number 

of vehicles that might be queued waiting to turn and a 

taper to provide vehicles space to slow and get out of 

the through lane. Because they are short, they are less 

expensive than adding an extra lane for the entirety of 

the roadway. By removing turning vehicles, particularly 

left-turns, the flow of the through lane is improved. 

• Similarly, occasional passing lanes can be added 

intermittently to two-lane highways. This can provide a 

significant improvement of traffic flow without the full 

expense of upgrading to a multi-lane highway.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 93 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Improved throughput for through lanes of traffic.

•	 Improved safety by reducing potential conflicts.

CONS

•	 Lane space and lack of sufficient right-of-way are the primary limitations of the

intersection approaches.

•	 May require additional space for lanes and/or intersections, which may degrade the

natural resources the park is trying to protect.

GENERAL

When implementing geometric improvements, consider the following:

•	 A traffic engineering analysis can provide an indication of how the current facilities are

functioning and what improvements will result from implementing geometric changes.

•	 The amount of space required for the lane taper is more than most would think. Even

on a short left turn lane on a typical suburban arterial can require that the road be

widened by 10+ feet for a distance of 500 feet or more.









Coordination/Partnerships

Initial identification of strategies that are most appropriate for a specific location might

best be determined by transportation engineers and experts who work for consultants

or state or local departments of transportation in the region. Coordination may also be

needed with the local federal lands highway division office.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

range from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years). 

The time to implement is highly variable depending on the specific improvement. Minor

geometric changes created through striping can be implemented more quickly than larger

projects that require planning, design, environmental review and construction.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to $50,000) to

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Cost is highly variable depending on the specific improvement, which can range from

restriping to major reconstruction.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

94 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

•	 Operation and maintenance costs are highly variable depending on the specific

improvement, which can range from restriping to major reconstruction.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge has a goal in the Regional Alternative

Transportation Evaluation Report to add a turning lane and bypass lane on Sandpiper

Road for vehicles turning into the parking lot so they do not impede traffic34.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Average vehicle delay (intersection improvements).

•	 Average vehicle speed (mainline improvements).

Additional Resources

•	 Park road standards - http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/library/

park-road-std.pdf

•	 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - http://hcm.trb.org/

•	 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets - https://bookstore.

transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110

•	 State roadway design manuals - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/

statemanuals.cfm
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 95 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations









General Description

Providing a bridge or underpass for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross 

roadways or highways not only can improve the safety, comfort, and 

visitor experience for non-motorized visitors, but also can reduce 

congestion on the roadway. 



PROS

•	 Improved safety, comfort, and visitor experience for non-motorized users, which may

increase the use of pedestrian and cycling modes.

•	 Improved traffic flow on major roadway.

7

SOLUTION/TOOL: Grade Separation for Bicycle/

 Pedestrian Crossings

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

CONS

•	 Structures can be aesthetically unappealing.

•	 Visitors may decide not to use the crossings if they are inconvenient and time-consuming.

•	 May have undesirable impacts to view sheds or cultural landscapes.

GENERAL

When implementing grade separation, consider the following:

•	 How many pedestrians/bicycles might use the crossing if it were constructed? 

Consider a full delay study to estimate the benefits for a specific location. One of the

downfalls of implementing grade-separated crossings that cause pedestrians and

bicyclists to travel out of direction and up/down significant grades is that they may

continue to cross at grade anyway if that is a faster and more convenient option.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

96 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination efforts should include bicycle advocacy groups in gateway communities.

The decision and design process should also involve coordination with cultural and/or

historic landscape experts and resource specialists.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years). 

Planning, design, environmental review, and construction may take multiple years

depending upon the size and location of the grade separation structures.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include snow removal on the crossing,

restriping, and resurfacing.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The multi-use pathway in Grand Teton National Park includes an underpass where

it crosses US 89, the major through highway. Compared to an at-grade crossing, the

underpass improved safety and comfort for the non-motorized pathway users and

eliminated the need for motorists on US 89 to stop for pedestrians to cross a road.

•	 North Moab Recreation Areas constructed a pedestrian bridge as well as underpasses to

separate the non-motorized users from the vehicles at critical crossings to improve safety.

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Moab_Case_Final.pdf

•	 Minute Man National Historic Park has an underpass (under Hanscom Drive) so that

pedestrians walking on Battle Road Trail do not have any conflicts with motorized vehicles. Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2010 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

Performance Standard/Measure

IIn tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of bicycle/pedestrian uses of structure.

•	 Estimated reduction in delay of users (both motorists and non-motorists) with 

delay study.

•	 How would the crossing improve visitor experience and safety? For example, will the

elevated crossing provide a new view and/or interpretive opportunity? Will visitors be

able to cross more efficiently by avoiding waits for long streams of traffic?

•	 The minimum width of the structure should be the same as the paved path

approaching the structure plus a minimum of two feet on either side for adequate

shoulder and horizontal clearance space.

•	 The bicycle/pedestrian crossing must be accessible for all users.

•	 Consider needs for lighting.

high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the construction portion for pedestrian/bicycle bridges ranges

from $900-1,600 per linear foot for a 12 foot wide path. If lengths exceed 100 feet, the

costs can escalate35. The need to provide accessibility on either side of the crossing also

can increase costs (for ramps, elevators, etc.).
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 97 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities -

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119

•	 AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets - https://bookstore.

transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=110
TOI

98 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

TOI

8 SOLUTION/TOOL: Intersection Improvements (Geometric and Traffic Control Devices)

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

General Description

At grade intersections are often the locations of the worst safety and congestion problems in the transportation 

system. There are several basic levels of control at an intersection:

• Uncontrolled (only normal right-of-way rule applies).

• Two-way stop or yield control (signs on minor road approaches).

• Multi-way stop control (signs on all approaches, typically four).

• Roundabout.

• Signalization.

Increasing the level of control at an intersection should be considered when the cost can be justified by safety 

and delay improvements. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance on when to 

consider increasing the level of intersection control, such as:

• Yield or stop signs should be considered when the combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the 

intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day.

• Upgrade to a multi-directional stop control when the peak hour of an 8-hour period exceeds 300 vehicles per 

hour on the major street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street.

• Upgrade to traffic signal when, for an 8 hour period when there are more than 500 vehicles per hour on the major 

street and 150 vehicles per hour on the minor street. A higher volume on the major street of 750 vehicles per 

hour causes enough excessive delay that the minor street volume of 75 vehicles per hour might justify a signal.

This is only a sample of the guidelines used. There are many other considerations such as high pedestrian 

volumes, excessively high traffic during only the peak hour, and the number of lanes. 

Generally roundabouts are considered an alternative to a traffic signal in terms of the amount of traffic that justifies 

the cost. Roundabouts tend to keep traffic flowing through intersections and are most successful when the inflow 

of traffic is balanced at all legs of the intersection. High peak hour traffic flows, particularly with a large portion 

of left turning vehicles, may be more appropriate for a signal than a roundabout. Roundabouts can be difficult for 

pedestrians and bicyclists to maneuver and require special design treatments to accommodate these modes. Traffic 

circles (not roundabouts) are typically smaller circular islands that may be used in intersections to calm traffic.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 99 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

range from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years). 

Some solutions are simple and do not require major construction, but those with a

larger “footprint” such as installing a roundabout can take multiple years for planning,

design, environmental review, and construction.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 1997 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with vanpooling companies and with local agencies that

provide ride matching services such as transportation management associations, transit

agencies, and community transportation organizations.

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations











PROS

•	 More orderly flow of traffic.

•	 Reducing the number and severity of right angle collisions.

•	 Reducing overall delay.

•	 Pedestrian crossing safety and comfort can be improved.

CONS

•	 Increasing the level of intersection traffic control can increase the number of rearend collisions.

•	 Increasing the level of intersection traffic control can increase delay during off-peak

times by requiring vehicles to stop when no conflicting vehicles are around.

•	 Increasing signage (or adding traffic signals) can create a “visual clutter” and detract

from natural surroundings.

•	 Installing/creating a roundabout may require more space/land than a traditional

intersection, taking resources that the park may want to protect.

•	 Roundabouts can negatively impact pedestrian bicycle safety and access, use caution

when considering this solution with trail crossings.

GENERAL

When implementing intersection improvements, consider the following:

•	 There is no substitute for good engineering judgment. Under certain conditions

installing a traffic signal can increase the number of crashes and increase the total delay.

•	 Ensure adequate sight distance for vehicles entering the intersection so as to safely

judge the gaps available in traffic.

•	 Consider pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

100 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to

higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion for a stop or yield sign is typically

around $200 per sign and for a traffic signal ranges from $100,000 to $200,000 or more.

The construction portion for roundabouts vary in cost; however, a design with truck

aprons and angled approach entries will typically cost around $300,000 to $500,000

depending on the extent of landscaping and other treatments.

The costsforthistool can increase considerably ifright-of-way needsto be purchased (which

can be high in urban areas) or if pavement needs to be added (for example left turn lanes).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include implementing an inventory/inspection/

repair program because of the potential safety impact of damaged signs and signals

associated with intersection traffic control and utility costs (for traffic signals and

nighttime lighting for roundabouts).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Colonial National Historic Park (at its “5 Points intersection”) and Valley Forge

National Historic Park (at the intersection of PA 23 and PA 252) are considering the

installation of roundabouts at these intersections.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is

needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that

congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduced delay per vehicle.

•	 Reduced number of severe crashes

Additional Resources

•	 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

•	 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - http://hcm.trb.org/

•	 Information Guide to Roundabouts - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/

research/safety/00068/ 
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 101 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

Pros

•	 Reduced time for notification/detection, verification, and response means traffic

operations can return to normal more quickly.

•	 Fasterresponse times can reduce the severity of injuries occuring as a result of the incident.

•	 Secondary incidents can be eliminated. For example collisions can result from

motorists gawking at the incident or trying to get by the incident in an unsafe manner.







General Description

Incidents such as weather events, vehicle crashes, and fires are 

estimated to cause one-fourth of the traffic congestion on roadways in 

the United States39. Traffic incident management is about developing 

and implementing an incident management plan. This solution does not 

directly involve tangible hardware or infrastructure improvements, but 

is highly related to other tools that speed up detection of incidents such 

as traffic monitoring (see TOI-19) and closed circuit television (see ES-4). 

Also incident management is related to other improvements that can 

assist in managing traffic and informing motorists in real-time such as the 

511 traveler information phone number (see ES-1), automated gate access 

(see ES-2), dynamic message signs (see ES-5) and service/courtesy patrols 

(see TOI-15). Some typical elements of an incident management plan are:

• Pre-incident planning, which can include a multi-agency formalized 

plan, training and exercises, and performance tracking.

• Evaluating and improving how incidents are detected, verified, 

and managed.

• Developing policies for incident response, which includes standard 

message sets for public notification, on-scene management 

(typically via an Incident Command System), incident clearance, 

and incident debriefing.







Cons

•	 Requires up front and continual effortsto develop, update, refine, and implement the plan.

9 SOLUTION/TOOL: Incident Management

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

When implementing incident management, consider the following:

•	 Identify current incident management policies and practices.

•	 Involve multiple agencies and stakeholders in the plan development.

•	 Consider a selection of real world specific incidents to focus discussion and

identify weaknesses in the current incident management plan.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

102 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Close coordination with law enforcement or USPP will be necessary for this tool. Likely

the state department of transportation has a statewide traffic incident management

plan and/or program that could be leveraged for incident management specific to the

park/unit. Other coordination efforts should include interactions with local/state law

enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical services, and towing services.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) forthistool is nearterm (1 to 3 years).

A basic incident management plan and program can be set up in a year, but becomes a

basis for continual improvement and review.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the planning portion (coordinating and developing the plan) can be

done in-house orin some cases consultants can be hired to develop the plan (around $50,000).

Procurement costs include systems that would detect an incident, such as closed-circuit

television (ES-4), and can vary widely, depending upon how much of a roadway may be

monitored and other factors. If there is an adequate number of park staff that are driving

(monitoring) the roadways, then procurement costs may be minimal, requiring only the

purchase of certain equipment for incident response (such as warning signs/markers).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time, repair and replacement parts

for technology, software updates, and utility costs.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Greater Yellowstone Rural ITS Program, Incident Management Response Guide.

•	 http://www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/427972_

Incident_Management_Guide.pdf.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Incident response time.

•	 Roadway and incident clearance time.

Additional Resources

•	 FHWA Traffic Incident Management Handbook - http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_

pse/publications/timhandbook/

•	 AASHTO National Traffic Incident Management Coalition - http://ntimc.transportation.

org/Pages/default.aspx

•	 National Park Service Handbook 55 Incident Management Program - http://www.

nps.gov/policy/rm55manual.pdf

Note that law enforcement/USPP may already use Incident Command System so these

costs may be overestimated in that case.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 103 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Can be a relatively simple and inexpensiveway to increase traffic flowand reduce congestion

if there is space available to delineate the lane and impacts to resources can be avoided.

•	 Separating and delineating lanes can increase safety because it can reduce the

conflicts between vehicles traveling straight versus turning.

•	 Safety can also be increased when alternative modes such as cycling and walking are

separated from vehicular travel lanes.

CONS

•	 While separating cyclists and pedestrians from the vehicular travel lanes via striping will

increase safety by reminding motorists to share the road, it is still not as safe as a separate

shared use path (see AC-4) that provides more space between the roadway and path users.

•	 Striping can detract from the visitor experience and may not be historically

appropriate for some cultural landscapes.









General Description

Vehicular congestion can occur when vehicles making left- or right-hand 

turns block vehicles that want to travel straight and also when cyclists 

or pedestrians are sharing the travel lane, which causes motorist to slow 

down or stop. 

Lane separation and delineation techniques focus on clearly defining 

travel lanes (through striping or other methods), so that visitors/

motorists know where to travel. This solution also includes separating 

and delineating where other modes (such as cyclists and pedestrians) 

should travel. Exclusive lanes for use by transit/shuttle vehicles 

sometimes also are provided to improve transit travel time.









Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with gateway communities, as well as local and/or state

10 SOLUTION/TOOL: Lane Separation/Delineation

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

104 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Cowpens National Battlefield

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Decrease in number of accidents.

•	 Number of cyclists using the roadway.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02090/ 

•	 Federal Highway Administration (Bicycle Lanes) - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_

bike/univcourse/pdf/swless19.pdf

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool ranges from

immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years). 

Implementing the separation and delineation of lanes can be done relatively quickly

(within a few months) if the solution is simply striping paving that already exists or

expanding and striping paving where space is available. The most common way to

separate and delineate lanes is by striping (painting) on the road/street. Other methods

include traffic cones or reflectors, or more permanent options such as medians.

Solutions involving median construction and addition of extensive new paving will take

longer for planning, design, environmental review and construction.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Costs will vary depending upon the size of the project, and how the lanes are 

separated/delineated.

Of the total capital costs, the construction portion for simply striping (painting) lanes

will be relatively inexpensive, while creating medians or other more permanent barriers

may be more expensive (perhaps up to $5,000 per mile).

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include the staff time and resources for

restriping and replacing traffic cones or other “less permanent” solutions (reflectors,

etc.), and the inspection and possible maintenance of more permanent solutions

(medians and/or barriers). In general, lanes may need to be re-striped (painted) every

two to three years, depending upon weather conditions and other factors, such as the

amount of traffic and snow removal on the roadway.

departments of transportation depending upon where the solution is implemented.

Within the park, the regional federal lands highway division office should be contacted.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 105 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

SOLUTION/TOOL: Traffic Circulation Changes (Including One-way and Reversible Lanes)

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

TOI

11

General Description

Congestion is not always the result of slow moving vehicles, vehicles 

parked along roadsides, accidents, and “animal jams.” Congestion can also 

result from how vehicles circulate throughout a park/unit. If circulation is 

inefficient (for example vehicles are not moving through destinations in a 

logical order), there is not enough capacity available in the peak direction, 

or turning vehicles create conflict with the traffic circulation, then 

congestion can occur. 

This tool involves management techniques such as one-way or reversible 

lanes for changing traffic flow patterns and circulation to reduce 

congestion. For example, parks may have roadways (especially to certain 

attractions) that have predominate “inflow” in the morning, and “outflow” 

at the end of the day. This can occur especially at lakeshores, beaches, 

mountain hiking areas, and other areas where visitors tend to arrive in the 

morning, and leave at the end of the day. By creating one-way or reversible 

lanes, parks can maximize the number of travel lanes available for the 

majority of visitors, and reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 

One-way routes only allow travel in one direction along a corridor and 

can eliminate many conflicts with opposing traffic and create a circulating 

effect in some circumstances (grid-type areas). Travel times can be reduced 

and confusion can be minimized through proper one-way routing.

Reversible lanes allow one or more lanes on a facility to shift direction 

during certain periods of the day to accommodate traffic patterns such as 

morning and evening peaks. There must be a large directional flow during 

peak periods to make this a viable solution. By utilizing additional lanes 

in the direction that demands more capacity, congestion can be reduced 

and overall capacity can be increased. Lane control, signs, and special 

pavement markings are used to inform motorists of lane direction and 

movements. In some cases, gates or other types of barriers may be used to 

control travel lanes in one direction or another.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

106 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

CONS

•	 Reversible lanes can be complicated to implement, and it is critical that adequate

information is provided to motorists so that they know the directional flow of the

various lanes during the affected time periods.

•	 One-way roads may require visitors to travel in a direction or path that they were not

planning, as they may not be aware that certain roads are one-way roads.

•	 Changing the traffic circulation on one roadway to decrease congestion can move/

shift the congestion to other roadways in the area if the roads are not viewed as an

entire network.

•	 If a visitor misses a particular attraction on a one-way road/loop, they may not have

time to traverse the entire route again to return to the attraction.

Coordination/Partnerships

The park/unit may want to check ownership of right-of-way during the development of

this concept so the right partners are involved. Coordination will be needed with the

gateway community as well as with the entity that owns and operates the road or road

network outside the park such as the local and/or state departments of transportation.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years). 

Implementation of a complete streets policy will take years, based upon necessary

studies and processes that the park/unit has adopted for other policies (including

public comment). Implementing complete streets infrastructure will vary depending

upon items that will be implemented (such as separated pathways, sidewalks, or trails)

and including time for planning, design, environmental review, and construction.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

















Implementation Considerations

•	 Implementation of one-way and reversible lanes gets more complicated based on the

number of access points along the roadway. It is easier to implement these solutions

on a roadway that is a “loop road”, versus a long road that has multiple access points

(entrances and exits).

•	 A safe and successful implementation of these solutions is very dependent upon

having clear and adequate signage.

PROS

•	 One-way and reversible lanes can achieve an increase in throughput without building

more roads.

•	 Safety may be improved, as one-way roads reduce potential traffic conflicts (such as

traffic moving in the opposite direction).

•	 The implementation of one-way lanes may provide an opportunity to promote

alternative modes (such as cycling) along a roadway, as there may be enough lane

width to create a bicycle lane when traffic is converted to one way (versus two-way).

•	 Reduced delay at intersections.

•	 Reduced congestion where implemented along circulation routes.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 107 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Examples of Implementation

ONE-WAY ROADS

•	 Great Smokey Mountains National Park’s one-way roads include Roaring Fork Motor

Nature Trail, Rich Mountain Road and Parson Branch Road.

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park’s one-way road is Old Fall River Road.

•	 The loop road through a portion of Acadia National Park is one-way.

REVERSIBLE LANES

•	 Rock Creek Parkway, a National Park Service parkway in Washington D.C. uses

reversible lanes during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/rocr/faqs.htm#CP_ JUMP_68721

•	 Yosemite National Park has significant traffic and parking congestion. During

peak season the park is over capacity. Yosemite has been studying the issue and

providing recommendation which include changes to traffic circulation. Some of the

recommendations include underpasses and roundabouts.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/mrp-deis-fact-sheet-parking.pdf

•	 http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/mrp-deis-fact-sheet-preferred.pdf

•	 Yellowstone National Park is redesigning the North entrance at Gardiner to improve

traffic circulation and congestion due to the hairpin turn at the arch. To alleviate this,

a new roadway is being constructed called the arch bypass road.

•	 http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/11/yellowstone-national-parkreceives-green-light-redesign-traffic-flow-through-north-entrance8957

•	 http://gardinergatewayproject.org/?page_id=53

•	 The Tongass National Forest reviewed how traffic (primarily tour buses) circulated 

at the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center to see if the number of idling buses could 

be reduced.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the planning study portion to collect and analyze circulation

patterns can cost into the tens of thousands ($30,000 is considered an average cost)

depending on the size of the park/unit and the geographic area studied.

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion for implementing one-way lanes is

comprised mainly of signage to indicate that the roadway is a one-way road. The costs

for signing will vary, depending upon how many signs are needed and on how many

access points (entrances/exits) are along the roadway, but in general, should be no

more than $2,000 to $5,000, unless the one-way road is an extremely long road with

numerous access points.

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion for implementing reversible lanes

typically will be more than implementing a one-way lane/road, and will also depend

upon the length of the roadway and the number of access points along the road. If

islands are used at access points along one way roads there is an increased cost of

$10,000 to $15,000 per location. Often traffic cones or other barriers are used so that

the lanes traveling in opposite directions are separated from one another. These cones

or barriers are moved so that more lanes are available for use for the dominate flow

of traffic. Depending upon the length of the roadway, the number of access points,

the type of barriers used, and the permanence of establishing the reversible lanes, the

procurement portion can range from under $5,000 to over $200,000.

With either solution, the use of dynamic message signs (see ES-5) can help to facilitate

traveler awareness of the change in travel direction. The costs associated with a

dynamic message sign are provided in tool ES-5.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool do not vary from the cost of operating

traditional two-way roads with the exception of the cost of staff time for moving the

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

barriers along the reversible lane road (which can become significant depending upon

the length of the roadway and how frequently the barriers may be moved), staff time

for enforcement and maintenance of signs. If dynamic message signs are used to help

indicate the direction of travel for the reversible lane roads, additional operating costs

would include the cost of utilities and maintenance of these signs.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

108 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration (Flexibility in Highway Design) - http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/flexibility/index.cfm 

•	 Federal Highway Administration (Managed Lanes) - http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/chapter8_01.htm

•	 Texas A&M Mobility Institute - http://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies_pdfs/

traffic_management/technical_summary/Reversible-Traffic-Lanes-4-Pg.pdf

•	 Traffic circulation study for Del Rio - http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/pdf2/2940-2.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Decrease in congestion based upon implementation of one-way and reversible lanes/roads.

•	 Decrease in accidents along converted one-way roads.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 109 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Parking areas can be a major source of congestion, so managing parking areas can be

a logical step for a park/unit.

•	 Visitors can be quickly frustrated when not able to find a parking spot, so parking

area management can increase visitor satisfaction.





General Description

Trying to find parking at a popular attraction within a park/unit can be 

a source of congestion as vehicles drive around looking for a parking 

space, perhaps even leading to parking on the roadway, shoulders and 

other “no parking” areas. A lack of parking can also be a major source 

of frustration for visitors.

Parking management is a solution whereby visitors are informed either 

by a person/staff or by signage that a parking lot is full, and that they 

need to proceed to another lot. As noted, parking management can occur 

through the use of people or through the use of signing and/or automated 

systems. Parking management may also include designating some parking 

areas with a limited time (such as a two or three hour parking space), or 

through creating parking based on a reservation system. 

Parking area (parking lot) improvements may include modifying the lot to 

decrease traffic conflicts (such as driving one-way down a lane between 

parking lots), and limiting the number of access points (entrances and exits) 

to a parking area (see TOI-2). Parking area improvements also may include 

restriping and/or changes to circulation to create a more efficient layout, 

possibly even increasing the number of spaces available for visitors.









CONS

•	 Visitors may ignore the instructions of staff or signage and still try and find a parking

space in a lot that is noted as being full.

•	 Using staff to manage parking lots can be time-intensive and can lead to the need for

additionalstaff, orto take staff away fromotherimportant taskssuch as visitorinterpretation.

•	 One interviewee stated that while their park had implemented some parking management

techniques, “to some extent all we have done is simply move the location of where we

are having parking issues. Instead of having issues in the main canyon, we have issues

at the visitor center and in town19.”

12

SOLUTION/TOOL: Parking Management and

 Parking Area Improvements

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

110 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000). 

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Gateway National Recreation Area – Sandy Hook Unit

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/35000/35100/35108/DOT-VNTSC-NPS-03-05.pdf 

•	 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore uses staff to manage parking lots during the

Fourth of July32.

•	 Bryce Canyon National Park uses staff (Rangers and shuttle drivers) to monitor the

parking situation at various viewpoints and closes them due to a lack of parking

to discourage cars circulating in these parking lots looking for a spot or parking

illegally. One viewpoint was closed for 59 days during different times of the day, due

to a lack of parking22.

•	 Canaveral National Seashore uses rangers and volunteers to monitor parking lots. 

When all lots are full visitors are stopped at the entrance station or turned around by

the local law enforcement agencies. 

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years). 

IImplementation may take only a few weeks if staff is going to be trained and utilized to

manage the parking areas. If signage or electronic systems are going to be implemented,

timing may take a few months or more to fund, procure, and install signing. Basic signs

will take less time than electronic signing systems. The time to implement the signage

and electronic systems will generally also take longer if there are multiple entrances and

exits to the parking areas (parking lots).

Parking improvements can take several months to years depending on the extent of

improvements. Restriping and signing will take less time than a major parking expansion

(see AC-3) or improvement that requires design, environmental review, and construction.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include personnel time if staff

is used to manage traffic. If automated systems are used, costs would include utilities,

software updates, and repairs and replacement parts. Operating costs for an automated

system run about $4,000 per year16.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination may be necessary with the local and/or state departments of transportation,

depending upon the jurisdiction that is responsible for the roadways leading to parking

areas/parking lots within the park/unit.

The costs will depend upon what systems may be implemented to address parking

management issues.

Of the total capital costs, the procurement portion for an electronic (automated) system

can cost around $100,000 per parking lot, depending upon how many entrance/exit

points there are per lot16 whereas parking lot restriping can cost a few thousand dollars.

The costs associated with a parking lot expansion are provided in tool AC-3. 
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 111 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration (Active Parking Management)- http://ops.fhwa.

dot.gov/atdm/approaches/apm.htm 

•	 Transportation Research Board (Traveler Response to Transportation System

Changes: Chapter 18—Parking Management and Supply) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/

onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf 

•	 Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual, Chapter 9— 

http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/archives/Chapter_09.pdf

In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Reduction in number of vehicles parking in “no parking” areas (including along 

the roadway).

•	 Reduction in the number of vehicles circulating through parking areas searching for a parking space. 
TOI

112 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Roadway pull-outs may be used as temporary parking spaces.

•	 Roadway pull-outs can reduce congestion by temporarily removing slower traffic

from the traffic stream.

•	 Roadway pull-outs can provide additional locations for shuttle boarding.

CONS

•	 Pull-outs can generally only fit a few cars and therefore may not be large enough to fit

all cars needing extra parking space.

•	 While pull-outs may allow slower traffic to exit the main traffic stream, this could

increase the roadway speed and cause a safety issue.

•	 Pullouts add access points to the roadway system which can increase congestion. 

Be sure to consider site distances and spacing of all access points.

•	 Pull-outs can reduce vehicle conflicts by being designated right-in/right-out. This

will eliminate left turns and reduce accident situations but may result in the need for

additional pullouts on the opposite side of the road.





General Description

Vehicles moving too slowly along park roadways due to sightseeing can 

cause traffic backups and congestion. Similarly, shuttles stopping in the 

traffic flow for passenger pick-ups/drop-offs can have the same effect 

(although sometimes it is planned that shuttles do not pull out of, and 

back into traffic). One solution is to use roadway pull-outs, which can 

provide space for vehicles to pass. 

Roadway pull-outs can be used for slower traffic to move out of the travel 

lane and allow faster traffic to pass by, 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), interpretive displays, and information about alternative modes, 

routes, and destinations in the park/unit. Pull-outs that have substantial 

bathroom facilities and interpretation are often referred to as “rest areas.”







13 SOLUTION/TOOL: Roadway Pull-outs

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 113 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years).

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total cost, the construction portion of a paved pull-out is approximately $10,000

to $15,000 per 100 feet; however, these costs will vary depending on whether the pullout is paved, the construction conditions, the pull-out width, if additional facilities are

provided, and other considerations.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The Kancamagus Highway, part of the White Mountain National Forest, has pullouts for slower traffic and for additional parking at scenic locations.

•	 The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore has pull-outs on the Pierce Stocking

Scenic Drive.

•	 Zion National Park has implemented pull-offs versus acceleration lanes for recreation

vehicles and other vehicles that have difficulty maintaining speeds on the steep

grades leading up to the tunnel. The pull-offs give the added advantage of safer

locations for picture taking and enjoying the scenery.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:Reduction in number of vehicles parking in “no parking” areas

(including along the roadway).

•	 Reduced delay on roadway.

•	 Number of vehicles using pull-outs.

Additional Resources

•	 Scenic Byways – A Design Guide for Roadside Improvements - http://www.fs.fed.us/

eng/pubs/pdf/fhwa02001.pdf

•	 Snoqualmie Scenic Elk Pullout Funding Application - http://www.psrc.org/

assets/9951/Snoqualmie-ScenicElkPullout-WEB.pdf

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the jurisdiction responsible for the roadways such as

city, county, and state departments of transportation.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include roadway maintenance

such as plowing, sanding, sweeping, and repaving.
TOI

114 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

•	 Road weather management (a plan) may not be necessary for parks/units with limited

or non-severe weather events, although even parks in areas with mild weather

conditions may have roadways that are subject to periodic flooding. With climate

change, weather-related conditions are requiring more frequent management actions

by parks/units across the nation.



General Description

Weather conditions such as flooding, snow, high wind, ice, fire, low 

visibility, and sand storms can cause hazardous conditions for park/unit 

roadways and/or attractions. 

Managing park/unit roadways for these types of weather events can cause 

safer conditions and less congestion. Management techniques include road 

closures (temporary or seasonal), providing traveler information about 

road closures and weather advisories (via tools such as dynamic/variable 

message signs (see ES-5), 511 traveler information phone number (see ES-1), 

National Park Service road weather telephone lines, and media/social media 

(see VDM-5), and roadway weather related maintenance and management.

Detection and prediction of these weather conditions can be done 

through weather services such as the National Weather Service and 

Weather Underground, as well as through the use of closed circuit 

television (webcams) (see ES-4), road weather information systems 

(see ES-9), and road maintenance staff patrols.

A road weather management program will provide guidance and 

suggestions for effectively and efficiently detecting/predicting weather 

events. For consistency, the program should have standard management 

techniques documented for each potential weather event and standard 

messages to be utilized on the traveler information devices.





PROS

•	 A road weather management program will provide guidance to park/unit staff on

how to detect, manage, and treat weather conditions at their park/unit efficiently,

effectively, and consistently.

•	 Road weather management can provide safer roadway conditions and increase

mobility, and as such improve visitor safety and experience.

CONS

•	 Road weather management and plan implementation requires an ongoing

commitment of staffing and resources.

14 SOLUTION/TOOL: Road Weather Management

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 115 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

To create a regional road weather management plan, coordination will be needed

with the internal maintenance department, those responsible for traveler information,

meteorological/forecasting services, the local and/or state departments of

transportation, and city/county transportation offices.

 Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years). 

Creation of a plan will take less time than deploying the detection techniques addressed

in the plan.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2005 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

Examples of Implementation

•	 Seasonal road closures occur at Yellowstone National Park due to snow.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/parkroads.htm

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park closes Trail Ridge Road when necessary due to

weather and provides press released to warn motorists of high wind advisories to

ensure motorist safety.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/romo/parknews/trail_ridge_road_reopens.htm

•	 Great Smoky Mountains provides road weather information to visitors via their

website, phone line, twitter, National Weather Service, and webcams.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/conditions.htm

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the planning portion to set-up a road weather management

program is approximately $50,000 to $75,000 for a consultant to help establish the

program. This amount can vary based on the mileage of roadways within the park,

severity of weather events, number of visitors, etc.

The costs associated with detecting weather conditions are provided in tool ES-9. 

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:Decrease in congestion based upon implementation of one-way

and reversible lanes/roads.

•	 Number of advanced notices (including alternate routes and closures) due to use of

road weather management program.

•	 Reduced number of vehicle incidents due to weather.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff salaries for analyzing the weather

data and making management decisions based on the guidelines created and utilities.

The operating costs associated with a road weather information system are provided in

tool ES-9.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

116 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 FHWA’s Road Weather Management website - http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Weather/

•	 FHWA’s Best Practices for Road Weather Management - http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

weather/mitigating_impacts/best_practices.htm
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 117 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Provides emergency assistance to visitors, improving their visitor experience.

•	 Increases visitor safety by decreasing their time on the roadside.





General Description

Disabled vehicles, accidents, and debris in the roadway can cause a 

great amount of congestion and decrease safety. The sooner the vehicles 

or other obstructions can be cleared from the roadway or shoulder, the 

quicker normal traffic flow will resume. 

Service/courtesy patrols are typically found in urban areas on freeways 

to assist during peak periods, but can be deployed in national parks 

as well. Examples of assistance provided by a service/courtesy patrol 

include servicing disabled vehicles (such as providing fuel or oil, jump 

starting vehicles, changing tires, minor repairs, etc.), removing stranded 

or disabled vehicles, removing debris from the roadway, transporting 

stranded motorists, assisting motorists locked out of their vehicles, 

providing traffic control, and providing directions or a cell phone16.





Cons

•	 It may be necessary to require/suggest that the volunteer have previous law enforcement

experience to recognize hazards and ensure the courtesy patrol volunteers are safe.

•	 A courtesy patrol may require law enforcement time when they are already very busy.

15 SOLUTION/TOOL: Service/Courtesy Patrols

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

•	 This type of program can be staffed by volunteers for a nominal cost, assuming that

there are vehicles available for use for the patrols.

•	 Even if the program is staffed by volunteers, liability insurance will be needed.

•	 A training program should be created to properly train staff/volunteers on the duties/

responsibilities for this program.

•	 Coordination will be needed with park law enforcement and USPP.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

118 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

If there is a vehicle already available, the time to implement this program will be

relatively short (few months). Prior to starting this program, staff or volunteers would

need to be recruited and trained and liability coverage would need to be obtained.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2012 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to

$50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost for a service/courtesy patrol, the procurement portion is the cost

of the vehicle to be used (if one does not already exist or cannot be donated) and any

equipment that may be necessary to assist the disabled vehicle (such as traffic cones, tire

repair kits, car jacks, etc.).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Great Smoky Mountains National Park has a roadside assistance program staffed

by volunteers. The program provides minor roadside assistance, traffic control, and

information/directions.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grsm/supportyourpark/upload/2013-VolunteerOpportunities.pdf

•	 Mount Rainier National Park also has a roadside assistance program staffed by

volunteers. The following link provides a detailed description of the program

(goals, duties, and anticipated results) as well as the requirements for the volunteers

(qualifications, responsibilities, training, and benefits provided).

•	 http://rainiervolunteers.blogspot.com/2010/03/emergency-roadsideassistance.html

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:

•	 Number of vehicles assisted.

•	 Reduction in delay time.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination for a service/courtesy patrol program would include volunteers, park

dispatch, park rangers, local tow truck companies, local medical services, local law

enforcement, park law enforcement and USPP.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include either staff salary or

benefits provided to volunteers (such as housing, RV site with hookups, coverage for

tort liability and job injury, etc.), fuel, repair and replacement parts for vehicles, and

replacing the equipment used to assist vehicles (such as gas, oil, tire repair kits, etc.).

•	 Incorporate National Park Service Operational Leadership program principles to

assist in completing tasks safely.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 119 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Courtesy patrol pilot benefits- http://www.usroads.com/journals/rej/9706/

re970602.htm

•	 Federal Highway Administration Service Patrol Handbook- http://www.ops.fhwa.

dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08031/ffsp_handbook.pdf

•	 Guidelines for Establishing Freeway Service Patrols- http://www.ite.org/

Membersonly/annualmeeting/1996/AIA96A54.pdf
TOI

120 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Signage and wayfinding can enhance the visitor experience.

•	 Signage and wayfinding can help define a sense of place and be used as a teaching tool.

•	 Signage and wayfinding provide navigational information that can help provide a sense

of security and safety because visitors are more confident of where they are in a park.

CONS

•	 There may be multiple types of signage and wayfinding in an area and multiple owners

of this signage that will need to be coordinated and combined.

•	 Too much signage can cause “visual clutter” If not designed and located carefully and

visual resources and viewsheds in mind.

















General Description

Signage and wayfinding techniques guide visitors to their destinations 

and are particularly helpful in an unfamiliar environment.

Signage and wayfinding can be used to reduce congestion in several 

ways, such as reducing visitors’ confusion on how to get to their 

destination, promoting alternative transportation modes, and providing 

directions to access these modes including park-and-ride facilities (see 

PT-5) and shared-use pathways (see AC-4). Signage and wayfinding also 

can be used to promote alternative, less congested locations within a 

park/unit (see VDM-4).



16 SOLUTION/TOOL: Signage and Wayfinding

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

•	 An assessment of the existing signage should be created first.

•	 Visitors should be surveyed to determine gaps/needs in signage.

•	 Consult park wayfinding plan and coordinate with interpretive staff. If signs are outside

park boundaries, consult the agency managing the roadway where the sign may be placed.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 121 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Adding signage and wayfinding in or near a park/unit will require coordination with park

interpretive staff (for signage wording and locations) and park sign fabrication staff(for

creating the signs). If signs are needed outside park boundaries, consult the agency that

manages the roadway where the sign may be placed (town, city, county, etc.). Coordination

may also potentially be needed with the gateway community. The Harpers Ferry Center

can provide assistance and guidelines for signs and wayfinding within the park.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement signage and wayfinding includes multiple steps such as an

assessment of existing signage, surveying of visitors’ needs, a design plan for placement

of new signs and wayfinding elements, as well as, fabrication and installation of signs.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital cost, the signage assessment portion (documenting existing signage

and identifying gaps) cost around $10,000 per assessment when done in-house by the

National Park Service. Costs can vary and may be more depending on the size of the

park and the complexity of signing and wayfinding systems.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include replacement of signage that no longer

meets signage reflectivity guidance or that has been damaged or defaced (graffiti).

Operational costs may also include ongoing visitor surveys to ensure that the signage

and wayfinding is continually effective.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Connect Historic Boston is a partnership between the National Park Service and the

City of Boston. It is a program in the planning stages for providing way finding to

National Park sites and other historic Boston sites.

•	 http://connecthistoric-boston.org/ideas/signage-wayfinding/

•	 The National Mall is working on improving their way finding and pedestrian guides.

•	 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=24465

•	 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=427&projectID=24465&doc

umentID=25959

•	 Bar Harbor, Maine where Acadia National Park is located created a way finding plan.

•	 http://www.barharbormaine.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/96

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Increased visitation at locations/attractionsforwhich signage andwayfindingwere added.

The design portion can range from $17,500 to $190,000 per system in a park/unit and the

fabrication portion can range in cost from $42,600 to $1.2 million41, based on geographic size

of the area to be covered, number ofsigns needed, and type/style ofsignage to be fabricated.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

122 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 National Park Service UniGuide Sign Standards

•	 National Park Service Visitor Information Sign System - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/

acquisition/pdf/VISSignsandWaysideExhibitBases/Shared/VIS_Hardware_

Manual.pdf

•	 The Harpers Ferry Center can assist parks in designing and implementing signs -

http://www.nps.gov/hfc/products/signs/

•	 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 123 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

SOLUTION/TOOL: Speed Management

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

TOI

17

General Description

Roadways are designed with a certain design speed, which often 

results in the same operating speed for the constructed roadway (the 

speed at which drivers, on average, are observed operating their 

vehicles when there is no congestion). It is very common to consider 

reducing the posted speed limit or advisory speed on a particular 

roadway in an attempt to increase safety. Reducing the speed can 

also improve traffic flow. When the traffic demand approaches the 

capacity of the roadway, stop and go traffic will often result. Forcing 

a more uniform and optimal speed with posted speed limits can create 

a smoother traffic flow that reduces delay associated with stop and go 

traffic and as such can increase the capacity of the roadway. 

This tool has three variations of implementation: (1) increase 

compliance of existing posted speed limits, (2) reduce the maximum 

posted speed limit, and (3) implement a variable speed limit. 

These steps can also be implemented progressively, as levels of 

implementation if needed at a park/unit. For reducing the operating/

design speed (as opposed to just the speed limit), refer to the traffic 

calming tool (see TOI-18).

Compliance with speed limits can be increased through increased 

enforcement and education. Variable speed limit systems to reduce 

congestion have been implemented since 1960s. An example 

implemented in the past few years in the United States is in the St. 

Louis area along Interstate 270. The posted speed limits were originally 

regulatory and enforced, but were then converted to advisory speed 

limits and not enforced. The speed limits were set based on lane 

occupancy observations and vehicle speeds. When evaluated, this 

system was found to have benefits in regards to decreasing the number 

of crashes; however, law enforcement and travelers were dissatisfied 

with the perceived lack of benefits for congestion relief42. 
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

124 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

Depending on state regulations, it could take some time to obtain approval for a lowered

speed limit, but ordering and installing static signs could be completed in a short time

frame. For variable speed limit systems, design and installation could take a few years.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations







PROS

•	 Smoother traffic flow.

•	 Fewer shockwaves in the traffic stream (stop-and-go).

•	 Increases in traffic flow capacity of a few percent. 

•	 Mixed results in literature regarding travel time savings.

•	 Reduced collisions due to weaving and sudden stops.

•	 Reduced noise, vehicle wear, emissions from idling traffic, and fuel use due to lower

speeds and less stop-and-go traffic.

•	 Improved comfort and safety for bicycle and pedestrian users of the road shoulder.

•	 Slower speeds may increase roadway safety.

•	 All modes of transportation should be considered when modifying speed limits on

park roads.

GENERAL

When implementing a reduced speed limit, consider the following:

•	 Providing increased enforcement.

•	 Ensuring that reduced speed is not violating state regulationsfor how speed limits are set.

•	 An engineering speed study should be implemented to justify a lower speed limit.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with those agencies that provide speed enforcement,

including local, county and state enforcement agencies for roads not owned or managed

by the park. Also, consider state department of transportation traffic engineering staff

for guidance on setting speed limits and coordinating with the regional office of the

federal lands highway division.

CONS

•	 Potential safety risk caused by vehicles traveling both slower and faster than the

posted speed limit (a bimodal speed distribution).
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 125 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Average travel time for given traffic flows.

•	 Reduction in crashes.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longterm cost implications for this tool include an operator to validate the change in speed

(which requires an additional staff member or additional duties for an existing dispatcher)

and enforcement costs which could be offset by fines collected. Additional costs may

include software upgrades, technology repair and replacement parts, and utility costs.

Examples of Implementation

•	 Variable Advisory Speeds on I-270 in St. Louis. Missouri.

•	 http://www.modot.org/stlouis/links/VariableSpeedLimits.htm

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from medium

($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, procurement of a small variable speed sign can cost $3,500 to

$5,0001. However, a variable speed limit system covering 40 miles over Snoqualmie Pass

(pictured) was implemented with a small operations center for five million dollars. Much of

this cost includes the design, communications, vehicle detection and system integration43.

Additional Resources

•	 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Speed Prevention Toolkit

Enforcement Materials - http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/CAMPAIGNS/

Speed+Prevention/Obey+The+Sign+or+Pay+The+Fine

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s Speed Management Resource Website - http://

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/

•	 Transportation Research Board publication Special Report 254: Managing Speed -

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/sr/sr254.pdf#search=’trb%20sr%20254’
TOI

126 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Can improve comfort of pedestrians and bicycle riders.

•	 Can improve safety.

•	 Provides opportunities for plantings and other aesthetic improvements.



General Description

Traffic calming is used to slow traffic down primarily for safety reasons, 

such as slowing vehicles down in high pedestrian areas. By slowing 

traffic down in a high pedestrian area, through traffic may take another 

route that results in a lower travel time. Some common traffic calming 

measures include traffic humps, narrower travel lanes (see TOI-4), and 

islands and medians. Traffic circles are another measure consisting 

of a circular raised median in the center of an intersection. Traffic 

circles should not be confused with roundabouts. Roundabouts will 

typically angle the approach roadways and have a wide radius in order 

to facilitate efficient movement of vehicles through the intersections. 

Conversely, traffic circles are intended to slow vehicles down and 

reduce the capacity of the intersection. Chokers and chicanes use raised 

curbs to reduce the width of the paved travel lanes for a short portion 

of the roadway. Trees, landscape, and other natural objects (rocks, 

slopes, etc.) that are closer to the roadway (but still outside required 

horizontal clearances) also can calm traffic. Also, curved road can calm 

traffic more effectively than a long, straight road. Any element that will 

cause a driver to slow and observe conditions more carefully will calm 

traffic. Traffic calming can be an effective congestion management tool 

because it slows traffic without affecting roadway capacity.







CONS

•	 Increases travel times.

•	 May have undesirable impacts to viewsheds or cultural landscapes.

•	 Changes in pavement texture/treatment can affect ambient noise levels.

18 SOLUTION/TOOL: Traffic Calming

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

CONS

When implementing traffic calming measures, consider the following:

•	 Appropriate alternative routes for through traffic.

•	 Types or modes of traffic using or crossing the roadway.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 127 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

 Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

Simple implementations will take less time than more extensive improvements requiring

design, environmental review, and construction

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to

$50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital costs, estimates for the construction portion of some traffic calming

techniques are as follows44, 45

:

•	 Speed hump ($1,500 to 3,000 per location).

•	 Speed cushion ($2,500 to $3,500 per location).

Operation and Maintenance Costs

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for enforcement;

maintenance and repairs; restriping; pavement resurfacing; repainting; snow and sand

removal; and landscaping and mowing.

Examples of Implementation

•	 Colorado National Monument added speed humps along Rim Rock Drive to enhance

employee and visitor safety near the entrance stations.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/colm/parknews/traffic-calming-devices-to-be-installed.htm

•	 In 2009, the Presidio launched temporary street closures as a traffic calming measure

for those using Presidio Blvd as a cut-through.

•	 http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/29/presidio-launches-temporary-streetclosure-and-traffic-calming-study/

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination efforts should involve cultural and/or historic landscape experts and

resource specialists in the decision and design process. Input from the public should

be sought as to the various options/improvements. If the park does not own the road,

coordination will be needed with the jurisdiction responsible for the roadway (such as

city, county, or state department of transportation). Implementation of traffic calming

along roads inside parks typically will require coordination with the regional Federal

Lands Highway Division.

•	 Chokers and chicanes ($7,000 to $15,000 per location).

•	 Medians and islands ($5,000 to $15,000 per location).

•	 Pavement texture ($5 to $16 per square foot).

•	 Mini traffic circles ($10,000 to $60,000 per location).

•	 Striping ($1 to $2 per linear foot).

•	 Asphalt walkways ($30 to $40 per linear foot for a 5-foot wide walkway).

•	 Curb ramps ($1,500 per ramp).

•	 Curb bulbs ($10,000 to $20,000 per bulb).

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

128 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Reduced average travel speed.

•	 Increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Calming Website - http://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/environment/traffic_calming/index.cfm

•	 Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s Travel Demand Website - http://www.vtpi.org/

tdm/tdm4.htm

•	 Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Traffic Calming Library - http://www.ite.org/traffic/

•	 American Planning Association guide to Traffic Calming and Complete Streets -

http://www.planning.org/research/streets/
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 129 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations







General Description

Data is a tool that can be used to help a park/unit understand their 

existing conditions and determine their transportation issues (help 

define the frequency and magnitude of congestion issues). With good 

data, parks can begin to predict future patterns and trends in order 

to plan for cost effective solutions (improvements) such as design and 

implementation of a new alternative transportation system, expansion 

of an existing system, implementing management techniques; and 

finally to evaluate the effectiveness of changes made.

Data provides a park with concrete, factual evidence as to why a change 

should, or in some cases, should not be made. Some examples of data 

that can be collected include traffic volumes, turning movements, 

pedestrian counts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, parking occupancy 

counts, incidents, and alternative transportation system counts (such 

as dwell time and number of passengers). Some data, such as turning 

movement counts, can only be collected manually, while other data, 

such as traffic counts can be collected using automated systems. Data 

collection technology continues to improve: Bluetooth detectors can 

be used to estimate travel time, inductive loops can be used for traffic 

counts and speeds, video image processing can be used for traffic 

counts and occupancy information, and Microwave radar can be used for 

traffic counts or detection of vehicles.















PROS

•	 Data provides more accurate information for decision making as opposed to a “best guess”.

•	 Collecting traffic data can also aid in the determination of indicators and thresholds

for congestion and carrying capacity.

CONS

•	 The National Park Service has limited funds for traffic monitoring and a limited

number of transportation professionals.

•	 Data collected both manually and automatically can have inconsistencies and

anomalies, and comparisons should be considered carefully.

•	 Surveys are a great way to collect visitors’ perceptions; however, surveys can

require a long lead time (6 months to 1 year) and require approval from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

19

SOLUTION/TOOL: Traffic Monitoring/Data

 Collection and Analysis

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

•	 Prior to collecting data, goals, objectives and performance measures should be

created. These will guide what data needs to be collected.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

130 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement a traffic monitoring program will depend on the type and

amount of data to be collected. A portable counter can be purchased and deployed

within a short amount of time; however, a detailed monitoring plan may take several

months to develop. Permanent counters with communications and central server may

take years to design and implement.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to manage data collection

efforts and to download and analyze data, as well as costs to repair and replace broken

equipment (such as damaged road tubes).

Examples of Implementation

•	 Denali National Park has undertaken a traffic monitoring project to collect existing

traffic volumes and patterns. This data was utilized to create a traffic model.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/denali-park-road-capacity-study.htm

•	 Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area conducted a vehicular and pedestrian study to

measure existing conditions and providing alternatives for improving the congestion.

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Mend_Gl_Cong.pdf

•	 Grand Teton National Park had conducted traffic monitoring for several seasons

including installing road tubes to evaluate traffic patterns, an inductive loop to monitor

parking lot use, and trail counters to monitor a separated shared use pathway.

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park uses trail counters to monitor popular locations.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2007 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the state and/or local departments of transportation

to gather data on roadways under their jurisdiction, or possibly loan the park/unit

portable collection devices. Parks/units should coordinate with the regional Federal

Lands Highway Division to get assistance with data collection.

•	 While the National Park Service does not typically collect traffic data (other than

average daily trips for parks with permanent counters), traffic volumes can be

determined using entrance stations counts if available, or by tapping into information

collected beyond park boundaries by gateway communities, state departments of

transportation, and others. 

•	 Monitoring and acting on traffic data is separate from collection, and that’s where

parks may need the support. Support is available from the regional transportation

planner, Denver Service Center, federal lands highway division offices, and consultants.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is higher (above $250,000).

The capital cost for traffic monitoring will depend on the type and amount of data to 

be collected.

Of the total capital costs, the planning portion for a park-wide transportation assessment

conducted by Yosemite National Park cost over $600,000 in 2007. The procurement

portion for portable automatic data collection units can cost $1,000-5,000 each, but

also require staff time for training, setup, and data reduction. Consultants can also be

utilized to assist with planning, data collection and analysis. A study to determine the

effects of the alternate transportation system on park resources at Zion National Park

costs around $675,000 in 2013.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 131 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Numbers of actions implemented asa result of data collection and analysis.

•	 Increase in the amount of data collected.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Monitoring Guide- http://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/policyinformation/tmguide/

•	 National Park Service Pilot Data Collection Summary- http://www.triptac.org/

Documents/RepositoryDocuments/NPS_ATS_Data_Needs.pdf

•	 Transportation Planning Process for Transit in Federal Land Management Agencies

Volume 3: Methods to Define the Transit Need- http://www.triptac.org/Documents/

RepositoryDocuments/tran_pl_guide_vol3_web.pdf
TOI

132 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Turning restrictions can increase safety and efficiency.

CONS

•	 If turning restrictions are only during certain periods (for example 3 to 6 PM) there is

a chance that visitors will not know of these restrictions.

•	 Turning demand may be shifted to other routes or intersections.



General Description

Vehicles turning left across the traffic flow can cause conflicts with 

opposing traffic as well as with pedestrians and cyclists, affecting 

safety. During peak periods when opposing traffic is constant, leaving 

little to no time for left turns, there can be an increase in back-ups and 

potential rear-end collisions. 

Typically, left turns provide challenges at intersections during peak 

periods, but challenges can also occur with traffic entering and/

or exiting parking lots and visitor centers. Prohibiting or restricting 

turning movements at intersections, parking lots, and/or visitor centers 

can improve traffic flow by eliminating the slower/stopped traffic 

attempting to turn left which improves efficiency.

Turn prohibitions can be accomplished using signage or channelization 

(creating medians or other “barriers” to restrict turning movements).









Coordination/Partnerships

For roadways within the park, coordination will be needed with the regional Federal Lands

Highway Division office. If the roadway is not owned and/or maintained by the park/unit

or is outside the park/unit, coordination will occur with the jurisdiction responsible for the

roadway (such as state department of transportation or city/county transportation office).

20

SOLUTION/TOOL: Turn Prohibitions/

 Restrictions

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

GENERAL

•	 Consider alternate routes vehicles will need to take when turn restrictions are in place.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 133 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

 Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

Since prohibiting or restricting certain turning movements does not include any

construction, it should take only a few months for coordination, planning, and

implementation (including fabrication of signs). However, if medians or other barriers

are used to restrict turning movements, several additional months may be necessary to

design and construct these barriers.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2007 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital cost, the design and implementation portion for turn restrictions

at an intersection is estimated between $25,000 and $50,000 or more depending on the

traffic level.

Examples of Implementation

•	 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park has a significant amount of

commuter traffic on Lee Drive. The park has requested a project to restrict peak hour

turns to and from Lee Drive, eliminating the benefit to commuter traffic46.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduction of turning vehicles at intersection.

•	 Reduction in delay at intersection.

Additional Resources

•	 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for enforcement; maintenance

and repairs; restriping; pavement resurfacing; repainting; snow and sand removal; and

landscaping and mowing.
TOI

134 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Vehicle use restrictions reduce the chance that a vehicle will get stuck (height or width

wise) due to the road’sterrain (slope/angle, width, etc.) or otherfeatures(overpasses, etc.).

•	 Vehicle use restrictions can decrease congestion due to large vehicles moving slower

on steep grades and sharp curves.

•	 If the larger vehicles are not able to utilize the roadway, parking for these vehicles at

the destination will also not be needed, providing more parking for smaller vehicles.

•	 Larger vehicle restrictionsincrease safety for pedestrians and cyclistssharing the roadway.



General Description

Prohibiting or restricting certain vehicles (or certain sized vehicles) from 

areas in a park/unit can help improve traffic flow (reduce congestion), 

enhance visitor experience, and protect resources. 

Vehicle use restriction examples include (1) restricting all personal 

vehicle traffic on a roadway and allowing only transit; (2) restricting 

vehicles that are too wide, too long, or weigh too much for the design 

standards of the roadway; (3) restricting delivery trucks to visitor 

centers during peak periods; and (4) prohibiting vehicles during 

particular times to promote pedestrian and cycling use.

Generally vehicle use restrictions require public awareness and enforcement. 

Marketing of vehicle use restrictions can be accomplished through signage, 

511 traveler information phone number (see ES-1), dynamic/variable 

message signs (see ES-5), websites (see VDM-13) and GPS information, as 

well as media/social media (see VDM-5). Enforcement can be accomplished 

with law enforcement or for vehicle size restrictions, weigh-in-motion 

and automated vehicle classification systems can be utilized.

















CONS

•	 Without enforcement, vehicle use restrictions may not be effective.

•	 Vehicle use restrictions without an alternative way for visitors to get to their intended

destination (such as a shuttle), may cause visitors frustration and decrease their

visitor experience.

•	 Limiting larger vehicles at peak times may have an impact on deliveries.

•	 Larger vehicle restrictions may eliminate commercial bus tour operators from visiting

the park. This could have an economic impact on the park and gateway communities.

21 SOLUTION/TOOL: Vehicle Use Restrictions

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 135 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

GENERAL

•	 Parking for larger vehicles may need to be provided, such as at a park-and-ride facility so

those visitors that cannot take their vehicles to their intended destination due to vehicle

restrictions, can leave their vehicles and continue via alternative transportation.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the park/unit and local law enforcement for

enforcement of the restrictions put into place. Coordination will also be needed with

the park/unit communications staff to make the public aware of the restrictions, the

park/unit sign fabrication shop to create the appropriate signage, and the regional

federal lands highway office for assistance in determining the appropriate restrictions.

Coordination may also be necessary with delivery companies and other partners who

may be using larger vehicles to access the park.

 Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

Implementing vehicle use restrictions requires time to fabricate signage, create a public

awareness campaign, and train law enforcement. It will take longer if electronic systems

such as weigh-in-motion and automated vehicle classification will be used.

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, initial costs for public awareness actions would be expected

to cost a few thousand dollars, and potentially tens of thousands if the restriction is

on a major roadway. Some signing, striping, and other infrastructure may be needed to

guide motorists in the park/unit, which could cost approximately $5,000 to $10,000 per

restricted roadway segment.

Operating Costs

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for park/unit and local law

enforcement and communications staff responsible for the public awareness campaign.

Examples of Implementation

•	 Scotts Bluff National Monument has vehicle use restrictions for Summit Road. This

includes prohibiting vehicles that are longer than 25 feet and/or higher than 11 feet

7 inches and prohibiting all trailers. Hiking and biking is also only allowed during

daylight hours when the road is closed to vehicles. A shuttle is available for those unable

to take their vehicles to the summit.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/scbl/planyourvisit/things2know.htm

•	 Glacier National Park has vehicle restrictions on the Going-to-the-Sun Road which

include length, width, and height.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/gttsrfaq.htm

•	 Crater Lake National Park closed East Rim Drive to vehicles for two days in 2013 to

promote pedestrian and cycling use.

•	 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10857014.htm

•	 Mesa Verde National Park prohibits trailers on the main park road past the

campground. A trailer parking area is located just before the fee station for those

trailers not registered at the campground.

•	 Recreational vehicles are restricted from several areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon

National Parks.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2003 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

136 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Additional Resources

•	 Victoria Transport Policy Institute - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm33.htm 

•	 Acadia National Park lists all relevant restrictions on one page - http://www.nps.gov/

acad/planyourvisit/upload/VehicleRestrictions.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Decrease in the number of accidents/incidents.

•	 Decreased delay caused by oversize vehicles.
TOI

Congestion Management Toolkit 137 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

SOLUTION/TOOL: Improve Work Zone Management

TYPE: Traffic Operational Improvements

TOI

22

General Description

While a work zone is in place during construction for 

improvements to a roadway or parking lot, etc., the work zone 

may generally cause traffic congestion. Unfortunately, work 

zones (construction work) in national parks often occur during 

the peak season when visitation levels are high (during the 

summer when construction and visitation seasons overlap). 

Proper management of a work zone can decrease the impact the 

work zone will have on congestion.

Work zone management includes monitoring traffic and 

providing traveler information. This effort can be implemented 

several ways, including the use of intelligent transportation 

systems. Examples include travel time systems that provide 

travelers with an estimate for how long it will take to pass 

through the work zone; expected delay information systems that 

provide information on the expected delay time due to the work 

zone; variable speed limit signs that help determine a safe speed 

due to work zones, weather, and traffic; speed feedback display 

signs that measure a vehicles actual speed and display this 

along with the posted speed limit; speed advisory systems used 

to inform visitors about slower traffic ahead; alternative route 

systems; overheight/overweight warning systems; work intrusion 

warning systems; truck warning systems; hazardous roadway 

warning systems; and automated flagger assistance devices.

Work zone management also includes managing the construction 

project so it has minimal impact on visitors. This can include 

concepts such as timing construction projects during evening hours 

when traffic is generally less, or during months when visitation 

is lower. Also, alternative modes (such as a shuttle) could be 

implemented as part of plan to allow access during construction.
MARCH 2014 | TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

138 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Coordination/Partnerships

Depending upon where the work zone occurs, coordination will need to take place with the

construction contractor, who istypically tasked with providing the management of the work

zone. Partnering with the regional Federal Lands Highway Division and/or local, county

or state department of transportation when the project is being planned is also important.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The work zone management plan should be developed when the construction project

is planned. By definition, the management of a work zone needs to be in place when

construction is occurring.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2012 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Work zone management is typically provided by the contractor and is typically covered

in the construction cost of the specific improvement project, but the park/unit may

provide some assets to help manage the work zone.

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations



















PROS

•	 Providing traveler information on work zone conditions will prepare visitors for the

congested conditions ahead, reducing stress and anxiety.

•	 Work zone management can increase capacity through the work zone.

•	 Reducing speed typically increases safety in work zones.

•	 Work zone management can improve the safety of workers as well as the traveling public.

•	 Providing information on where work zones are in place may shift visitors to other

areas of the park.

CONS

•	 Work zones (and the construction going on in works zones) can be dynamic,

changing environments and can be time-intensive to manage.

GENERAL

•	 Traveler information should be timely, reliable, and up-to-date.

•	 Traveler information should be provided well in advance of the construction zone to

allow and encourage alternate routes or modes of transportation.

•	 Law enforcement for speed control is often needed in work zones.

•	 Any system that provides monitoring capabilities must be robust and reliable.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 139 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Examples of Implementation

•	 Zion National Park utilized a tool called Quickzone to determine the projected impact

of construction on the queues at the entrance station. Based on the information

provided by the tool, construction was delayed and the project phasing was adjusted.

•	 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/traffic_analysis/quickzone/casestudies/

snapshot6.htm

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park is providing work zone management via multiple

tools including promoting the park-and-ride (see PT-5); encouraging avoiding peak

travel times (see VDM-1), encouraging visitation to less congested areas (see VDM-4),

and using traveler information tools such as 511 traveler information phone number

(see ES-1), dynamic/variable message signs (see ES-5), and media/social media (see

VDM-5) to mitigate the impact of congestion on Bear Lake Road.

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/ROMO_Ops_

Plan_08192011.pdf

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/ROMO_ITS_Shuttle_

Rec07192012.pdf

•	 Prior to the start of Glacier National Park’s Going to the Sun Road rehabilitation,

different mitigation strategies (such as a flagger or signals) and work zone

configurations were tested using quickzone to determine what is most efficient.

•	 http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/traffic_analysis/tatv9_wz/cs2.htm

•	 In 2009, a construction zone outside Gateway National Recreation Area caused a 3

hour back-up for visitors leaving the park. To better manage the congestion due to the

work zone, the park and the State Department of Transportation formed a partnership.

Some of the mitigation techniques included new timing for traffic signals, improved

communications with local law enforcement directing traffic, providing traveler

information about delays on 511, and limiting the number of vehicles entering the park/unit.

•	 http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/07/gateway-national-recreationarea-seeks-solutions-weekend-traffic-snarls-sandy-hook

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduced length of queue at the work zone.

•	 Reduced amount of delay due to work zone.

Additional Resources

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s Work Zone Mobility and Safety Program - 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/publications/publications.htm

•	 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 6 - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2/part6.pdf

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to notify visitors of where

work zones exist, where to expect delays, and how long delays may be.
VDM

140 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Visitors avoiding peak travel time can lessen traffic congestion for others, creating a

better visitor experience for themselves and others.

•	 Avoids or postpones the need to expand parking or other major capital investments that

may damage resources.

CONS

•	 For this tool to produce benefits, visitors must take an action based on the 

information provided.

•	 Based on interviews with personnel from various parks, it can be difficult to influence

visitors’ behavior.

GENERAL

•	 As with any traveler information dissemination, the information must be accurate,

timely and reliable for travelers to continue to utilize the technology.









General Description

Just as there are peak travel times for travel to and from work, such 

as 7:00 to 9:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm, there are peak travel times 

for national parks. For many parks, the peak travel occurs during the 

summer time (mid-June through Labor Day), but peak times can be 

more specific, such as spring break, Memorial Day weekend, and other 

holidays, and/or weekends during July and August. Frequent peak travel 

times in parks are 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. 

Electronic systems, such as 511 phone information lines (see ES-1), 

dynamic/variable message signs (see ES-5), kiosks (see ES-8), and media/

social media/mobile device apps (see VDM-5), 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, which may 

be from March through June and September through November in some 

areas, or non-peak travel times such as weekdays and hours when the 

park is less busy, such as before 10:00 am and after 2:00 pm.









1 SOLUTION/TOOL: Avoid Peak Travel 

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
Congestion Management Toolkit 141 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff salary for keeping information

updated. Updates should be done at least once per day, and in some cases might need

to be done hourly for maximum effectiveness during all peak use periods. If electronic

systems are used, then operation and maintenance costs may include utilities, software

updates, and technology repairs and replacement parts.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Arches National Park provides information on their website about expected travel

times and days/times to avoid.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/traffic.htm

•	 Great Smoky Mountains National Park provides tips for avoiding crowds on 

their website.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/avoidcrowds.htm

•	 Tips for avoiding peak travel times at national parks.

•	 http://indietraveler.blogspot.com/2013/07/visiting-yosemite-national-park-5-

tips.html

•	 http://usparks.about.com/od/nationalparksus/a/avoidcrowds.htm

•	 During the summer of 2011, Rocky Mountain National Park included an “insider tip”

in their highway advisory radio message encouraging visitors to come during nonpeak hours.

•	 http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/ROMO_Eval_

ReportCOMB.pdf

Coordination/Partnerships

The entities for coordination will depend on the dissemination device chosen. It could

range from the local media, such as social media/mobile device apps, to the state

department of transportation, which may operate dynamic/variable message signs, a

highway advisory radio program, and other devices.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The amount of time required to implement this tool will depend on the dissemination

device chosen. The information could be provided in a matter of hours by posting it on

an already existing website, Facebook, or Twitter site. This process could take longer if

devices such as dynamic/variable message signs need to be deployed first.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement/implementation costs will depend on the

dissemination device chosen. The costs associated with 511 phone information lines are

provided in tool ES-1, dynamic/variable message signs are provided in tool ES-5,

kiosks are provided in tool ES-8, and media/social media/mobile device apps are

provided in tool VDM-5.
142 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:

•	 Change in the relative numbers of visitors during peak times after non-peak times are

promoted (shift in visitation from peak to non-peak periods).

•	 Number of users/followers of various dissemination devices.
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 143 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Tours provide visitors with an in-depth knowledge of attractions, which cannot

always be gained through personal visitation to a site.

•	 Tours can assist in consolidating visitors to specific times and areas therefore

alleviating some congestion and helping to protect resources.

•	 Tours can eliminate some of the pre-planning for visitors because the tour route and

stops are already programmed.

CONS

•	 If a tour is the only option at a park and they sell out (are always full), visitors may

become frustrated.

•	 Vehicle based audio tours could add to the congestion if they are very popular and

everyone is following the same route.

•	 Mobile device apps allow visitors flexibility to choose multiple options and routes.

However, if the goal of the tour is to route users to certain locations or to follow a

particular route to mitigate congestion, a mobile device app may not be the best

option. (And not all visitors have access to mobile apps.)









General Description

Tours can be offered to ‘undiscovered gems’ as well as popular park 

destinations. They can be used to (1) shift visitors to a different mode 

of travel by offering tours via foot, bicycle, and transit; (2) encourage 

visitors to avoid of peak travel times (see VDM-1) by offering tours 

before and after peak times and (3) encourage visitors to visit less 

congested areas (see VDM-4) by adding these locations to the tour route. 

Along with ranger-led tours, parks can also offer audio tours, tours via 

mobile device apps (see VDM-5), and tours using QR codes, which are 

quick response bar codes that can be scanned by smart phones to access 

websites and other information. 

This tool is specific to National Park Service led tours, tour buses will be 

discussed in a separate tool (see VDM-10).









2 SOLUTION/TOOL: Conduct Tours

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
144 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Of the total capital costs, the design and implementation portion for a ranger-led

tour will be minimal (staff time). However, using technology for tours will be more

expensive. Creating specific audio tours, such as those made available for mp3

download from Audible, iTunes, and other sources, range in cost from $40,000 to

$60,000 with the higher end including tours synchronized to the road48. The costs

associated with a mobile device app tour are provided in tool VDM-5.

There will also be significant capital costs if a park were to purchase one or more

vehicles for implementing a tour program. The costs associated with purchasing

vehicles are provided in tools PT-1 and PT-2.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time for ranger-led tours and costs

for updating information provided in the technology based tours. Additional operating

costs would be incurred if a park decided to implement a bus/shuttle tour using its own

personnel to operate and maintain the vehicles.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 In 2008, Great Smoky Mountains provided a guided shuttle tour to Cades Cove to

alleviate traffic congestion. This service is no longer operating.

•	 http://www.npca.org/news/media-center/press-releases/2008/

cadescove_102408.html

•	 Pacific Historic Parks provides an audio tour.

•	 www.nps.gov/valr/planyourvisit/index.htm

•	 Cedar Creek and Bell Grove National Historical Park were unable to permit

unrestricted access to the site in 2012, but were able to take visitors on ranger-led

tours to the monument for free.

GENERAL

•	 If a tour is the only option at a park, consider offering a reservation system and

prepayment online.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination with staff, friends groups, volunteers, concessionaires, transit agencies,

gateway communities, and others will be needed to provide tours. Parks need to ensure

that all tour guides are trained to provide consistent information. If audio tours and

mobile device apps are to be used instead, coordination will be needed with an entity

(commercial enterprise, vendor, etc.) to create these tools.

Coordination will also be needed with communication staff to promote the offered tours

through websites, media, social media, park newspaper, etc. or to make audio/mobile

device app tours available. Lastly, if reservation and prepayment systems are to be used,

coordination will be needed between the online system and those running the tours.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement will depend on the tour method chosen. A formal, ranger-led

tour would take a few weeks for development and supervisory review. A simple rangerled tour could take only a few days to plan. However, a more detailed mobile device app

tour could take up to a year and a half to create47.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)
Congestion Management Toolkit 145 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Additional Resources

•	 National Park Audio Tours– http://travelaudios.com/index.php

•	 Ideal Tourism Uses for QR Codes- http://travel2dot0.com/marketing/4-ideal-usestourism-qr-codes/

•	 QR Codes 101 for Tourism and Hospitality- http://travelonlinepartners.com/qrcodes-for-tourism

•	 http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/07/ranger-led-tours-reach-newlyaccessible-monument-cedar-creek-civil-war-battlefield10240

•	 Independence National Historical Park provides free 30-minute ranger-led tours which

are ona first come, first served basis or can be reserved in advance via phone or online49.

•	 Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore offers bicycle tours.

•	 www.nps.gov/ns/slbe/parknews/news2009bicycletours062409.htm

•	 Fort Vancouver National Historic Site uses QR codes to provide information to visitors.

•	 www.nps.gov/fova/parknews/qrcodes1.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of tour participants.

•	 Number of mobile device app or audio tour downloads.
VDM

146 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Can shift visitors to alternate transportation modes such as bicycling, walking, 

and transit.

•	 Creates revenue while possibly decreasing congestion.

CONS

•	 Units must petition and go through a public process to implement or adjust their fees

(and there are several different types of fees)32.

•	 Variable rates will be necessary and may be difficult to manage.

•	 Congestion (road) pricing can cause affordability challenges, especially for lowerincome households.

•	 Along with visitors themselves, gateway communities may disagree with congestion

pricing as visitors are the driving force of tourism and local economy and congestion

pricing would indirectly affect them as well.









General Description

In many cases, simply providing the information to a visitor that their 

valuable time will be wasted due to congestion is not a compelling reason 

for them to adjust their behavior. However, when this information is paired 

with a monetary incentive, such as cost savings or a disincentive, such as 

additional cost, this may encourage visitors to change their behavior. 

Time and money are two of the most important factors used in decision 

making. Frequently, time itself is not enough to change a visitor’s 

behavior, but when paired with a financial benefit or consequence; this 

can influence one’s decision making process. 

Congestion pricing adjusts the cost of transportation facilities, such 

as roads and parking lots. Increasing costs during congested or peak 

visitation periods and decreasing costs during off-peak periods can 

encourage visitors to visit a park during off-peak periods (hours, days, 

seasons) or to use alternative modes. Costs can be acquired by peakperiod fees, fees varying by time of day, and distance based fees.

Financial incentives such as reduction or elimination of entrance fees 

can also be provided to those arriving by alternative modes. 









3

SOLUTION/TOOL: Congestion Pricing/

 Financial Incentives 

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
Congestion Management Toolkit 147 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

be made. However, if additional infrastructure will be added to automate the fee

collection process (automated gate access, automated fee machines, etc.) the costs may

be significant. The costs associated with automated gate access are provided in ES-2,

the costs associated with automated fee machines are provided in ES-3.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longterm cost implications for this tool include staff time to continually keep promotional

materials updated and distributed, as well as, printing costs for promotional materials.

For fee collection, the operation and maintenance costs would include staff time if fees

are collected manually or utilities, software updates, and repair and replacement parts if

fee collection is automated. Automated solutions will likely have a higher capital cost, but

may have a lower annual operating cost.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Turtle Bay Exploration Park offers discounted entrance fees for those entering after

3:30 PM (John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 2011).

•	 http://www.turtlebay.org

•	 Yosemite National Park entrance fees are $10 for people arriving by non-commercial

bus as opposed to the $20 entrance fee for an automobile.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

•	 Sandy Hook National Recreation Area has parking fees rather than an entrance fee.

Therefore, those arriving by public transportation, would not have to pay a fee to use

the national park.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/gate/planyourvisit/shumasstransit.htm

•	 http://www.nps.gov/gate/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is near term (1 to 3 years).

Implementation for changes in fees in the National Park Service takes at least 12

to 18 months. Implementation would require discussions on ensuring congestion

pricing is allowed at the specific park or unit and coordination would be required

through regional and WASO fee managers (http://inside.nps.gov/waso/waso.

cfm?prg=87&lv=2). Planning for the pricing structure, and marketing this change to the

public and local gateway community will be needed as part of implementation. Lastly,

depending on the pricing structure chosen, new infrastructure may be necessary, such

as an automated gate access (see ES-2), parking meters, or other devices.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement/implementation costs could be minimal

(marketing costs only) if fees are already collected at the unit and no changes need to

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with regional and WASO fee managers to evaluate if this

is a possibility for the park or unit. If fees will be adjusted on transit services, then

coordination will be needed with the transit provider.
148 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples include:

•	 Reduction in peak period traffic volume.

•	 Number of visitors and amount of money collected during congestion pricing period.

•	 Number of visitors during times when fees are reduced or eliminated.

Additional Resources

•	 National Park Service fee policy

•	 Congestion pricing options and suggestions - http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/24/

confronted-with-congestion-pricing-people-clamor-for-transit-gas-tax/

•	 Road pricing information - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 149 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Visitors avoiding congested areas can lessen traffic congestion for others, as well as

create a better visitor experience for themselves.

CONS

•	 For this tool to produce benefits, visitors must take an action based on the

information provided.

•	 Heavily promoting a less congested area could potentially create more demand at a

previously undisturbed area, or area that isn’t capable of handling more visitors.

GENERAL

•	 When implementing this solution, parks need to think of their overall visitor use

management strategy, as many times they emphasize one or several iconic attractions.

This solution de-emphasizes any one particular site/attraction.





General Description

Many national parks have attractions that are well known and that all 

visitors want to see such as Old Faithful at Yellowstone National Park. 

Encouraging visitors to go to attractions in less congested areas can 

decrease congestion and increase visitor experiences. 

This solution also could potentially decrease congestion on roadways 

leading to the attraction, in parking lots, and on pathways at the attraction. 

Electronic systems, such as 511 traveler information phone number (see 

ES-1), dynamic/variable message signs (see ES-5), kiosks (see ES-8), 

and media/social media/mobile device apps (see VDM-5) can be used 

to encourage visitors to travel to other locations within the park by 

warning them of congested areas/attractions.







4

SOLUTION/TOOL: Encourage Visitation to 

 Less Congested Areas

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
150 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Arches National Park provides information on their website about expected travel

times and days/times to avoid.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/traffic.htm

•	 Great Smoky Mountains National Park providestips for avoiding crowds on their website.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/avoidcrowds.htm

•	 Tips for avoiding peak travel times at national parks.

•	 http://indietraveler.blogspot.com/2013/07/visiting-yosemite-national-park-5-

tips.html

•	 http://usparks.about.com/od/nationalparksus/a/avoidcrowds.htm

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:

•	 Change in the relative numbers of visitorsto less congested areas after they are promoted.

•	 Number of users/followers of various dissemination devices.

•	 Change in percentage of visitors at congested sites during peak hours.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The amount of time required to implement thistool will depend on the dissemination device

chosen. The information could be provided in a matter of hours by posting it on an already

existing website, Facebook, or twitter site, but could take a few months to a year if devices

such as dynamic/variable message signs or other improvements need to be deployed first.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2009 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement/implementation costs will depend on the

dissemination device chosen. The costs associated with 511 phone information lines are

provided in tool ES-1, dynamic/variable message signs are provided in tool ES-5, 

kiosks are provided in tool ES-8, and media/social media/mobile device apps are

provided in tool VDM-5.

Coordination/Partnerships

The entities for coordination will depend on the dissemination device chosen. It could range

from the local media such as media/social media/mobile device apps, to the state department

of transportation, which operates dynamic/variable message sign and other devices.

Marketing efforts will need to be coordinated with partners in the gateway community.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff salary for keeping information

updated. If electronic systems are used, then operation and maintenance costs may

include utilities, software updates, and technology repairs and replacement parts.
Congestion Management Toolkit 151 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Additional Resources

•	 The Interagency Visitor Use Management Council - http://www.reclink.us/forum/

topics/interagency-visitor-use-management-council

•	 Denver Service Center-Planning Visitor Use Management team

•	 Indicators and Standards of Quality- http://www.triptac.org/Documents/

RepositoryDocuments/BestPractices_Manning_Final3.pdf

•	 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum- http://www.triptac.org/Documents/

RepositoryDocuments/TROS_Lit_rev.pdf.pdf
VDM

152 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Social media can be used to promote less congested times and locations.

CONS

•	 Users may not be willing to pay for a mobile app when data can be accessed for free.

GENERAL

•	 Information must be timely,relevant, and reliable for usersto continue utilizing thisservice.

•	 Parks/units need to ensure that a consistent message is being provided through

media, social media, website, visitor centers, and rangers.

Coordination/Partnerships

When using traditional media, you will need close coordination with the local television

and radio stations. This tool may also require partnering with a consultant or vendor

to create a mobile app for your unit. When using social media for your unit, make sure

that there is close coordination internally at your unit so the proper information can





General Description

Traditional media such as television, radio, and newspapers have always 

been and continue to be popular ways to get information out to the 

general public in a fast and efficient manner. However, 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 to an abundance of people.

Information provided by national parks via these tools includes 

transportation-related information as well as interpretive information. 

Mobile device apps can be used to provide general information, or 

can be used as tour guides. If used as a tour guide, this allows the 

opportunity to send visitors to less congested areas of a park or unit.











5

SOLUTION/TOOL: Media/Social Media/ 

 Mobile Device Apps

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
Congestion Management Toolkit 153 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Mobile apps can highlight multiple national park units such as the National Parks

App by National Geographic and Oh Ranger! Park Finder App or can highlight a

single unit such as apps for Harpers Ferry, Boston National Historical Park, and

National Mall & Memorial Parks.

•	 http://news.verizonwireless.com/news/2013/05/national-parks-appsaccessories.html

•	 http://www.nps.gov/hfc/products/digitalmedia/mobileapps/

•	 http://www.nps.gov/nama/photosmultimedia/app-page.htm

•	 Blue Ridge Parkway has a web app produced by the National Park Service’s special

service center, NPmap, which informs visitors of road closures and detours.

•	 http://maps.nps.gov/blri/road-closures/

•	 http://www.nps.gov/npmap/

•	 Many of the national park service units are on Facebook and Twitter. Some examples

are shown below.

•	 https://www.facebook.com/nationalparkservice

•	 https://twitter.com/NatlParkService

•	 https://www.facebook.com/zionnps

•	 https://twitter.com/ShenandoahNPS

•	 America’s Great Outdoors provides Tumblr updates for U.S. Department of the Interior.

•	 http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOI/bulletins/8746e8

be shared. For example, law enforcement for road closures; rangers for congestion

information; communications department for important notices; transportation staff

for new project information; and interpretive staff for fun facts, natural and cultural

resource protection messages, and other details.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

Media and social media will not take long to implement the first time but will require

significant staff time for content updates. Mobile device apps could take up to a year

and a half to develop47.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2003 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Many of the social media (e.g., Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr, and Blogs)

sites are free to use.

The cost for a park/unit to develop its own mobile app would range from $50,000 to

$100,00047. A real-time road closure and detour web app can usually be created by

NPMap Builder (http://www.nps.gov/npmap/blog/help-beta-test-the-npmap-builder.

html) at no cost to the unit if a base map of the unit exists. However, the cost to NPMap

Builder to produce the app is around $2,000 to $3,00047.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to keep the social media sites

updated (which could require significant time depending upon the information shared)

as well as, costs for updating information provided on the mobile apps.
154 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Additional Resources

•	 Interim Policy on Social Media - http://www.nps.gov/policy/Socialmedia.pdf

•	 Social media and national parks - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/products/digitalmedia/

socialmedia/

•	 Leveraging social media – http://www.nationalrtap.org/Resources/

ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=leveraging%20

social%20media

•	 Use of social media in public transportation (TCRP Synthesis 99) - http://onlinepubs.

trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf

•	 ITS in National Parks and Other Federal Lands – 2011 Update Appendix G - http://ntl.

bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44256/ITSinParks2011_update.pdf

•	 Twitter List for National Park Service - http://jason-cochran.com/blog/all-thenational-park-service-twitter-accounts-in-one-place/

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of users/followers.

•	 Change in the relative numbers of visitors at uncongested destinations after they are

promoted on social media compared to visitors at congested areas not promoted.
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 155 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Can shift visitors to alternate transportation modes such as bicycling, walking, 

and transit.

•	 Creates revenue while possibly decreasing congestion.

•	 Can decrease vehicles circulating in parking lots which can reduce congestion 

and pollution.

CONS

•	 Units must petition and go through a public process to implement or adjust their fees

(and there are several different types of fees)32.

•	 Visual impacts from parking meters/kiosks.

•	 Parking fees can cause affordability challenges for lower-income households.

•	 Some visitors would rather circulate in a full but free parking lot to look for a parking

spot than to pay a parking fee32.

•	 Units should ensure that they do not raise the parking fees too high, or no one will

utilize the parking lot.









General Description

To deal with insufficient parking to meet demand, one effective tool is 

to add or increase parking fees. 

Adjusting parking fees by increasing costs at congested/high-utilization 

times or decreasing costs during non-congested times can encourage 

visitors to visit the parks during off-peak periods, adjust their visitation 

times, or to use alternative modes. 

Park units could also increase enforcement for visitors parking illegally and 

raise the cost of parking tickets issued to discourage visitors from parking 

illegally50. The costs of the tickets are set by the US Park Police. Money 

goes to the US General Fund53. Although this may discourage visitors 

from parking illegally, the cost of a ticket for failure to obey posted signs 

was $100.00 in 2008, it will not provide any revenue for the park, and 

therefore the ticket collections cannot offset the cost of enforcement.





6 SOLUTION/TOOL: Parking Fees

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
156 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

•	 Implementing this technique may just push the issue to a neighboring site.

•	 For smaller parking lots, collection costs are likely to exceed revenues, but may also

reduce enforcement costs.

GENERAL

•	 Doing a parking fee study in advance of implementation will assess feasibility of

implementation, support the parks request to modify fees, and assess parking rates

to avoid unintentional parking shifts, and assess potential fee revenue that could go

back to the park as part of FLREA.

•	 Cooperation and agreement from law enforcement or US Park Police will be essential

to successful enforcement.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be needed with the regional and WASO fee managers to evaluate if this

is a possibility at your unit. If parking fees are added to parking lots outside the national

park, coordination would be needed with the gateway community. Coordination will

also be needed with law enforcement or US Park Police for enforcement.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

Implementation time could vary from one to three months if fee collection is already

allowed. Parking fees are called expanded amenity fees and are only allowed at

locations where you have additional amenities such as lighting, security, restroom

facilities, etc. If fee collection is not already allowed, time to implement is about 12

to 18 months (although the National Mall has been trying to implement this for 5

years). Implementation would require discussions on ensuring adding or increasing

parking fees is allowed at your unit, planning for the pricing structure, and marketing

this change to the public and local gateway community. Coordination would be

required through regional and WASO fee managers (http://inside.nps.gov/waso/

waso.cfm?prg=87&lv=2). Lastly, depending on the pricing structure selected, new

infrastructure such as parking meters or pay stations may be necessary.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

Of the total capital costs, the procurement/implementation costs could be minimal

(marketing costs only) if fees are already collected at the unit and no changes need

to be made. However, if additional infrastructure will be added to automate the fee

collection process (automated gate access, automated fee machines, parking meters,

parking management equipment, etc.) the costs may be significant. The costs associated

with automated gate access are provided in ES-2, the costs associated with automated

fee machines are provided in ES-3. The costs associated with parking management are

provided in TOI-12.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In

addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to continually

keep promotional materials updated and distributed, as well as, printing costs for

promotional materials. For fee collection, the operation and maintenance costs would

include staff time if fees are collected manually or utilities, software updates, and repair

and replacement parts if fee collection is automated. Automated solutions will likely

have a higher capital cost, but may have a lower annual operating cost.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

Examples of Implementation 

•	 To address congestion and safety concerns, Cape Cod National Seashore began

prohibiting vehicles from dropping off and picking up passengers at Coast Guard
Congestion Management Toolkit 157 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

In tier2 and/or3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:

•	 Reduction in vehicles circulating within the parking lot.

•	 Amount of money collected in parking lot.

Additional Resources

•	 National Park Service Fee Policy- http://inside.nps.gov/waso/waso.cfm?prg=87&lv=2

•	 Parking fees- http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm26.htm

•	 Directors Order #22, Recreation Fees 5/14/2010

•	 Reference Manual 22A April 2011

Beach in 2001 and instead requires that all visitors park at the Little Creek parking

area ($15 daily fee) and take the shuttle49.

•	 Golden Gate National Recreation Area implemented some paid parking and time

limits (3-hour spaces) in some smaller parking lots near the Golden Gate Bridge in

order to discourage commuters from using these spaces and allow turnovers20.

Performance Standard/Measure
VDM

158 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

General Description

Partnerships, collaboration, public involvement, and outreach is 

not a standalone “tool” to be used by itself but should be used 

as an implementation strategy for the other tools in this toolbox. 

This is evidenced by the fact that “coordination/partnerships” 

is listed as a subheading in each tool. This tool provides more 

in-depth information for 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, including gateway communities and surrounding 

jurisdictions, regional transit agencies, departments of 

transportation (state, county, etc.) transportation management 

districts and associations (non-profit groups that are generally 

public-private partnerships and provide cooperative transportation 

and parking management services), and others.

Public involvement from the beginning of a planning process, at key 

decision making steps along the way, and through implementation 

of congestion management activities will help the process run much 

smoother, help gain public support for the project, and avoid costly 

revisions in the end. Involving the public and local partners can help 

identify the needs and concerns of many different user types, test 

the recommendations, and inform potential solutions.

Examples of public and partnership involvement include surveys, 

task forces/advisory committees, focus groups, presentations 

at town meetings, workshops and meetings (i.e., brainstorming, 

visioning, and charettes) open houses, and requesting comments. 

Outreach to the public can be conducted similar to a marketing 

campaign such as press releases, printed materials, mailings, phone 

calls, social media, and websites.

SOLUTION/TOOL: Partnerships, Collaboration, Public Involvement and Outreach

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management

VDM

7
Congestion Management Toolkit 159 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Partnerships and coordination can lead to fast implementation of simple fixes that

provide major benefits.

•	 The public can provide a unique viewpoint on the needs and challenges of a variety of

visitor types from which to create recommendations that otherwise may not have been

considered. Sometimes the best and most useful ideas come from a fresh perspective

and someone who is very familiar with the park/unit from a visitor’s perspective.

•	 Involvement and outreach provides the opportunity to inform and educate visitors

about local, state, and federal technical requirements that must be adhered to, as well

as key challenges in the park/unit, and potential solutions.

•	 Involvement and outreach can help engage the public in stewardship for the park/

unit and build support for necessary improvements and changes.

CONS

•	 A lack of participation from stakeholders could be a barrier.

•	 Due to the varying opinions of the public, it can be a challenge to identify

recommendations that everyone will support.

















•	 Public needs may vary and conflict with the mission of the park/unit to protect resources.

GENERAL

•	 Coordination with partners may require written agreements, such as memorandums

of understand, memorandums of agreement, and other partnership instruments.

•	 All projects involving national parks need to follow the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) process, which includes public involvement

Coordination/Partnerships

For this tool, the list of partners is endless and ranges from the public to transit

providers, to gateway communities, to Transportation Management Associations.

A list of potential partners and stakeholders can be found at: http://www.triptac.org/

TRIPTACResources/PlanningResources/Default.html.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

Creating partnerships can take a relatively short amount of time. On occasions, it may

simply take one meeting or phone call. In other cases, it may take months to create

written agreements and establish trust.

Involving the public is an ongoing activity for national parks. Specific involvement and

outreach related to actions in the park/unit or projects being implemented can take months

to years depending on the extent of the project. Public and stakeholder involvement is

usually an ongoing effort throughout the duration of any national park project.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)




160 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

donation, and request public comment through newsletters, websites, blogs, surveys,

and Facebook. One of the committee members for the Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail is

the marketing and outreach director for TART trails, Inc. and as such, she assists in

the marketing and outreach for the Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail as well.

•	 http://sleepingbeartrail.org/

•	 http://www.leelanaunews.com/?q=node/14750

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process, the

park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. To quantify

the effectiveness of this tool on improving congestion, the original data collection from tier 2

and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool has specific performance measuresthat can

quantify effectiveness. Forthistool, examplesfor measuring the ongoing effectivenessinclude:

•	 Number of partnerships and public meetings held.

•	 Level of comments and input gathered via the National Park Service PEPC system and

at public meetings and workshops.

Additional Resources

•	 Partnerships in Transportation - www.nps.gov/transportation/partnerships_in_

transportation.html

•	 Innovative Transportation Planning Partnershipsto Enhance National Parks and Gateway

Communities – http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(83)_FR.pdf

•	 Transportation Management Associations – http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm44.htm

•	 Webinar: (Module 4) Alternative Transportation Systems and the Role of Partnerships,

Stakeholder Participation, and Public Involvement - http://www.triptac.org/

TRIPTACResources/TRIPTACTrainings/Default.html#mod4

•	 Effective communication and public participation - http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/

governance/participation/participation.aspx

•	 Federal Highway Administration’s public involvement page and resource page -

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/ and http://www.

planning.dot.gov/focus_publicEngage.asp

•	 Guide for public involvement techniques - http://www.planning.dot.gov/

publicinvolvement/pi_documents/toc-foreword.asp

•	 Innovations in public involvement for transportation planning - http://ntl.bts.gov/

DOCS/trans.html

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach, design,

equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from low ($0 to $50,000) to

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

The cost for partnerships is focused on staff time for meetings and planning. Parks usually

budget the cost of public and stakeholder involvement as part of capital project costs.

In some cases, park/unit staff may take on involvement and outreach responsibilities,

or they may hire consultants for support. The costs of public involvement and outreach

will vary with the level of involvement. For development of transportation plan or

engagement for review of and comment on transportation alternatives and improvements,

public involvement efforts supported by consultants may run in the tens of thousands.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longterm cost implications for this tool include staff time.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Valley Forge coordinates with the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority on alternative transportation options18.

•	 Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller created partnerships with the town, regional planning

organization, regional transportation provider, a local non-profit, and the Chamber

of Commerce21.

•	 The Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan engaged the public

through citizen’s advisory committees and requesting public comments.

•	 Chapter 5 - http://www.akfedlandslrtp.org/lrtp.html

•	 Muir Woods National Monument is considering a parking reservation and shuttle system

and has held public meetings and requested public comments to discuss this project.

•	 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=48272

•	 The Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail has involved the public from the beginning of the

project and allowed them to provide input in the decisions for creation of the trail.

They continue to keep the public apprised of the next steps in project, seek funding
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 161 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Bicycle/pedestrian access can result in many benefits such as creating a traffic

calming affect that may increase vehicle throughput and can be safer for all users,

providing health benefits, and providing alternative ways for tourists to visit

attractions that can enhance their experience of the park/unit.

•	 Bicycle facilities that are linked to or can become a part of regional bike routes will

tend to get more use.

CONS

•	 Creating the additional bicycle/pedestrian facilities may affect some of the resources

that the park/unit is trying to protect if construction work is not adequately mitigated.

•	 Creating bicycle/pedestrian facilities within the existing ROW can take capacity

being used for vehicles decreasing overall speed and volume.



















General Description

Promoting bicycle and pedestrian access (including bike sharing) to a 

unit rather than driving a motorized vehicle such as a private automobile 

can reduce congestion within a park (or on the access roads to the park).

Promoting bicycle and pedestrian access can be done by (1) marketing 

through the unit’s website (see VDM-13), media/social media (see VDM-5) 

and newsletter, (2) providing the necessary facilities such as new or 

expanded multimodal facilities (see PT-4), shared use paths (see AC-4), 

shoulders of sufficient width for bicycling (see TOI-10), pedestrian paths and 

walkways, bicycle racks on the ground and on buses/shuttles, bicycle rental 

shops, bike sharing, and lodging that offers bikes to their customers, (3) 

by providing incentives/promotions such as a decrease in entrance fees, 

bicycle tours, and car-free events, and (4) through national programs 

such as “A Call to Action,” “Healthy Communities,” “Healthy Parks, 

Healthy People,” “America’s Great Outdoors,” and “Let’s Move Outside.”

Note: This solution and the strategies noted herein can also be used by 

parks to promote the use of rivers (navigable waterways) both to access 

the park and for travel within the park. The same concepts (e.g., existing 

infrastructure) and concerns (e.g., safety and degradation of resources) 

are applicable to water-born transportation. 

8

SOLUTION/TOOL: Promote Bicycle and 

 Pedestrian Access 

 (including Bike Sharing) 

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management

Coordination/Partnerships

Thistool can require coordination with a number of different entities, including surrounding

gateway communities and agencies who have jurisdiction over roadways leading to or
162 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition,

the long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to continually

keep promotional materials updated and distributed, as well as, printing costs for

promotional materials. The operating costs related to additional infrastructure can be

found in the associated tools (referenced above in capital costs).

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail is currently four miles long, but at completion will have

27 miles. The trail is promoted through media, social media, websites, bicycle rental

concessionaires, bicycles available at local bed and breakfasts, and activities such as

the “Dune Dash four mile run/walk” and the “Twilight Ride.”

•	 http://sleepingbeartrail.org/

•	 To promote bicycle and pedestrian access, Crater Lake National Park began an

annual car-free weekend in 2013.

•	 http://bikeportland.org/2013/08/19/crater-lake-national-park-to-announceannual-carfree-weekend-92555

•	 To promote bicycle use; Mesa Verde has a special bike weekend on Wetherhill Mesa

each fall.

•	 http://www.nnps.gov/MEVE

•	 Grand Canyon National Park has a concessionaire (Bright Angel Bicycle Rentals)

located within the park for visitors to rent bicycles from.

•	 www.bikegrandcanyon.com

•	 The National Mall has installed Capital Bikeshare stations to promote bike usage in

the National Park and the San Antonio Bcycle expanded to reach the San Antonio

Missions. The Bcycle has an app available to access the status of available bikes,

docking stations, and to get directions.

•	 www.capitalbikeshare.com

•	 www.sanantonio.bcycle.com

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

Costs will depend on whether promotion is via a media campaign (minimal cost) or

by providing additional infrastructure (costs will vary depending on the extent of the

improvement). The costs associated with multimodal facilities are provided in PT-4,

shared-use paths are provided in tool AC-4, for complete streets are provided in tool

TOI-4, and for lane separation/delineation are provided in TOI-10.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

within the park/unit, as well as lodging establishments, bicycle rental concessionaires,

entities that operate bike sharing, media, and coordinators of national programs.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool ranges

from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years) to longer term (3 to 6 years).

The time to implement this tool depends on the level of activity proposed. A simple

media campaign could require minimum time, whereas additional infrastructure

improvements (such as adding a shared use path, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or

other features) may require months or years to analyze and construct.
Congestion Management Toolkit 163 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier2 and/or3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Trail user counts.

•	 Bicycle rental counts and revenues.

Additional Resources

•	 Exploring Bicycling Optionsfor Federal Lands: Bike Sharing, Rentals and Employee Fleets-

http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Exp_Bike_Opt_Fed_

Land.pdf

•	 National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program- 

http://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm

•	 Active Trails Program at the National Park Foundation- http://www.nationalparks.

org/our-work/programs/active-trails

•	 American Trails- http://www.americantrails.org/

•	 California State Parks Trail Managers Toolbox- http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23419

•	 Good Practices to Encourage Bicycling& Pedestrians on Federal Lands- 

http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/BikePedPlan_Web.pdf

•	 Adventure Cycling Association, Missoula, MT- http://www.adventurecycling.org
VDM

164 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Real-time GPS bus mapping allows the capability to tell visitors when the next bus

will arrive which can make a service successful by reducing wait time perceptions.

•	 Ridesharing and transit are both great options for non-drivers and those who do not

own a car.

CONS

•	 Using transit and ridesharing do not allow visitors the same flexibility as a personal

vehicle in both the ability to access sites on their own schedule and to bring all of

their personal equipment with them.

•	 Promoting transit services can potentially increase the number of users beyond the

capacity of the current system.

•	 Simply setting up a ridesharing system is not enough to get drivers to leave their

private automobiles. Changing visitor behavior will often require the promotion of

ridesharing and/or offering incentives such as discount coupons or reduced fees or

preferred parking spaces.















General Description

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.

A marketing campaign can consist of press releases, social media 

campaigns, information on websites (see VDM-13), printed materials, 

vehicle graphics, 511 traveler information phone number (see ES-1), 

dynamic /variable message signs (see ES-5), and static and electronic 

kiosks (see ES-8). Logos and taglines are some of the most memorable 

elements of a marketing campaign. 

Another way to promote transit use and ridesharing is through the use 

of incentives. Incentives can include providing interpretation on transit, 

reducing entrance fees for transit and ridesharing participants, preferred 

parking for ridesharing participants, charging fees at a discount by 

party rather than individual on transit and providing coupons for local 

stores to those using transit and ridesharing. Charging visitors to park 

their vehicles inside the park/unit can also help to incentivize the use 

of transit, as long as visitors do not have to pay a parking charge at the 

shuttle pick-up location.

9

SOLUTION/TOOL: Promote No-Car Park

 Access Options

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
Congestion Management Toolkit 165 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2011 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding, planning,

evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership outreach,

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be necessary with the local transit agency, local media, and local

ridesharing companies.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

Promoting ridesharing and transit services can take weeks or months, depending

upon how sophisticated and extensive the media campaign is. Simply adding messages

that promote transit and ridesharing to existing media will take a minimal amount of

time. Planning and implementing a new media campaign focusing on ridesharing and

transit will take several months. f additional stops are needed, or if the park is to modify

existing equipment; coordination can take a year or more.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and

reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.).

In addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to

continually keep promotional materials updated and distributed, as well as, printing

costs for promotional materials.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 The Island Explorer in Acadia National Park has a marketing plan that includes vehicle

graphics, information on a website, print materials, pressreleases as well as other activities.

•	 Chapter 11 - http://www.exploreacadia.com/IEX_SRTP.pdf

•	 Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller uses the tag line “powered by 16 cows and a community”

to market their transit system and its sustainability and alternative energy21.

•	 At the Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, a parking fee, in lieu of

an entrance fee, is charged during the peak season, therefore, providing an incentive

to those who arrive by transit and would not pay a fee3.

•	 In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Bay Area Open Space Council has a website that

allows people to find transit to access trails in the area including ridesharing.

•	 http://www.transitandtrails.org/find/trips

GENERAL

•	 There is a need to collect feedback on transit to continually improve the service. This

can be done through annual on-board surveys.

•	 Depending on the park, it would be advisable to work with transit companies to

create ways for people to bring typical gear with them. For example, beach gear,

backpacks, strollers, picnics or bicycle.

design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation is low ($0 to $50,000).

Equipment purchases may include adding bicycle racks to existing buses. The average

cost is $46554.

The cost for marketing will vary greatly based on how extensive of a marketing plan is

implemented as well as whether the marketing is done in-house or using a marketing

firm. Marketing plans can range from simple with minimal set up cost, such as with

social media, press releases, and website information, to extensive with the use of

vehicle graphics, advertisements in print and/or radio and television, and other actions.

As an example, Marsh Billings Rockefeller National Historical Park budgets

approximately $15,000 per year to cover marketing for their shuttle. This includes items

such as weekly ads in the regional and local papers, materials for Trolley stop signs,

brochures, cost of advertising in Welcome Centers, and website maintenance51.
166 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Vehicle occupancy.

•	 Number of private automobiles, ridesharing users, and transit users.

Additional Resources

•	 Leveraging social media – http://www.nationalrtap.org/Resources/

ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=leveraging%20

social%20media

•	 Use of social media in public transportation (TCRP Synthesis 99) - http://onlinepubs.

trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf

•	 Marketing transit - http://www.embarq.org/sites/default/files/EMB2011_From_

Here_to_There_web.pdf

•	 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) - www.tcrponline.org

•	 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) - www.apta.com

•	 Example of marketing for transit in Los Angeles - http://thecityfix.com/blog/transitagencies-need-to-invest-in-marketing-a-lesson-from-los-angeles/

•	 How to find a ride share - http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/04/03/how-to-finda-ride-share/

•	 Ridesharing - http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm

•	 A Return on Investment Analysis of Bikes-on-Bus Programs - http://www.nctr.usf.

edu/pdf/576-05.pdf
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 167 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Tour buses provide the added benefit of interpretation, which can enhance the 

visitor experience.

•	 Working with tour bus operators, the demand at certain attractions can be managed

by having itineraries that spread out the visitors and/or direct visitors to areas that

are less congested during peak periods.

CONS

•	 Units should be careful to not promote tour buses to the extent that the tour buses

then become the issue. This can be accomplished by planning for the management

of tour buses (such as larger parking spaces, staging areas in parking lots, more

maneuvering room in parking lots, queuing during the loading and unloading

process, as well as wear and tear on pavement) to ensure that tour bus operations run

smoothly and do not add to existing congestion challenges.

•	 If there are multiple private tour buses in the area, the unit needs to ensure that

they are promoting tour bus use in general or giving all private companies equal

promotion. Units should examine their concession contracts and commercial use

authorization permits for requirements.





General Description

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. Promotion 

of tour buses can be accomplished much the same way as promoting 

other transportation modes. A marketing plan should be created and 

can consist of elements such as press releases, information on a website, 

social media, and print materials.

To promote tour bus use, also consider other tools such as transit signal 

prioritization (see ES-10), transit technology applications such as fast 

pass (see PT-9) or reserved travel lanes for transit operation (see PT-7). 











10 SOLUTION/TOOL: Promote Tour Bus Use

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management






168 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to

monitor and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures

and reporting them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In

addition, the long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to continually

keep promotional materials updated and distributed, as well as, printing costs for

promotional materials. The operating costs related to additional infrastructure can be

found in the associated tools (referenced above in capital costs).

Coordination/Partnerships

The unit will need to coordinate with the local media and gateway communities and

sometimes beyond to reach the visitor population in order to promote tour bus usage. The

park/unit may also find it beneficial to partner with a marketing company to assist with

promoting tour bus usage. Lastly, the park/unit should partner with the tour bus vendor/

concessionaire and the gateway community on tour bus operations and management to

ensure that the tour buses are running efficiently and not adding to the traffic congestion.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

ranges from immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to promote tour bus use will depend upon how sophisticated and extensive the

marketing campaign may be. Simply providing press releases to existing media takes a

minimal amount of time; however, planning and implementing a new media campaign

focusing on tour bus use can take several months.

Modifying facilities such as parking lots overlooks, pedestrian access areas and

visitor centers to provide a pleasant experience for tour bus patrons can take several

years. Adding infrastructure such as transit signal prioritization (see ES-10), transit

technology applications such as fast pass (see PT-9) or reserved travel lanes for transit

operation (see PT-7) to promote tour bus use can take significant time.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

•	 Modifying parking areas to accommodate larger tour bus vehicles will reduce the

number of spaces available for private vehicles.

•	 Tour buses create a pulsing of visitors that could overwhelm the carrying capacity of

popular attractions.

GENERAL

•	 Provide tour bus staging to minimize noise and air quality concerns.

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000).

The cost for marketing will vary greatly based on how extensive of a marketing plan is

implemented as well as whether the marketing is done in-house or using a marketing

firm. Marketing can range from simple and low cost, such as for ads in local media and

brochures to extensive with the use of vehicle graphics, advertisements, in print and/or

through radio and television, and other actions.

While not a tour bus, an example of transit marketing with a similar effort, Marsh

Billings Rockefeller National Historical Park budgets approximately $15,000 per year

to cover marketing for their shuttle. These includes items such as weekly ads in the

regional and local papers, materials for Trolley stop signs, brochures, cost of advertising

in Welcome Centers, and website maintenance50.

The costs associated with adding infrastructure such as transit signal prioritization are

provided in tool ES-10, transit technology applications such as fast pass are provided

in tool PT-9 or reserved travel lanes for transit operation are provided in tool PT-7. 

Cost for modifying facilities to handle increased tour bus operations can range from

the tens of thousands to several million dollars depending on needed changes. The

costs associated with expanding the parking supply are provided in tool AC-3 and for

implementing transit/shuttle services/operations are provided in tool PT-1.
Congestion Management Toolkit 169 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Additional Resources

•	 Leveraging social media – http://www.nationalrtap.org/Resources/

ResourceSearchResults.aspx?org=a2GSpnDbruI=&query=leveraging%20

social%20media

•	 Use of social media in public transportation (TCRP Synthesis 99) - http://onlinepubs.

trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_99.pdf

•	 Marketing transit - http://www.embarq.org/sites/default/files/EMB2011_From_

Here_to_There_web.pdf

•	 SF Park tour bus management plan - http://sfpark.org/2011/07/15/2378/

•	 American Bus Association - http://www.buses.org/

•	 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration - http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

Examples of Implementation 

EXAMPLES OF TOUR BUS PROMOTION:

•	 Denali National Park has several shuttle and tour bus options available. As part of

their promotion, they have a webpage set-up to discuss the differences and help

visitors determine which is right for them.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/which-bus-to-choose.htm

•	 Acadia National Park also has several tour bus options available and promotes these

via their website.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/acad/planyourvisit/guidedtours.htm

EXAMPLES OF TOUR BUS MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONS:

•	 Tongass National Forest at Mendenhall Glacier conducted a study on tour bus

operations at the visitor center to gather recommendations for reducing congestion

and increasing pedestrian safety. The recommendation was to implement a scheduled

tour bus arrival sequence.

•	 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/35000/35000/35073/DOT-VNTSC-USDA-07-01.pdf

•	 Independence National Historical Park has a challenge providing enough tour bus

parking due to the new visitor center having less parking than the previous one51.

•	 Washington D.C. conducted a tour bus management initiative to identify traffic

challenges and provide recommendations for alleviating these challenges.

•	 http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/DCTourBus_2003.pdf

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Annual (or peak season) number of tour buses.

•	 Tour bus visitation as a percentage of overall visitation.
VDM

170 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Reservation systems can manage the number of visitors allowed at a site (or at the

park) at any given time, which can reduce vehicular (and visitor) congestion.

•	 Reservations allow visitors to preplan their trip to a park or a specific destination

within the park.

CONS

•	 Reservation systems can be controversial, and visitors may be disappointed if they are

not able to see a specific site/attraction at the time they are visiting. It is critical that

visitors have as much advance knowledge as possible that some sites or attractions

require reservation (such as through information on the park/unit website). If the

reservation system is not marketed well, many visitors may arrive at the unit without

realizing they needed prior reservations.

•	 Visitors may find it frustrating to have to make reservations up to six months in

advance to be able to visit a site such as the Statue of Liberty.

•	 The park plays a significant role in the tourism, and therefore local economy, for

a gateway community. Due to this, the gateway community may not support a

reservation system as they may see it as a detriment to the local economy22.



General Description

National parks sometimes utilize reservation systems for campgrounds 

or in a few cases, for special attractions to efficiently manage the 

flow of visitors. Reservation systems can be used to manage traffic 

congestion at popular destinations within a park or unit.

Reservations systems are a great way to 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. Reservation systems can be used for entering the entire park/

unit, to access a particular parking lot or trail, or to take a tour. 

Reservation systems typically allow reservations to be made prior to 

arrival through the use of a website or telephone number. However, 

reservation systems are not a typical tool for the National Park Service, 

given that visitor access is a primary part of the mission.









11 SOLUTION/TOOL: Reservation Systems

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
Congestion Management Toolkit 171 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

medium ($50,000 to $100,000) to high ($100,000 to $250,000) to higher (above $250,000).

The capital costs for a reservation system include the technology used to place the

reservations, the marketing costs for promoting the system to the public, and the staff

time required to manage the system. The cost for implementing a reservation system could

potentially be low if (1) the concessionaire is in charge of the reservation system or (2) the

park/unit takes advantage of the already existing recreation.gov website for reservations.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include ongoing staff time to market and

manage the reservation system as well as utilities, software updates, and technology

repairs and replacement parts.

Recreation.gov charges a fee of about $3.00 per reservation. This may not be practical if

the unit is trying to keep costs down.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Independence National Historical Park has a timed ticket entry to Independence

Hall. Reservations can be made online National Recreation Reservation Service or via

their toll free telephone number.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/inde/advance-ticket-information.htm

•	 Muir Woods is considering a parking reservation system to help solve traffic congestion.

•	 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=48272

•	 Reservations are recommended, but not required for cave tours at Mammoth Cave

and can be completed through the National Recreation Reservation Service or via

their toll free telephone number.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/maca/planyourvisit/reservations.htm

GENERAL

•	 It should be noted that congestion can be created when the amount of time for

visitation needs to be decreased. For example, Independence Hall had to reduce their

available tour hours by three hours due to sequestration and this caused pedestrian

congestion to increase52.

•	 Installing a reservation system of any type would likely require a study, and close

coordination with regional leadership and park partners.

•	 There is no standard processfor approving reservation systemssince thistool israrely used.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be necessary with the gateway community to get local buy in and

support, with the concessionaire or National Recreation Reservation Service for

implementing the reservations, and with local media for marketing.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year) to near term (1 to 3 years).

The time to implement a reservation system will vary based on the level of planning

and amount of public comment necessary to implement a reservation system, but

can vary from a few months to a few years. Utilizing the existing National Recreation

Reservation System can significantly decrease the implementation time required;

however, this would not be a decision that a park could make on its own and jump right

to implementation with the National Recreation Reservation System.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)
172 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Number of visitors using the reservation system.

•	 Demand for reservations versus the supply.

Additional Resources

•	 Website generally used for national park reservations - http://www.recreation.gov/

•	 Denali National Park is only paved for the first 15 miles. While these 15 miles are

able to be traversed by private automobile, beyond those 15 miles, travel via tour

bus or shuttle are required. Shuttle buses are less expensive and allow for visitors to

disembark and choose other shuttle routes, allowing visitors to take day hikes and

explore areas. Tour buses, however provide narrated visitor information about the

park and wildlife. Reservations need to be made through the concessionaire.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/visiting-denali.htm

•	 Harpers Ferry National Historical Park provides in-depth battlefield tours.

Preregistration and prepayment are required.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/hafe/planyourvisit/hfhaparkguides.htm

•	 Alcatraz Island requires reservations which include the entrance fee, ferry

transportation, and cell audio tour.

•	 http://www.nps.gov/alca/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm

•	 Mesa Verde has a reservation system for accessing the ruins. Visitors are oriented to

the steep ladders and small tunnels when they purchase their tour tickets. This helps

visitors understand the challenges of visiting this part of the park.
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 173 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Providing visitors with targeted information can help inform their travel decisions.

•	 Providing visitors with options such as alternative locations, modes, and routes, as

well as congestion information can help them in adjusting their travel plans.

•	 Ensuring that the signage, print materials, and staff provide a consistent message will

help visitors feel the information is timely and accurate.

CONS

•	 Visitor centers (and a park’s marketing materials) tend to highlight their most

popular destinations, which in turn can lead to congestion.

•	 By promoting locations that are not already congested, tourists may choose to visit areas

that are not capable (do not have the infrastructure) to handle higher levels of visitation.

•	 May need to expand parking at visitor center.

Coordination/Partnerships

Coordination will be necessary with the park’s/unit’s interpretive and public affairs





General Description

Visitor centers are onsite or offsite locations for visitors to obtain 

information for planning their visit to the park/unit, to ask questions 

of rangers, to possibly pay entrance fees if they are not required at the 

entrance gate, to transfer to shuttles, and to purchase souvenirs.

A simple and inexpensive way to help manage congestion would be to take 

advantage of the existing visitor centers and their role within the park and 

gateway community to provide information to visitors related to congestion 

management. Rather than just using transportation, such as a shuttle, as a 

method of providing information about a park/unit, the visitor center could 

be used to provide information that could affect visitors’ transportation 

choices and destinations. This could include highlighting less congested 

areas of interest rather than the better known areas of interest, 

providing information on congestion at various destinations within the 

park, training visitor center staff on responses to assist in congestion 

alleviation, and using visitor center as a park-and-ride location. 







12

SOLUTION/TOOL: Modify Visitor Center

 Operations

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
174 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

term cost implications for this tool include staff time to train new visitor center staff

and to keep materials updated, as well as the printing of current materials.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Arches National Park staff and partners distribute information to visitors at the park

visitor center as well as the Moab visitor information center, including information

about when specific sites/attractions are most congested and the best times to visit.

•	 Zion National Park uses existing visitor centers as locations to orient visitors to the

shuttle system that serves Zion Canyon National Park, directing visitors where to

park and access the system.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System Process,

the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation is needed. In

order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving that congestion,

the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated. However, each tool

also has specific performance measures which can quantify the effectiveness of the tool

itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing effectiveness include:

•	 Decrease in the number of visitors at destinations known to be congested.

•	 Increase in the number of visitors at less popular destinations.

Additional Resources

•	 Creating consistent brand messages - http://www.marketingtrenches.com/

marketing-strategy/mission-possible-delivering-consistent-brand-messages/

•	 Planning for interpretive media - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/

•	 Interpretive Planning Guide - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/pdf/ip/interp-visitor-exper.pdf

•	 Comprehensive Interpretive Planning - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/pdf/ip/cip-guideline.pdf

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year).

The time to implement this technique could vary between a few weeks to a few months.

It may take a little while to create a plan and a consistent message about congestion, to

fabricate signs, print materials, and to conduct trainings for visitor center staff. It may

take a year or more to modify a unit’s movie or other automated interpretive program.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Capital costs would vary based on what techniques are implemented but could include

creation of a plan, sign fabrication, creation of training and other printed materials.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the longstaff to create new signage and consistent messaging and with visitor center staff for

training. Coordination with gateway communities will also help ensure a consistent

message, and will help influence which sites are visited by tourists.
VDM

Congestion Management Toolkit 175 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

Location/Emphasis Area

(Locations that should benefit from the implemented solution/tool)

 Gateway Communities

 Park Entrances/Entrance Stations

 Parking Areas (including at trail heads, scenic overlooks, and park-and-rides)

 Roadways within the Park

 Roadways Providing Access to the Park (outside the park boundaries)

 Visitor Centers (includes people/pedestrian loading areas)

Strategies Achieved/Effects of Solution

 Additional Capacity (by building or creating more space for vehicles) 

 Alternative Modes (by implementing improvements or promoting use)

 Demand Management

 Increase Throughput (by managing efficiency and mode of travel)

Implementation Considerations

PROS

•	 Ensuring that the signage, print materials, and staff provide a consistent message will

help visitors feel the information is timely and accurate.

•	 Websites, visitor centers, and hotels can be used to promote less congested times 

and locations.

•	 Providing visitors with targeted information can help inform their travel decisions.

•	 Providing visitors with options such as alternative locations, modes, and routes, as

well as congestion information can help them in adjusting their travel plans.

CONS

•	 To produce benefits, visitors must take an action based on the information provided.

•	 A lack of participation from stakeholders could be a barrier.

•	 Visitor centers (and a park’s marketing materials) tend to highlight their most

popular destinations, which in turn can lead to congestion.

•	 By promoting locations that are not already congested, tourists may choose to visit areas

that are not capable (do not have the infrastructure) to handle higher levels of visitation.

















General Description

A simple, low-cost technique for providing traveler information to 

visitors is to utilize services already existing at the park (e.g., website, 

hotels, and gateway communities). Information provided by national 

parks via these tools includes transportation-related information as well 

as interpretive information.

All national parks already have websites, so adding pages dedicated 

to transportation is a fast, efficient way to get information to a large 

number of people. Another option is to provide information to visitor 

centers and hotels outside the park. Having these entities in the 

gateway communities be able to provide a consistent message about 

transportation (such as using the park-and-ride (see PT-5), avoiding peak 

travel times (see VDM-1), and encouraging visitation to less congested 

areas (see VDM-4)) will provide benefits to the park.

13

SOLUTION/TOOL: Traveler Information

 (Via Website, Hotels, and

 Gateway Communities)

TYPE: Visitor Demand Management
176 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

MARCH 2014 | VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

For all tools, the operations and maintenance costs should include staff time to monitor

and upgrade the tool (including collecting data on performance measures and reporting

them, evaluating recapitalization needs, changes to technology, etc.). In addition, the

long-term cost implications for this tool include staff time to train new visitor center

and hotel staff and to keep materials updated (including webpages), as well as the

printing of current materials.

Examples of Implementation 

•	 Arches National Park staff and partners distribute information to visitors at the park

visitor center as well as the Moab visitor information center, including information

about when specific sites/attractions are most congested and the best times to visit.

•	 Zion National Park uses existing visitor centers as locations to orient visitors to the

shuttle system that serves Zion Canyon National Park, directing visitors where to

park and access the system.

•	 Rocky Mountain National Park conducted presentation at the Estes Park Chamber

of Commerce meetings to train visitor center and hotel staff on the transportation

information related to the Bear Lake Road construction. The park also provided

rack cards with information about the construction and park-and-ride, QR codes for

getting additional information, and new webpages dedicated to the construction and

transportation information.

Performance Standard/Measure

In tier 2 and/or 3 of the National Park Service’s Congestion Management System

Process, the park/unit quantified the level of congestion to determine if mitigation

is needed. In order to quantify the effectiveness of this particular tool on improving

that congestion, the original data collection from tier 2 and/or 3 should be repeated.

However, each tool also has specific performance measures which can quantify the

Coordination/Partnerships

Close coordination will be necessary internally at the unit so the proper information

can be shared. For example, law enforcement for road closures, rangers for congestion

information, communications department for important notices, transportation staff

for new project information, interpretation of fun facts, natural and cultural resource

protection messages, and other details. Coordination will also be needed with visitor

centers and hotels in the gateway community, this may also be able to be coordinated

through the chamber of commerce.

Time to Implement

The implementation timeframe (including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation) for this tool

is immediate (less than 1 year).

The time to implement this technique could vary between a few weeks to a few months.

It may take a little while to create a plan and a consistent message about congestion, to

fabricate signs, print materials, and to conduct trainings for visitor center and hotel staff.

Cost/Financial Information

(Lifecycle cost / Total cost of ownership)

(Cost/financial information, where noted, is based on 2013 dollars. Cost/financial 

information is estimated, and will vary based on size and scope of project, number of 

units, geographic location of park/unit, etc. This information should only be used as a 

magnitude of cost to determine if this tool is a wise investment for your park/unit. It 

should not be considered a detailed Class C cost estimate.)

GENERAL

•	 Information must be timely, relevant, and reliable for users to continue utilizing 

this service.

•	 Parks/units need to ensure that a consistent message is being provided through

media, social media, website, visitor centers, hotels, and rangers.

CAPITAL COSTS

The total capital cost for this tool including PMIS statement, obtaining funding,

planning, evaluate/select preferred alternative, NEPA study, coordination/partnership

outreach, design, equipment purchase, and construction/implementation ranges from

low ($0 to $50,000) to medium ($50,000 to $100,000).

Capital costs would vary based on what techniques are implemented but could include

creation of a plan, sign fabrication, creation of training, creation of webpages, and

other printed materials.
Congestion Management Toolkit 177 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VISITOR DEMAND MANGEMENT | MARCH 2014

effectiveness of the tool itself. For this tool, examples for measuring the ongoing

effectiveness include:

•	 Number of visitor center and hotel staff attending trainings.

•	 Number of visitors to transportation specific webpages.

Additional Resources

•	 Creating consistent brand messages - http://www.marketingtrenches.com/

marketing-strategy/mission-possible-delivering-consistent-brand-messages/

•	 Planning for interpretive media - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/

•	 Interpretive Planning Guide - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/pdf/ip/interp-visitor-exper.pdf

•	 Comprehensive Interpretive Planning - http://www.nps.gov/hfc/pdf/ip/cip-guideline.pdf
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

178 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

INDEX: Location/Emphasis Area Cross Reference Table

GATEWAY COMMUNITIES (GC)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 31

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-6 ELECTRONIC FARE PAYMENT SYSTEMS 43

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-8 KIOSKS 48

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-6 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 92

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES) 98

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143
INDEX | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 179 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 136

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

PARK ENTRANCES/ENTRANCE STATIONS (PE)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-1 ADD ENTRANCE LANES/STATIONS/BOOTHS 19

AC-2 LIMITED ACCESS ONLY LANES AT ENTRANCES 21

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 30

ES-2 AUTOMATED GATE ACCESS 33

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

ES-4 CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION 38

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-6 ELECTRONIC FARE PAYMENT SYSTEMS 43

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-8 KIOSKS 48

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 52

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

180 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS 149

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS 170

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

PARKING AREAS (PA)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-3 EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY 23

ES-4 CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION 38

ES-8 KIOSKS 48

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-5 ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 90

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105
INDEX | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 181 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 112

TOI-15 SERVICE/COURTESY PATROLS 117

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 132

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS 149

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS 170

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS 173

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

ROADWAYS WITHIN THE PARK (RWP)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-3 EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY 23

AC-4 EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 25

AC-5 INCREASE ROAD CAPACITY 28

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 30

ES-4 CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION 38

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-8 KIOSKS 48
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

182 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ES-9 ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 52

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS 54

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-1 ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES 79

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-3 ANIMAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS 84

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-5 ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 90

TOI-6 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 92

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 95

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES) 98

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 112

TOI-14 ROAD WEATHER MANAGEMENT 114

TOI-15 SERVICE/COURTESY PATROLS 117

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-17 SPEED MANAGEMENT 123

TOI-18 TRAFFIC CALMING 126

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129
INDEX | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 183 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 132

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS 149

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS 170

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS 173

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

ROADWAYS PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE PARK (RPA)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-1 ADD ENTRANCE LANES/STATIONS/BOOTHS 19

AC-2 LIMITED ACCESS ONLY LANES AT ENTRANCES 21

AC-4 EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 25

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 30

ES-2 AUTOMATED GATE ACCESS 33

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-9 ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 52

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS 54

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

184 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-1 ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES 79

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-3 ANIMAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS 84

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-6 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 92

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 95

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES) 98

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 112

TOI-14 ROAD WEATHER MANAGEMENT 114

TOI-15 SERVICE/COURTESY PATROLS 117

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-17 SPEED MANAGEMENT 123

TOI-18 TRAFFIC CALMING 126

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 132

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146
INDEX | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 185 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

VISITOR CENTERS (VC)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 132

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS 173

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

186 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

INDEX: Strategies Achieved Cross Reference Table

ADDITIONAL CAPACITY (AC)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-1 ADD ENTRANCE LANES/STATIONS/BOOTHS 19

AC-2 LIMITED ACCESS ONLY LANES AT ENTRANCES 21

AC-3 EXPAND PARKING SUPPLY 23

AC-4 EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 25

AC-5 INCREASE ROAD CAPACITY 28

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

TOI-1 ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES 79

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-6 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS 92

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 95

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES) 98

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 112

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

ALTERNATIVE MODES (AM)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-4 EXPAND OR IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 25

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 30
INDEX 

| MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 187 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-6 ELECTRONIC FARE PAYMENT SYSTEMS 43

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-8 KIOSKS 48

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 52

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS 54

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 95

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

188 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS 173

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

DEMAND MANAGEMENT (DM)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

ES-1 511 TRAVELER INFORMATION PHONE NUMBER 30

ES-4 CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION 38

ES-5 DYNAMIC/VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN 40

ES-7 HIGHWAY ADVISORY RADIO 45

ES-8 KIOSKS 48

ES-9 ROAD WEATHER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS 54

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-4 COMPLETE STREETS (POLICY AND FACILITIES) 87

TOI-5 ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 90

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-14 ROAD WEATHER MANAGEMENT 114

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-18 TRAFFIC CALMING 126

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134
INDEX | MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 189 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-3 CONGESTION PRICING/FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 146

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS 149

VDM-5 MEDIA/SOCIAL MEDIA/MOBILE DEVICE APPS 152

VDM-6 PARKING FEES 155

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS 170

VDM-12 MODIFY VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS 173

VDM-13 TRAVELER INFORMATION (VIA WEBSITE, HOTELS, AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES) 175

INCREASED THROUGHPUT (IT)

TOOL # TOOL NAME PAGE #

AC-1 ADD ENTRANCE LANES/STATIONS/BOOTHS 19

AC-2 LIMITED ACCESS ONLY LANES AT ENTRANCES 21

AC-5 INCREASE ROAD CAPACITY 28

ES-2 AUTOMATED GATE ACCESS 33

ES-3 PREPAYMENT OF ENTRANCE FEES AND TRANSIT FEES 35

ES-6 ELECTRONIC FARE PAYMENT SYSTEMS 43

ES-10 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITIZATION 52

PT-1 IMPLEMENT TRANSIT/SHUTTLE SERVICES/OPERATIONS 54

PT-2 ADDING CAPACITY TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 57

PT-3 FERRY SERVICE/WATER TAXI 60

PT-4 NEW OR EXPANDED MULTIMODAL FACILITIES 63

PT-5 NEW OR EXPANDED PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES (INCLUDING PROMOTION) 65

PT-6 RAIL 69

PT-7 RESERVED TRAVEL LANES FOR TRANSIT OPERATION 72
MARCH 2014 | INDEX

190 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

PT-8 RIDESHARING/VANPOOLS 74

PT-9 TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS 76

TOI-1 ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANES 79

TOI-2 ACCESS MANAGEMENT 81

TOI-3 ANIMAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS 84

TOI-5 ENFORCEMENT/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 90

TOI-7 GRADE SEPARATION FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 95

TOI-8 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (GEOMETRIC AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES) 98

TOI-9 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 101

TOI-10 LANE SEPARATION/DELINEATION 103

TOI-11 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CHANGES (INCLUDING ONE-WAY AND REVERSIBLE LANES) 105

TOI-12 PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENTS 109

TOI-13 ROADWAY PULL-OUTS 112

TOI-15 SERVICE/COURTESY PATROLS 117

TOI-16 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING 120

TOI-17 SPEED MANAGEMENT 123

TOI-18 TRAFFIC CALMING 126

TOI-19 TRAFFIC MONITORING/DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 129

TOI-20 TURN PROHIBITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 132

TOI-21 VEHICLE USE RESTRICTIONS 134

TOI-22 IMPROVE WORK ZONE MANAGEMENT 137

VDM-1 AVOID PEAK TRAVEL TIMES 140

VDM-2 CONDUCT TOURS 143

VDM-4 ENCOURAGE VISITATION TO LESS CONGESTED AREAS 149

VDM-7 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND OUTREACH 158

VDM-8 PROMOTE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (INCLUDING BIKE SHARING) 161

VDM-9 PROMOTE NO-CAR PARK ACCESS OPTIONS 164

VDM-10 PROMOTE TOUR BUS USE 167

VDM-11 RESERVATION SYSTEMS 170
MARCH 2014

Congestion Management Toolkit 191 National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

References

1. Transportation Toolkit for Federal Land Managers. Accessed August 2013. <http://

www.cflhd.gov/TTOOLKIT/FLT/>

2. Upchurch, Jonathan. Service Times and Capacity at National Park Entrance 

Stations. 2006.

3. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Intelligent Transportation 

Systems in the National Parks System and Other Federal Public Lands - 2011 Update. 2011.

4. Roberts, Mandi from Otak. Personal Communications. October 2013.

5. National Archives and Records Administration. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 19.

January 28, 2011.

6. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Accessed November 11, 2013. <http://www.

mapc.org/resources/parking-toolkit/parking-issues-questions/financingpublic-parking>

7. Gleason, Rebecca from Western Transportation Institute. Personal Communications. 

October 7, 2013.

8. Cranshaw, William from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. Personal Communications. 

October 9, 2013.

9. Bushell, Max, et al. Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements.

October 2013.

10. Park It Bike Racks. Accessed October 2013. <http://www.parkitbikeracks.com/>

11. Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan Toolbox for Mitigation 

Congestion Strategies. 2011.

12. 511 Deployment Coalition. Accessed September 2013. <www.deploy511.org>

13. 511 Deployment Coalition Members. Personal Communications. August 14-16, 2013.

14. Western Transportation Institute. Greater Yellowstone Rural ITS Project Work 

Order II-2D AVI at Yellowstone National Park Entrances. April 2004.

15. Pedersen, Amy from National Park Service Denver Service Center. Personal 

Communications. December 3, 2013.

16. Intelligent Transportation Systems Costs Database. Accessed September 2013. 

<http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/>

17. Villwock-Witte, Natalie from Western Transportation Institute. Personal 

Communications. August 19, 2013.

18. Valley Forge National Historical Park. Personal Interview. August 29, 2013.

19. Zion National Park. Personal Interview. August 22, 2013.

20. Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Personal Interview. August 22, 2013.

21. Marsh Billings Rockefeller. Personal Interview. September 13, 2013.

22. Bryce Canyon National Park. Personal Interview. August 23, 2013.

23. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Accessed November 11, 2013. <http://www.mapc.

org/resources/parking-toolkit/parking-issues-questions/financing-public-parking>

24. Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Technical Assistance Center. Grand Island 

National Recreation Area Alternative Transportation Project. December 2011.

25. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Bus and Ferry Lifecycle Cost 

Modeling. December 2011.

26. Von Brown, Jeffrey Tyler. A Planning Methodology for Railway Construction Cost 

Estimation in North America. 2011.

27. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Cuyahoga Valley National 

Park Comprehensive Rail Study. July 2013.

28. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. OKI Congestion 

Management Process Findings and Analysis. 2007.

29. Crawford, J., et al. A Michigan Toolbox for Mitigating Traffic Congestion. 2011.

30. Huijser, Marcel, et al. Oyu Tolgoi Roads and Wildlife Mitigation Report. August 2013.

31. Smart Growth America. Accessed December 23, 2013. <http://www.

smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/complete-streets-fundamentals/

complete-streets-faq>

32. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Personal Interview. August 21, 2013.

33. Fitzpatrick, K., et al. Development of Left-Turn Lane Warrants for Unsignalized 

Intersections. 2010.

34. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Region 5 Regional 

Alternative Transportation Evaluation. May 2012.

35. Vermont Agency of Transportation. Report on Shared-Use Path and Sidewalk Unit 

Costs. November 2010.

36. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices. 2009.

37. Jacquemart, Georges. NCHRP Synthesis 264 Modern Roundabout Practice in the 

United States. 1998.
MARCH 2014

192 Congestion Management Toolkit National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

38. Institute of Transportation Engineers. A Toolbox for Alleviating Congestion and 

Enhancing Mobility. 1997.

39. National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. Benefits of Traffic Incident 

Management. 2006.

40. Michigan Department of Transportation Freeway Courtesy Patrol. Accessed November 

15, 2013. <http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9615_31161---,00.html>

41. Gamble Design. Bar Harbor Maine Downtown Wayfinding. July 29, 2013.

42. Bham, Ghulam et al. Evaluation of Variable Speed Limits on I-270/I-255 in St. Louis. 

October 2010.

43. New York State Department of Transportation. Rural ITS Toolbox and Deployment 

Plan. 1998.

44. Kahn, Robert and Kahn Goedecke, Allison. “Roadway Striping as a Traffic Calming 

Option.” ITE Journal Vol. 81, No. 9 (2011): pp. 30-37.

45. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. TDM Encyclopedia. Accessed September 2013. 

<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/>

46. Northeast Region of the National Park Service. Northeast Region Congestion 

Management System White Paper Appendix E. 2011.

47. Ryan Kimberley from Harpers Ferry Center. Personal Communications. 

September 19, 2013.

48. Nancy Rommes from Travel Audios. Personal Communications. October 7, 2013.

49. Northeast Region of the National Park Service. Northeast Region Congestion 

Management System White Paper. 2011.

50. Otak. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Toolkit. 2010.

51. Rita Seto from Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission. Personal 

communication. October 21, 2013.

52. Independence National Historical Park. Personal Interview. August 30, 2013.