Page 1 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

November 15, 2002

The Honorable Joe Skeen

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the

 Alternative Transportation Program

Almost 280 million people visited U. S. national parks in 2001, many touring the parks in

private automobiles. Frequently, particularly during the summer months and on holiday

weekends, some of the more popular parks experience traffic congestion. When this occurs,

it detracts from visitors’ enjoyment of the parks and damages natural resources as vehicles

idle on congested roads or are parked on unpaved areas when parking lots are full. Each

year, as peak vacation periods approach, prospective park visitors are made aware of these

conditions as newspapers and television present stories and images of frustrated visitors in

bumper-to-bumper traffic at some of the large, highly visited parks like Yellowstone,

Yosemite, and Acadia.

To alleviate these conditions, some parks offer visitors alternatives to driving their own

vehicles, such as shuttle buses or trams. Congress encouraged the use of such alternatives

through enactment of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century in 1998. Among its

many purposes, this legislation authorized funding for enhancing or developing park

transportation systems to improve visitors’ experiences and reduce damage to natural

resources throughout the national park system. To administer these funds, the National Park

Service established the Alternative Transportation Program in 1998. Program objectives

include relieving traffic and parking congestion; reducing air, noise, and visual pollution;

enhancing visitor experience; preserving natural and cultural resources; and improving safety

conditions.

Funding for the program has averaged about $9.5 million per year from fiscal year 1999—the

first year funds were obligated under the program—through fiscal year 2002. So far, the Park

Service has approved funding for 185 transportation projects in 75 parks. Project scope and

costs vary considerably. They range from small planning projects, such as a $4,000 project to

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

examine transportation alternatives at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in

Virginia, to large construction projects, such as a $2.2 million project at Grand Canyon National Park to

fund the initial design and construction phase of a proposed light rail system.1

 Planning projects approved

as part of the Alternative Transportation Program may focus on determining if a transportation system is

needed, while construction projects may focus on expanding an existing system or implementing the

initial stage of a large system such as the Grand Canyon’s. In the case of the Grand Canyon, a recent

study estimated that the entire light rail system, if it is completed, may cost as much as $300 million,

including operations and maintenance costs.2

 A Department of Transportation study estimated that over

the next 2 decades, total funding needs for alternative transportation systems throughout the Park

Service, including operations and maintenance costs, could be as much as $1.5 billion.3

In light of the increasing significance and potential costs of dealing with transportation in the national

park system, we reviewed the Park Service’s administration of the Alternative Transportation Program.

Specifically, we are reporting on the Park Service’s processes for (1) ensuring that alternative

transportation projects are needed and cost-effective, and (2) evaluating the performance of the program.

It is important to point out that in addressing these issues our work focused on the agency’s process for

reviewing and approving projects. Accordingly, we did not evaluate whether any specific project was in

fact needed and cost-effective. In conducting the work, we examined agency files for a sample of 20

projects—10 planning projects and 10 construction projects—that account for 54 percent of the total

program funding for fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003. The details of the scope and methodology

used in our analysis are in enclosure I.

Results in Brief

The Park Service’s process for ensuring that transportation projects are needed and cost effective could

be strengthened. Park Service policies require, among other things, that park managers justify the need

for a proposed transportation project and its cost-effectiveness through the collection and analysis of

specific supporting data, such as an analysis of possible alternatives and operating and maintenance

costs. However, this information is not required to be provided to headquarters officials when they are

reviewing proposed projects for approval and prioritization. Instead, the agency allows park managers to

justify proposed projects by providing descriptions of how they would meet broad agencywide objectives

such as protecting natural resources or enhancing the experience of park visitors. As a result, proposed

transportation projects are routinely approved and prioritized by Park Service headquarters officials

based on these broad descriptions without the benefit of supporting information demonstrating the

specific need for the proposed projects or their cost-effectiveness. Only 1 of the 20 project files we

examined included information demonstrating the need for and cost-effectiveness of the proposed

project. Under these circumstances, the Park Service cannot ensure that its process for approving and

prioritizing transportation projects is effective in identifying the most meritorious projects. Park Service

officials acknowledge that the approval process needs to be revised and told us they plan to change the

process so that park managers will be required to provide this supporting information when submitting

future project proposals.

 1

 Planning projects emphasize data collection, problem identification, and analysis of alternative solutions. Construction projects

focus on building transportation systems or procuring new equipment such as rolling stock.

2

 Grand Canyon National Park, Draft Report to Congress on Transit Alternatives, July 2001.

3

 Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study,

August 2001.
Page 3 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

The Park Service has not developed an effective process for evaluating the performance of the

Alternative Transportation Program. Currently, the agency does not have a process for systematically or

objectively determining what, if any, progress the program is making toward meeting its objectives. For

example, a major objective of the program is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving

traffic and parking congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not established goals for

reducing such congestion or identified how congestion will be measured, the agency has no objective

means of evaluating performance. Accordingly, determining what is being accomplished by an individual

project or the program as a whole is based on the subjective judgments of agency managers. This results

in diminished accountability since there is no effective way to determine what is being accomplished

with the funds provided, and no effective means for providing agency managers or Congress with

assurance that the projects are the most effective in achieving the results desired for the program.

This report contains recommendations aimed at improving the project approval process and enhancing

the agency’s evaluation of the program’s performance. We discussed a draft of this report with Park

Service officials, who told us they agree with our recommendations and are planning to implement them.

We also requested comments from the Department of the Interior, but none were provided.

Background

Visitation rates in U. S. national parks have grown significantly in the past 2 decades. From a total of

about 220 million visitors in 1980, visitation is approaching 290 million today. As parks host more visitors,

many park transportation infrastructures have not kept pace.

Congress placed increased emphasis on transportation in and around national parks by passing the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. The legislation provided federal land

management agencies, including the Park Service, with increased responsibilities for managing

transportation activities. Funding for meeting these responsibilities has been provided through the

Department of Transportation, which annually funds the Park Service to initiate or expand alternative

transportation systems where appropriate, to manage adverse impacts of increased traffic, and to reduce

the adverse effects of private vehicles on natural and cultural resources, and on visitor experiences.

Proposed alternative transportation projects are initiated at the park level. After preliminary screening at

the regional level, proposed projects are reviewed by headquarters officials. A team of senior

headquarters and field officials rate and prioritize project proposals against broad objectives linked to the

agency’s mission and strategic goals. These include such objectives as providing visitor services,

protecting natural resources, and protecting health, safety, and welfare.

Of the 185 projects that the Park Service has approved since the program began, 131 are planning

projects, which emphasize data collection, problem identification, and analysis of alternative solutions.

The remaining 54 projects are construction projects, which focus on building transportation systems or

their components, or procuring new equipment such as rolling stock. The median cost of planning

projects has been $75,000, while the median cost for construction projects has been $419,000. Enclosure

II includes information on the number and estimated costs of projects approved under the Alternative

Transportation Program since it began.

The Park Service Could Strengthen Its Review and Approval Process by Ensuring That

Proposed Projects Are Needed and Cost-Effective

Among other things, Park Service policies require that individual park managers justify the need for a

proposed project and its cost-effectiveness by analyzing alternatives, including those that do not involve

construction, and by providing total cost estimates that include information on operations and
Page 4 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

maintenance costs. However, this information is generally not provided to agency decisionmakers when

they are approving and prioritizing project proposals. Instead, project proposals are approved and

prioritized based on generalized descriptions of how proposed projects will contribute to accomplishing

broad agencywide objectives. Without the benefit of having specific information about project

alternatives and total project costs, the agency cannot ensure that its process for approving and

prioritizing transportation projects is effective in selecting the most meritorious projects. Agency officials

told us that they agree with our analysis and plan to revise the process by requiring that this information

be provided to agency decisionmakers when projects are being considered for approval.

Under current Park Service requirements, the need for and cost-effectiveness of each proposed project is

to be demonstrated by supporting information and analysis. Specifically, the Park Service’s policy

manual4

 requires park managers to fully explore alternatives before making a decision to design or

construct new transportation systems or to expand existing systems. The alternatives are to include

those that do not involve new construction such as improving the flow of traffic through the park by

rerouting cars. If these alternatives will not achieve satisfactory results, then park managers may pursue

new construction projects if certain conditions are met. These conditions include demonstrating that the

projects will not cause visitation to exceed the area’s ability to handle increased levels of visitation,

commonly referred to as “carrying capacity.”

5

 To support a project’s cost-effectiveness, the Park Service’s

policy manual requires park managers to consider estimated total costs when planning, designing, and

constructing transportation projects.6

 In making this determination, total costs are to include all costs

incurred over the project’s useful life, including expenditures for acquisition, construction, and annual

operations and maintenance. In addition, Director’s Order Number 90 and a related Director’s

Memorandum require park managers to conduct an analysis to demonstrate that each proposed project is

the most cost-effective way to meet the park’s transportation needs. For construction projects with cost

estimates of $500,000 or more, the Director’s Order requires managers to consider the purpose of the

project and its estimated costs and expected benefits, then evaluate alternative designs to determine

whether a different design could achieve the same purpose at a lower cost without sacrificing

performance, reliability, quality, or safety.

To determine whether this kind of key information was being provided to Park Service decision makers

in approving and prioritizing proposed projects, we reviewed 10 approved planning projects and 10

approved construction projects that we judgmentally selected from the most recently approved projects.

These recent projects included all of those approved for funding during fiscal year 2001 through fiscal

year 2003. We selected the 10 planning projects with the highest estimated costs. However, because

construction projects with estimated costs of $500,000 or higher are subjected to an additional review, we

wanted to review projects whose estimated costs were above and below this threshold. Accordingly, we

selected the five construction projects with the highest estimated costs above this threshold, and the five

construction projects with the highest estimated costs below the threshold. Collectively, the 20 projects

sampled represented 54 percent of the total estimated costs of $29.8 million for all projects approved for

the 3-year period. A brief description of these projects is shown in table 1.

 4

 U.S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, section 9.2, p.

107. December 27, 2000.

5

Park managers are required to identify visitor carrying capacities for managing public use of their parks (section 8.2, p. 81 of the

U.S. National Park Service Management Policies 2001, December 27, 2000).

6

 U.S. National Park Service, Management Policies 2001, December 27, 2000, section 9.1, p. 100.
Page 5 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

Table1: Listing of Alternative Transportation Projects in Our Sample

Park unit/state Project purpose/description

Estimated

cost

Planned

fiscal year

funding

Planning projects

Cape Cod National Seashore--

Massachusetts

Develop a comprehensive long-term transportation plan to propose

solutions to present traffic congestion and parking problems.

$300,000 2001

Chickamauga and Chattanooga

National Military Park--

Tennesseea

Evaluate traffic congestion and impacts of relocating a major highway

around the park as part of a regional transportation study.

400,000 2002

Golden Gate National

Recreation Area--California

Reduce automobile congestion by examining future shuttle system, and

satellite parking options.

310,000 2001

Great Smoky Mountains

National Park--Tennessee

Collect park capacity data and information on alternatives as part of Phase

II of a park transportation planning study to address increased congestion in

and around the park.

286,000 2001

Great Smoky Mountains

National Park--Tennessee

Collect data on biological and cultural resources potentially affected by a

transportation system as part of Phase III of a park transportation planning

study.

337,500 2002

Great Smoky Mountains

National Park--Tennessee

Develop an environmental impact statement as part of Phase IV of a park

transportation planning study.

299,200 2003

Keweenaw National Historical

Park--Michigan

Analyze potential alternative transportation systems that will protect park

resources and provide safe visitor access to the park and surrounding

areas.

300,000 2003

Mesa Verde National Park--

Colorado

Examine potential transportation systems, including a gondola system, to

address congestion and safety concerns.

460,000 2001

National Capital Parks-Central-

-Washington, D.C. area

Develop transportation system to replace a 30-year old system that cannot

effectively address congestion in the nation’s capital.

286,000 2001

Northeast Region--Boston,

Massachusetts area

Develop new information services for improving visitor access to NPS sites

in and around Boston Harbor.

266,000 2001

Construction projects

Acadia National Park--Maine Implement changes to existing transportation system: Installation of

electronic destination bus signs, purchase of bicycle trailers, and

conversion of existing building into bus depot and information station.

481,600 2003

Cuyahoga Valley National

Park--Ohio

Construct four station shelters and platforms for existing system to enhance

visitor access and provide a safer environment during inclement weather.

468,000 2003

Cuyahoga Valley National

Park--Ohio

Rehabilitate unsafe railroad crossing signals used for a historic railway

through the park.

338,200 2001

Fire Island National Seashore--

New York

Construct a ferry terminal and support facilities to improve access to the

national seashore and reduce dependency on automobiles.

420,000 2001

Grand Canyon National Park--

Arizona

Construct a 480-space parking lot and visitor orientation center to allow

visitors to park their cars and take the transit system to the park, thus

addressing current safety and noise concerns.

3,300,000 2003

Grand Canyon National Park--

Arizonab

Select and fund contractor for managing the design and construction of a

light rail system to alleviate increasing park congestion, and completion of

an archeological mitigation study.

2,227,000 2001

North Cascades National Park-

-Washington

Determine feasibility and design of a floating dock facility, including an onshore shelter with restrooms and orientation displays to improve access for

disabled visitors and improve visitor information.

432.000 2003

Santa Monica Mountains

National Recreation Area--

California c

Design and lease or purchase of a 26-passenger shuttle system, including

construction of a parking area and public restroom to mitigate increased

congestion, pollution, and noise.

1,130,000 2002

Yosemite National Park--

California

Expand shuttle service in park by procuring additional vehicles to meet

increased demand.

3,100,000 2002

Yosemite National Park--

California

Develop a new traffic information system to help park address increased

congestion and resource degradation.

990,080 2001

a

Subsequent to project approval, the Park Service has decided to fund this project outside the Alternative Transportation Program.

b

Due to congressional concern about costs, this project was re-focused to include a report on alternatives to the light-rail system.

c

During the course of our review, this project was re-scoped into a smaller project, with initial funding of $175,524 authorized for fiscal year 2001.

Source: National Park Service project files.
Page 6 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

The Park Service policy and implementing guidance covering need and cost requirements apply to both

planning and construction projects. However, planning projects are often initiated for the very purpose of

collecting data and completing analyses to determine if a transportation system is needed. Consequently,

in reviewing planning project proposals, we determined if the information provided in the proposals

included plans to study non-construction alternatives and develop capacity studies, and whether they

included plans to estimate total costs or the project’s cost-effectiveness.

Our detailed analysis of the 20 project proposals showed that park managers have often submitted

project proposals that describe project need but usually do not contain information on non-construction

alternatives or park capacity. In addition, while each of the proposals included information on estimated

project costs, the cost information typically did not include operations and maintenance costs or

information on the cost-effectiveness of the project. As shown in table 2, only 1 of the 20 project

proposals we reviewed—Mesa Verde—contained all of information as depicted by the “✓ “ in each of the

four columns in the table.
Page 7 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

Table 2: Information Provided in Alternative Transportation Project Proposals

Need criteria Cost criteria

Park/project

Proposal addresses

non-construction

alternatives

Proposal addresses

park capacity data

Proposal addresses

total cost—including

operations &

maintenance

Proposal addresses

analysis of costeffectiveness

Planning projects

Cape Cod – long-term transportation

plan

Chickamauga – regional

transportation study ✓ ✓

Golden Gate – shuttle system

planning study ✓ ✓

Great Smoky Mountains –

transportation planning study,

phase II

✓

Great Smoky Mountains –

transportation planning study,

phase III

a

Great Smoky Mountains –

transportation planning study,

phase IV

a

Keweenaw – Study of potential

alternative transportation systems

Mesa Verde – transportation system

planning study ✓✓✓✓

National Capital – replacement of

existing transportation system ✓ ✓

Northeast Region – new traffic

information services ✓

Construction projects

Acadia — new bus signs and

construction changes to existing

system

✓

Cuyahoga Valley — construction of

station shelters/platforms ✓

Cuyahoga Valley— rehabilitation of

railroad crossing signals ✓

Fire Island—construction of ferry

terminal and support facilities

Grand Canyon—construction of park

and ride facility ✓ ✓

Grand Canyon—design and

construction of light rail

transportation system

✓ ✓

North Cascades—feasibility and

design study of floating dock

Santa Monica—design and

construction of shuttle systemb

Yosemite—development of traffic

information systemc ✓

Yosemite—procurement of

additional buses

a

To be completed in Phase II.

b

Subsequent to project approval, this project was re-scoped into a smaller project with a lower cost estimate.

c

The objective of this construction project objective is a traffic management system with a small construction component. Thus, although the

proposal does not indicate that non-construction alternatives were considered, the project itself could be considered a non-construction

alternative to building a transportation system.
Page 8 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

In the case of Mesa Verde, the proposed project was for an analysis of transportation solutions to ease

increasing vehicle congestion and visitor safety concerns in the park. The proposal attempted to

demonstrate the need for the project by including both a discussion of a possible non-construction

alternative—a ticketing system that would redistribute vehicles to less congested areas of the park during

peak months—and a plan to collect and analyze park visitor capacity data to identify and quantify

congestion issues throughout the park. In terms of project costs, the proposal stated that cost

estimates—including operations and maintenance costs—would be developed for each alternative and

that a cost-benefit analysis would be completed that would show the most cost-effective alternative.

Including Mesa Verde, only 5 of the 20 project proposals in our sample provided the information or plans

to collect the information on both need criteria—an analysis of non-construction alternatives and

capacity studies. In table 2, these five proposals are those having ✓ ‘s in the first two columns. Only the

Mesa Verde project addressed both cost criteria.

The reason park managers submit project proposals without this information is because agency officials

use a standard agencywide project application process that does not differentiate between transportation

projects and other projects. The Park Service elected to use this process to allow park managers the

flexibility to describe how a project meets broad agencywide objectives. However, the Park Service

officials responsible for managing the program recognize that in using this process, transportation related

proposals routinely lack the kind of key information that is required to be developed and analyzed by

park managers to demonstrate the need for projects and whether they are cost-effective.

Until this kind of information is routinely provided to the Park Service officials as they review, approve

and prioritize proposed projects, the agency cannot ensure that it is effective in selecting the most

meritorious projects. Park Service officials acknowledge these concerns and told us they plan to enforce

these data requirements for all projects to be considered for funding in fiscal year 2004 and in later years.

Developing a Performance Evaluation System for Measuring Program Results Would Improve

Accountability and Decision-Making

The Park Service has established program objectives that support the strategic goals of the agency, but it

has not yet developed a system for evaluating the performance of the Alternative Transportation Program

in meeting these objectives. Without such a process, it is difficult for the agency to demonstrate if, and to

what extent, the Alternative Transportation Program and individual transportation projects are

accomplishing the desired results.

The Park Service has identified a number of objectives for the Alternative Transportation Program. These

objectives are broad and include such things as enhancing visitor experience, preserving natural and

cultural resources, and improving or sustaining economic development opportunities, as well as

transportation-related objectives such as relieving traffic and parking congestion, reducing air, noise, and

visual pollution, reducing or eliminating overflow parking, and improving safety conditions. While these

objectives provide needed intent and focus for the program, there is no process for measuring the

performance of the program, or individual projects, in meeting these objectives. For example, a major

objective of the program is to improve the quality of visitor enjoyment by relieving traffic and parking

congestion in parks. However, because the agency has not established performance goals for reducing

such congestion or identified how congestion will be measured, there is no effective means of evaluating

performance to determine what, if any, progress is being made. In the absence of specific programmatic

performance goals and measures, evaluating the results of the program, and individual projects, is based

on the subjective judgments of program managers.

So far the Park Service has defined progress under the Alternative Transportation Program by identifying

various administrative activities that have been completed during the first four years of the program.
Page 9 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

These achievements have included such actions as completing a planning guidebook, issuing

transportation bulletins, organizing and conducting training conferences, and developing a program plan.

However, while these kinds of administrative activities are important aspects of managing the program,

they do not identify what the program is accomplishing in terms of meeting its objectives.

The lack of measurable performance goals and measures has two adverse consequences. First,

accountability is diminished because there is no effective way to determine what is being accomplished

with the funds provided. Second, there is no effective means for providing agency managers or Congress

with assurance that the projects being funded are the most effective in achieving the results desired for

the program.

Developing performance goals and performance measures for assessing and evaluating progress would

enable the Park Service to better determine how effectively program objectives are being met and could

improve accountability by setting performance targets for agency managers. According to the

Department of the Interior’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, the department is seeking to redirect funds

from lesser performing programs to higher priority or more effective ones. Moving to a performancebased approach to managing the program would be consistent with this initiative. It would also be

consistent with the best practices of top-performing businesses and government agencies as well as the

administration’s objective of putting greater emphasis on performance-based management.

Further, developing a performance-based process for managing the program could also improve the

ability of agency decision makers to evaluate individual project proposals. By showing how their projects

directly contribute to measurable program goals, agency officials could improve the project approval and

prioritization process by more effectively assessing the relative contributions of competing proposals.

Park Service officials are taking steps to develop and implement a more effective performance evaluation

system for the Alternative Transportation Program. As part of this effort, the agency has developed plans

for collecting data that can be used to improve decision-making and form the basis for developing

program performance measures. In addition, according to a Park Service official, the agency is examining

transit system performance measures used by external organizations that could be adopted by the Park

Service. The official stated that the agency plans to develop guidance that will include performance

information to assist park managers with the development of appropriate performance objectives and

measures. However, this guidance will not be completed until the end of fiscal year 2003.

Conclusions

The Park Service can improve the administration of the Alternative Transportation Program by

strengthening its project approval and prioritization process to ensure that proposed projects are needed

and cost-effective. To get this done, the Park Service needs to require park managers to provide key

information demonstrating the need and cost-effectiveness of proposed projects when they are submitted

to headquarters. This should include an analysis of alternatives—including alternatives that do not

involve construction, an analysis of park capacity data, cost estimates that include operations and

maintenance costs, and information showing that the proposed project is cost-effective. Currently, this

information is not routinely provided to agency decision-makers responsible for approving and

prioritizing proposed. Providing this additional information would improve the effectiveness of the Park

Service’s decision-making process by ensuring that proposed projects are needed and cost-effective

solutions to valid transportation problems.

Regardless of which projects are funded, the agency needs to develop an effective means for evaluating

the performance of the program so that program and park managers are more accountable for what is

being accomplished with the funds provided. Today, the agency has no objective means for making these
Page 10 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

determinations. Performance evaluation—including the development of performance goals and

measures—is a critical component for measuring progress and justifying continued program funding.

Moreover, moving to a performance-based evaluation process is consistent with the best practices of topperforming businesses and government agencies as well as with the administration’s objective of putting

greater emphasis on performance-based management.

The Park Service acknowledges that improvements are needed in both the project approval process and

in developing a performance-based management and evaluation system for the program and has plans for

implementing improvements in each of these areas.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen the Park Service’s process for approving and prioritizing alternative transportation projects

and to better ensure that the Alternative Transportation Program achieves its desired results, we

recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of the National Park Service to:

• Implement the agency’s plans for requiring that each construction project proposal submitted for

headquarters approval include documentation supporting the need for a proposed project — including

an analysis of non-construction alternatives and park capacity data. Similarly, planning proposals

should ensure that this kind of information is developed by identifying plans for obtaining it.

• Implement the agency’s plans for requiring that each construction project proposal submitted for

headquarters approval include an analysis supporting the project’s cost-effectiveness, including total

project cost estimates and anticipated annual operations and maintenance costs. Similarly, planning

proposals should ensure that this kind of information is developed by identifying plans for obtaining

it.

• Implement the agency’s plans for developing a performance evaluation system, including the

development of performance goals and measures, so that there is an objective basis for determining

whether the program and individual projects are accomplishing the desired results.

Agency Comments

We discussed a draft of this report with Park Service officials who told us they agree with our

recommendations and are planning to implement them. We also requested comments from the

Department of the Interior, but none were provided.

- - - - -

As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further

distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the House Committee on Government Reform, and the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 11 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

If you or your staffs have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841, or Cliff Fowler, Assistant

Director, at (202) 512-8029. Key contributors to this report are shown in enclosure III.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Enclosures
Enclosure I

Page 12 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

Scope and Methodology

To determine how the Park Service evaluates the need for and cost-effectiveness of projects it approves

under the Alternative Transportation Program, we collected data on all project proposals approved for

funding from fiscal year 1999, the first year program funds were obligated, through fiscal year 2003, the

latest year for which projects have been approved. During this period, the Park Service approved 185

planning and construction projects proposed at 75 national parks and park units nationwide. The agency

provided data from its database of project proposals detailing the number, estimated cost, location, and

description of proposed projects, as well as whether they were classified as planning or construction

projects, and whether they were approved and funded. For those projects that had been approved, we

gathered records about programmed funding year and costs, obligated funds through fiscal year 2001, and

estimated project costs through fiscal year 2003. We analyzed this data to derive aggregate summary

information such as the total number of projects approved for funding, average costs of projects, and the

range of project costs. We reviewed agency policies, memoranda and directives, administrative

documents, and guidance included in calls for proposals, and interviewed Park Service and Department

of Transportation officials in headquarters and regional offices, Park Service officials in national parks,

and national environmental organizations. In addition, we visited four national parks that had

transportation projects approved since the inception of the program, and interviewed Park Service staff,

concessionaires, community members, local government officials, and representatives of local

organizations.

To determine how effectively the Park Service reviews and approves transportation projects, we selected

20 approved projects for detailed review from the fiscal year 2001 through 2003 project call. Our selected

projects represented 54 percent of the total estimated costs of $29.8 million for all projects approved for

the 3-year period. We included 10 planning projects and 10 construction projects to determine how the

approval process was completed for the different types of projects. For planning

projects, we selected the 10 projects with the highest estimated costs. Because the Park Service has an

additional review process for construction projects with estimated costs of $500,000 or more, we selected

the five highest-cost construction projects above this threshold, and the five highest-cost construction

projects below the threshold.

To determine how the Park Service evaluates the performance of the Alternative Transportation

Program, we examined previous reports on performance evaluation completed by GAO and other

organizations, descriptions of Park Service objectives and Alternative Transportation Program objectives,

the fiscal year 2001 Park Service Annual Performance Report and fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance

Plan, the Alternative Transportation Program Plan, Park Service policies and guidance related to

planning, a summary of program achievements to date, and a critique of the program by an agency under

the Department of Transportation. In addition, we interviewed Park Service and Department of

Transportation officials about the process.

We conducted our work between June 2001 and June 2002, in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards.
Enclosure II

Page 13 GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

Alternative Transportation Program Projects Approved

Fiscal Year 1999–Fiscal Year 2003

Planning projects Construction projects Total projects

Fiscal Year Number Dollars Number Dollars Number Dollars

1999 34 $2,941,996 5 $4,964,754 39 $7,906,750

2000 40 4,533,423 16 4,140,097 56 8,673,520

2001 33 4,296,898 19 8,872,044 52 13,168,942

2002 14 2,307,270 7 6,092,500 21 8,399,770

2003 10 1,679,200 7 6,536,600 17 8,215,800

Total 131 $15,758,787 54 $30,605,995 185 $46,364,782

Note: Project costs for fiscal years 1999 through 2000 are based on obligations; project costs for fiscal year 2001 are based on obligations and

project estimates; and project costs for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are based on project estimates.

Average cost of planning project = $120,296

Median cost of planning project = $75,000

Average cost of construction project = $566,778

Median cost of construction project = $419,050

Construction projects = 29.2 percent of all projects, but 66.0 percent of project funding.

Source: National Park Service files and GAO calculations.
Enclosure III

Page 14 GAO-03-166R GAO-03-166R National Park Service Alternative Transportation Program

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841

Clifton Fowler (202) 512-8029

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Thomas Kingham, Arturio Holguin, Christine Colburn, Donald Pless,

and Cynthia Norris made key contributions to this report.

(360105)