Transportation

Public Lands

Planning and

Management

Arapaho and Roosevelt National 

Forests Transportation Systems 

Alternatives Study

Final Report

May 2016

Prepared for

US Department of Transportation,

Federal Highway Administration,

Central Federal Lands

and US Forest Service

Submitted by

RSG
i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................... xxiii

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................xxiii

Project Overview...................................................................................................................................xxiii

Brainard Lake Recreation Area ..............................................................................................................xxv

Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results..................................................................................xxv

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations................................................................................ xxvi

Guanella Pass...................................................................................................................................... xxviii

GP Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results ......................................................................... xxviii

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations................................................................................. xxx

Mount Evans Recreation Area ............................................................................................................. xxxii

Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results................................................................................ xxxii

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations.............................................................................. xxxiii

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ xxxv

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

Project Background...................................................................................................................................1

Project Purpose.........................................................................................................................................4

Project Scope and Report Structure ......................................................................................................... 6

Baseline Data Collection: Chapters 1‐3................................................................................................. 6

Needs Assessment and Alternatives Development: Chapters 4‐5 ........................................................ 6

Analyses and Evaluation of Alternatives: Chapters 6‐8 ........................................................................ 7

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations: Chapter 9 .................................................................. 7

Recreation Site Descriptions..................................................................................................................... 7

Brainard Lake Recreation Area ............................................................................................................. 8

Guanella Pass Scenic Byway ............................................................................................................... 10

Mount Evans Recreation Area ............................................................................................................ 10

Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data Findings...............13

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use, Winter 2011‐2012 .............................14

Vehicle Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................................... 15

Parking Accumulation & Turnover...................................................................................................... 20

Visitor Use Counts............................................................................................................................... 25

Visitor Use Tracking ............................................................................................................................ 30
ii

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use, Summer 2013 ....................................48

Vehicle Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................................... 49

Parking Accumulation & Turnover...................................................................................................... 55

Visitor Use Counts............................................................................................................................... 75

Visitor Use Tracking ............................................................................................................................ 80

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Visitor Survey, Summer 2014................................................................ 96

Methods..............................................................................................................................................97

IPW Visitor Survey Results................................................................................................................. 102

BLRA Visitor Survey Results............................................................................................................... 138

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot Visitor Survey Results ..................................................................... 168

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Alternative Trail Alignment Analysis, Summer 2012 ..........................198

Methods............................................................................................................................................199

Trail Alignments................................................................................................................................200

Summary of New Trail Alignments and Considerations.................................................................... 207

Consideration of Highway Improvement .......................................................................................... 207

Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data Findings.......................................208

Guanella Pass Transportation and Visitor Use, Summer 2012 ............................................................. 209

Vehicle Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................................... 209

Parking Accumulation & Turnover.................................................................................................... 217

Visitor Use Counts............................................................................................................................. 225

Visitor Use Tracking .......................................................................................................................... 230

People At One Time (PAOT) Counts................................................................................................... 238

Guanella Pass Visitor Survey, Summer 2014 ........................................................................................ 240

Methods............................................................................................................................................241

Visitor Survey Results........................................................................................................................ 246

Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of Data Findings..............281

Mount Evans Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use, Summer 2012 ...................................282

Vehicle Traffic Volumes and Bicyclist Counts.................................................................................... 282

Parking Accumulation & Turnover.................................................................................................... 288

Visitor Use Counts............................................................................................................................. 302

Visitor Use Tracking .......................................................................................................................... 308

People At One Time (PAOT) Counts................................................................................................... 314

Mount Evans Recreation Area Visitor Survey, Summer 2014............................................................... 315
iii

Methods............................................................................................................................................316

Visitor Survey Results........................................................................................................................ 322

Ecological Condition Assessment, Mount Evans Recreation Area and Guanella Pass, Summer 2012.358

Resource Assessment Methods......................................................................................................... 358

Summary of Findings......................................................................................................................... 360

Examples of Observed Ecological Resource Impacts......................................................................... 365

Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site.............................................................368

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................369

Brainard Lake Recreation Area ............................................................................................................. 371

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................371

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity ................................................................................................... 373

Parking Management ....................................................................................................................... 376

Roadside Parking...............................................................................................................................376

Wayfinding and Pedestrian Connections.......................................................................................... 377

Wilderness Use and Visitor Crowding ............................................................................................... 378

Traffic Congestion at the Entrance to BLRA...................................................................................... 379

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for BLRA Visitors................................................379

Guanella Pass........................................................................................................................................381

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................381

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity ................................................................................................... 382

Roadside Parking...............................................................................................................................383

Wilderness Use and Visitor Use Crowding ........................................................................................ 384

Recreation‐Related Traffic Impacts in Georgetown, Colorado ......................................................... 385

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for GP Visitors...................................................385

Mount Evans Recreation Area .............................................................................................................. 386

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity ................................................................................................... 387

Roadside Parking...............................................................................................................................389

Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Traffic Conflicts on the Mount Evans Highway .............................................390

Wilderness Use and Visitor Use Crowding ........................................................................................ 390

Traffic Congestion at the Entrance to MERA .................................................................................... 391

Deteriorating Roadway Conditions and Driver Safety on the Mount Evans Highway......................392

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for MERA Visitors..............................................392

Chapter 5: Alternative Components by Site ....................................................393
iv

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................394

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Alternative Components..................................................................... 395

Potential Transit Components........................................................................................................... 395

Potential Non‐transit Components ................................................................................................... 395

Guanella Pass Alternative Components................................................................................................ 400

Potential Transit Components........................................................................................................... 400

Potential Non‐transit Components ................................................................................................... 401

Mount Evans Recreation Area Alternative Components...................................................................... 404

Potential Transit Components........................................................................................................... 404

Potential Non‐transit Components ................................................................................................... 405

Chapter 6: ARNF Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis, by Site

.......................................................................................................................411

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................412

BLRA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses ............................................................ 414

BLRA User Capacity Considerations.................................................................................................. 414

BLRA Winter Season User Capacity Analysis..................................................................................... 414

BLRA Summer Season User Capacity Analysis .................................................................................. 415

BLRA Transit Demand Analysis with User Capacity Management ...................................................418

Summary of Findings: BLRA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses.....................423

GP Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses................................................................ 424

GP User Capacity Considerations...................................................................................................... 424

GP User Capacity Analysis: Physical Capacity ................................................................................... 425

GP Transit Demand Analysis with Visitor Use Managed According to Physical Capacity.................428

GP User Capacity Analysis: Wilderness Resource‐Based Analysis..................................................... 432

GP Parking and Transit Demand Analysis with Wilderness Permit Quota........................................434

Summary of Findings: GP Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses ........................436

MERA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis............................................................ 437

MERA User Capacity Considerations................................................................................................. 437

MERA User Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................... 438

MERA Transit Demand Analysis with User Capacity Management..................................................441

Summary of Findings: MERA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis....................444

Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site............445

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................446
v

Methods................................................................................................................................................446

BLRA Transit Feasibility Analysis........................................................................................................... 447

Relevant Constraints and Needs....................................................................................................... 448

Proposed Transit Scenarios............................................................................................................... 448

Scenario 1: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Day Use Lot, and IPW

Trailhead Lots....................................................................................................................................451

Scenario 2: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot with Circulator from

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and IPW Trailheads................................................457

Component 1: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot..........................457

Scenario 3: Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and IPW Trailhead Lots

..........................................................................................................................................................460

Scenario 4: Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot ....................................465

GP Transit Feasibility Analysis............................................................................................................... 469

Relevant Constraints and Needs....................................................................................................... 470

Proposed Transit Scenarios............................................................................................................... 471

Scenario 1: Hiker Shuttle from Georgetown to Guanella Pass.......................................................... 474

Scenario 2: Hiker Shuttle from New Lot on Guanella Pass Road to Guanella Pass...........................480

Scenario 3: Mandatory Hiker Shuttle from Georgetown to Guanella Pass.......................................485

MERA Transit Feasibility Analysis.......................................................................................................... 490

Relevant Constraints and Needs....................................................................................................... 490

Proposed Transit Scenarios............................................................................................................... 491

Scenario 1: Shuttle Service from Idaho Springs to MERA.................................................................. 494

Scenario 2: Shuttle Service from Welcome Station to MERA............................................................ 499

Synthesis ...............................................................................................................................................504

Chapter 8: Alternative Component Analysis, Methodology, and Results.........506

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................507

Method for Alternative Component Evaluation ................................................................................... 507

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 507

Screening Analysis............................................................................................................................. 510

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Results................................................................................................. 516

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening.................................................... 516

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening ...................................................................... 517

Phase 3: Component Packaging........................................................................................................ 518

Phase 4: Package Scoring.................................................................................................................. 520
vi

Guanella Pass Results............................................................................................................................ 523

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening.................................................... 523

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening ...................................................................... 523

Phase 3: Component Packaging........................................................................................................ 524

Phase 4: Package Scoring.................................................................................................................. 526

Mount Evans Recreation Area Results.................................................................................................. 528

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening.................................................... 528

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening ...................................................................... 529

Phase 3: Component Packaging........................................................................................................ 530

Phase 4: Package Scoring.................................................................................................................. 532

Synthesis ...............................................................................................................................................534

Chapter 9: Study Recommendations by Site....................................................535

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................536

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Recommendations.............................................................................. 537

Overview of BLRA Needs................................................................................................................... 537

BLRA Recommendations................................................................................................................... 537

Guanella Pass Recommendations......................................................................................................... 554

Overview of GP Needs....................................................................................................................... 554

GP Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 554

Mount Evans Recreation Area Recommendations............................................................................... 572

Overview of MERA Needs.................................................................................................................. 572

MERA Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 572
vii

List of Appendices

Appendix A. BLRA Indian Peaks Wilderness Visitor Survey Instrument

Appendix B. BLRA Day Use Area Visitor Survey Instrument

Appendix C. BLRA Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot Visitor Survey Instrument

Appendix D. BLRA Indian Peaks Wilderness Visitor Survey Code Book

Appendix E. BRLA Day Use Area Visitor Survey Code Book

Appendix F. BLRA Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot Visitor Survey Code Book

Appendix G. BLRA Indian Peaks Wilderness Visitor Survey “Other” Responses

Appendix H. BLRA Day Use Area Visitor Survey “Other” Responses

Appendix I. BLRA Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot Visitor Survey “Other” Responses

Appendix J. GP Visitor Survey Instrument

Appendix K. GP Visitor Survey Code Book

Appendix L. GP Visitor Survey Photo Simulations

Appendix M. GP Visitor Survey “Other” Activities Reported by Respondents

Appendix N. GP Visitor Survey “Other” Locations Reported by Respondents

Appendix O. GP Visitor Survey “Other” Information Sources Reported by Respondents

Appendix P. GP Visitor Survey Country of Residence Reported by Respondents

Appendix Q. GP Visitor Survey States of Residence Reported by Respondents

Appendix R. GP Visitor Survey ZIP Codes Reported by Respondents Who Reside in Colorado

Appendix S. MERA Visitor Survey Instrument

Appendix T. MERA Visitor Survey Photo Simulations

Appendix U. MERA Visitor Survey Code Book

Appendix V. MERA Visitor Survey “Other” Information Sources Reported by Respondents

Appendix W. MERA Visitor Survey Country of Residence Reported by Respondents

Appendix X. MERA Visitor Survey States of Residence Reported by Respondents

Appendix Y. MERA Visitor Survey ZIP Codes Reported by Respondents Who Reside in Colorado

Appendix Z. Ecological Condition Assessment Mapping of Visitor‐Created Resource Impacts at GP and MERA

Appendix AA. Transit in Parks Project Analysis: Data Assessment Report
viii

List of Figures

Figure 0‐1. Estimated regional population growth in Colorado by 2040.......................................................................2

Figure 0‐2. Regional map of study locations..................................................................................................................3

Figure 0‐3. Brainard Lake Recreation Area study area map. .........................................................................................8

Figure 0‐4. Guanella Pass Scenic Byway study area map. ...........................................................................................10

Figure 0‐5. Mount Evans Recreation Area study area map.........................................................................................11

Figure 1‐1. Aerial view of BLRA entrance gate and Entrance Portal parking lot (summer).........................................14

Figure 1‐2. BLRA Entrance Portal parking lot (winter).................................................................................................14

Figure 1‐3. Brainard Lake Recreation Area, winter trail system..................................................................................15

Figure 1‐4. ATR Location, BLRA winter 2011/2012......................................................................................................15

Figure 1‐5. Approximate location of ATR, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ...........................................................................16

Figure 1‐6. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on BLRA Road, by date, winter 2011/2012. ..................................17

Figure 1‐7. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on BLRA Road, in descending order, winter 2011/2012. ..............18

Figure 1‐8. Design day vehicle traffic volumes, by hour and direction of travel, Saturday, January 28, 2012............20

Figure 1‐9. Parking accumulation & turnover data collection.....................................................................................20

Figure 1‐10. BLRA Entrance Portal parking area parking turnover data collection map. ............................................21

Figure 1‐11. Design day parking accumulation at the Entrance Portal parking lot, Saturday, January 28, 2012........22

Figure 1‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Entrance Portal parking area, Saturday, January 28, 2012. ..........23

Figure 1‐13. Visitor parking duration in Entrance Portal parking lot, BLRA winter 2011/2012...................................24

Figure 1‐14. Trail counter setup, Sourdough Trail‐North Section. ..............................................................................25

Figure 1‐15. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, BLRA winter

2011/2012. ..................................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 1‐16. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak vehicle

accumulation, BLRA winter 2011/2012.......................................................................................................................27

Figure 1‐17. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation (Saturday, January 28,

2012)............................................................................................................................................................................28

Figure 1‐18. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Saturday, January 28, 2012). ...............................29

Figure 1‐19. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, BLRA winter 2011/2012. .......................................................................30

Figure 1‐20. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012.......................................................34

Figure 1‐21. Heat map of GPS‐based snowshoeing and hiking tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012.................................36

Figure 1‐22. Heat map of GPS‐based cross‐country skiing tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ......................................37

Figure 1‐23. Route Grouping #1: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake.....................39

Figure 1‐24. Route Grouping #2: Brainard Lake Snowshoe Trail, Waldrop Trail, and/or CMC Trail to Brainard Lake.40

Figure 1‐25. Route Grouping #3: Sourdough Trail (North or South Section), including a subset that uses Wapiti Trail.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................41

Figure 1‐26. Route Grouping #4: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails part of the way to Brainard

Lake..............................................................................................................................................................................42

Figure 1‐27. Route Grouping #5: Left Hand Park Reservoir Road all or part of the way to Left Hand Reservoir. .......43

Figure 1‐28. Routing Group #6: Brainard Lake Snowshoe Trail, Waldrop Trail, and/or CMC Trail part of the way to

Brainard Lake...............................................................................................................................................................44

Figure 1‐29. Route Grouping #7: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake and Niwot

and/or Pawnee Trails...................................................................................................................................................45

Figure 1‐30. Route Grouping #8: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake and Mitchell

Lake Trail......................................................................................................................................................................46

Figure 1‐31. Example of “other” route, not included in one of the eight route groupings.........................................47

Figure 1‐32. Approximate location of ATRs on Brainard Lake Road, summer 2013....................................................49

Figure 1‐33. ATR setup on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), summer 2013......................................................................49
ix

Figure 1‐34. Average daily inbound vehicle traffic on Brainard Lake Road, by ATR location and day of week

category, summer 2013...............................................................................................................................................50

Figure 1‐35. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1 and BLRA2), by date, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................51

Figure 1‐36. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), in descending order, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................52

Figure 1‐37. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), by hour and direction of travel,

Sunday, August 11th, 2013..........................................................................................................................................53

Figure 1‐38. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA2), by hour and direction of travel,

Sunday, August 11th, 2013..........................................................................................................................................54

Figure 1‐39. Parking accumulation & turnover data collection at BLRA......................................................................55

Figure 1‐40. Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map....................56

Figure 1‐41. Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map. .............56

Figure 1‐42. Design day parking accumulation in the Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.57

Figure 1‐43. Design day parking accumulation in the Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th,

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................57

Figure 1‐44. Design day parking accumulation in the Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.58

Figure 1‐45. Design day parking accumulation in the Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th,

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................59

Figure 1‐46. Niwot Mountain Parking Lot and nearby roadside parking accumulation and turnover data collection

map..............................................................................................................................................................................60

Figure 1‐47. Design day parking accumulation in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013. .....61

Figure 1‐48. Design day parking accumulation in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013. .....62

Figure 1‐49. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot – Main Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................63

Figure 1‐50. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot – Overflow Parking and Large Vehicle Lot parking accumulation and

turnover data collection map. .....................................................................................................................................64

Figure 1‐51. Design day parking accumulation in the Main Lot of the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, Sunday,

August 11th, 2013. ......................................................................................................................................................65

Figure 1‐52. Design day parking accumulation in the Overflow Parking and Large Vehicle Lot of the Brainard Lake

Day Use Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013........................................................................................................65

Figure 1‐53. Design day parking accumulation in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................66

Figure 1‐54. Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map. ....................67

Figure 1‐55. Design day parking accumulation in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013. .68

Figure 1‐56. Design day parking accumulation in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013. .69

Figure 1‐57. Design day parking accumulation in BLRA, by location and overall, Sunday, August 11th, 2013. ..........70

Figure 1‐58. Visitor parking duration in the IPW trailhead parking lots, by day of week category, summer 2013.....71

Figure 1‐59. Visitor parking duration in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer 2013. 72

Figure 1‐60. Visitor parking duration in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................73

Figure 1‐61. Visitor parking duration in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer 2013.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................75

Figure 1‐62. Infrared trail counter setup, BLRA, summer 2013...................................................................................76

Figure 1‐63. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, BLRA, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................76

Figure 1‐64. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak vehicle

accumulation, by location in BLRA, summer 2013. .....................................................................................................78
x

Figure 1‐65. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation by location in BLRA,

Sunday, August 11th, 2013..........................................................................................................................................79

Figure 1‐66. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Sunday, August 11th, 2013).................................80

Figure 1‐67. Administration of GPS units for visitor use tracking, BLRA, summer 2013. ............................................81

Figure 1‐68. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for all visitor groups intercepted at BLRA, summer 2013.....85

Figure 1‐69. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for day use visitor groups intercepted at the Courtesy

Station, summer 2013. ................................................................................................................................................87

Figure 1‐70. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for day use visitor groups intercepted at the Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot, summer 2013...........................................................................................................................88

Figure 1‐71. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted in the Pawnee Campground,

summer 2013...............................................................................................................................................................89

Figure 1‐72. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for backpacking visitor groups intercepted at the Courtesy

Station, summer 2013. ................................................................................................................................................90

Figure 1‐73. Route Grouping #1: Visitors whose routes included visiting Brainard Lake, but not hiking in the Indian

Peaks Wilderness, summer 2013.................................................................................................................................93

Figure 1‐74. Route Grouping #2: Visitors whose routes included hiking in the Indian Peaks Wilderness, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................94

Figure 1‐75. Route Grouping #3: Visitors whose routes did not include visiting Brainard Lake or hiking in the Indian

Peaks Wilderness, summer 2013.................................................................................................................................95

Figure 1‐76. Survey administration at the Red Rock Lake parking area, summer 2014............................................100

Figure 1‐77. Summer 2014 BLRA visitor survey log form. .........................................................................................101

Figure 1‐78. Including yourself, how many people were in your personal group during your hike today?..............103

Figure 1‐79. Were there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on your hike today?.................104

Figure 1‐80. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group today?

...................................................................................................................................................................................105

Figure 1‐81. Was your hike today a day hike or part of an overnight backpacking trip? ..........................................106

Figure 1‐82. If you were on an overnight backpacking trip, at which trailhead did you start?.................................107

Figure 1‐83. How many hours did you hike in the Indian Peaks Wilderness today?.................................................108

Figure 1‐84. Where did you start your hike today?...................................................................................................109

Figure 1‐85. Where did you end your hike today? ....................................................................................................110

Figure 1‐86. Which of the following locations did you hike to or pass through?......................................................111

Figure 1‐87. Which of the following was your primary destination on your hike today? .........................................112

Figure 1‐88. Did you feel crowded on the trail and/or at the destinations today?...................................................113

Figure 1‐89. Did the presence of other people on the trail make you feel rushed or slow you down at any point

during your hike?.......................................................................................................................................................114

Figure 1‐90. What is the maximum number of people you could pass/be passed by over the duration of a hike and

not feel crowded?......................................................................................................................................................115

Figure 1‐91. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to hike in this area each day should be

limited, even if it limits when they can hike on the trail, if it is needed to a) protect the quality of visitors'

experiences, or b) reduce environmental impacts....................................................................................................116

Figure 1‐92. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today? .................................................................117

Figure 1‐93. Did you arrive on a different day?.........................................................................................................118

Figure 1‐94. In how many vehicles did you and your group travel to BLRA on this trip?..........................................119

Figure 1‐95. Where did you park in BLRA for your hike?...........................................................................................120

Figure 1‐96. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at BLRA on the day they

took the survey..........................................................................................................................................................121

Figure 1‐97. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at

BLRA on the day they took the survey.......................................................................................................................122

Figure 1‐98. How much parking congestion do you think there is at BLRA today?...................................................123
xi

Figure 1‐99. Did you know that if you park in the lot near the entrance station (Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot) you

don’t have to pay the fee to visit BLRA?....................................................................................................................124

Figure 1‐100. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only option for

visiting because parking lots were full.......................................................................................................................125

Figure 1‐101. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking lots are full

at BLRA.......................................................................................................................................................................126

Figure 1‐102. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA? .....................................................................127

Figure 1‐103. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be difficult to

find parking here?......................................................................................................................................................128

Figure 1‐104. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you planned

this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?...................................................................................................129

Figure 1‐105. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking and

crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA. ................................................130

Figure 1‐106. What is your gender? ..........................................................................................................................131

Figure 1‐107. How old are you?.................................................................................................................................132

Figure 1‐108. Do you live in the United States? ........................................................................................................133

Figure 1‐109. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in? .................................................................134

Figure 1‐110. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in? ...................................................................135

Figure 1‐111. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?.................................................136

Figure 1‐112. Are you Hispanic or Latino?.................................................................................................................137

Figure 1‐113. What is your race?...............................................................................................................................137

Figure 1‐114. Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group on this trip to Brainard Lake

Recreation Area (BLRA)?............................................................................................................................................138

Figure 1‐115. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on your trip to BLRA?................139

Figure 1‐116. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group today?

...................................................................................................................................................................................140

Figure 1‐117. Which of the following locations in BLRA have you/will you visit on this trip?...................................141

Figure 1‐118. Which of the locations listed in Question 3 was your primary destination on this trip to BLRA?.......142

Figure 1‐119. Which of the following activities have you done during this trip to BLRA? ........................................143

Figure 1‐120. Which of the following activities was your primary activity on this trip to BLRA?..............................144

Figure 1‐121. If you camped in the Pawnee Campground, how many nights did you spend there?........................145

Figure 1‐122. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today? ...............................................................147

Figure 1‐123. Did you arrive on a different day?.......................................................................................................148

Figure 1‐124. In how many vehicles did you and your personal group travel to BLRA on this trip?.........................149

Figure 1‐125. Where did you park in BLRA today?....................................................................................................150

Figure 1‐126. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at

BLRA on the day they took the survey.......................................................................................................................151

Figure 1‐127. How much parking congestion do you think there is at BLRA today?.................................................152

Figure 1‐128. Do you know that if you park in the lot near the entrance station (Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot) you

don't have to pay the fee to visit BLRA?....................................................................................................................153

Figure 1‐129. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only option for

visiting because parking lots were full.......................................................................................................................154

Figure 1‐130. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking lots are full

at BLRA.......................................................................................................................................................................155

Figure 1‐131. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA? .....................................................................156

Figure 1‐132. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be difficult to

find parking here?......................................................................................................................................................157

Figure 1‐133. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you planned

this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?...................................................................................................158
xii

Figure 1‐134. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking and

crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA. ................................................159

Figure 1‐135. What is your gender? ..........................................................................................................................160

Figure 1‐136. How old are you?.................................................................................................................................161

Figure 1‐137. Do you live in the United States? ........................................................................................................162

Figure 1‐138. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in? .................................................................163

Figure 1‐139. If you live in Colorado, what metropolitan area do you live in? .........................................................164

Figure 1‐140. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?.................................................165

Figure 1‐141. Are you Hispanic or Latino?.................................................................................................................166

Figure 1‐142. What is your race?...............................................................................................................................167

Figure 1‐143. Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group on this trip to Brainard Lake

Recreation Area (BLRA)?............................................................................................................................................168

Figure 1‐144. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to BLRA? .................169

Figure 1‐145. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group?.......170

Figure 1‐146. Which of the following activities have you done during this trip to BLRA? ........................................171

Figure 1‐147. Which of the activities listed in Question 3 was your primary activity on this trip to BLRA?..............172

Figure 1‐148. Which route of travel through BLRA did you use today? ....................................................................173

Figure 1‐149. Which location in BLRA was your primary destination on this trip? ...................................................174

Figure 1‐150. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today? ...............................................................176

Figure 1‐151. Did you arrive on a different day?.......................................................................................................177

Figure 1‐152. In how many vehicles did you and your personal group travel to BLRA on this trip?.........................178

Figure 1‐153. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of parking in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

on the day they took the survey................................................................................................................................179

Figure 1‐154. Did parking in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot interfere with what you were planning to do at

BLRA today?...............................................................................................................................................................180

Figure 1‐155. If parking in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot interfered with what you were planning to do at BLRA

today, what did you do instead? ...............................................................................................................................181

Figure 1‐156. What reasons best explain why you parked in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot today? ...............182

Figure 1‐157. How much parking congestion do you think there is in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot today?..183

Figure 1‐158. Percentage who agree with each of the following statements about parking in the Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot.................................................................................................................................................................184

Figure 1‐159. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only option for

visiting because parking lots were full.......................................................................................................................185

Figure 1‐160. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking lots are full.

...................................................................................................................................................................................186

Figure 1‐161. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA? .....................................................................187

Figure 1‐162. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be difficult to

find parking here?......................................................................................................................................................188

Figure 1‐163. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you planned

this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?...................................................................................................189

Figure 1‐164. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking and

crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA. ................................................190

Figure 1‐165. What is your gender? ..........................................................................................................................191

Figure 1‐166. How old are you?.................................................................................................................................192

Figure 1‐167. Do you live in the United States? ........................................................................................................193

Figure 1‐168. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in? .................................................................194

Figure 1‐169. If you live in Colorado, what metropolitan area do you live in? .........................................................195

Figure 1‐170. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?.................................................196

Figure 1‐171. Are you Hispanic or Latino?.................................................................................................................197
xiii

Figure 1‐172. What is your race?...............................................................................................................................197

Figure 1‐173. General map of the Brainard Lake Recreation Area............................................................................199

Figure 1‐174. Possible trail alignment (in red) from Mitchell Creek Picnic area, past Colorado Mountain Cabin (not

shown on map) to Mitchell Lake trailhead parking area...........................................................................................200

Figure 1‐175. Possible trail alignment from Mitchell Creek Picnic area to Long Lake trailhead. New trail alignment to

Long Lake is shown as bolded red line, trail alignment for possible Mitchell Creek trailhead parking (see Figure

1‐174) is shown as the lighter red line. .....................................................................................................................201

Figure 1‐176. Possible trail alignment for all access loop around Brainard Lake (bold red line). The loop will connect

from the south side of Mitchell Creek picnic area to the pedestrian‐only portion of Brainard Lake Road. The trail

will also include a cutoff to the Niwot Cutoff Trail (shown in yellow in southwest corner)......................................202

Figure 1‐177. Possible trail alignment (shown in bolded red) from portal parking area to Waldrop connection,

including cutoff to Red Rock Lake. The new trail alignment will connect to the existing Waldrop trail (shown in

brown). ......................................................................................................................................................................203

Figure 1‐178. Possible trail alignment completing Waldrop trail from portal parking to new day use parking area.

New trail alignment (shown by red bolded line) will branch from Waldrop trail (shown in brown). .......................204

Figure 1‐179. Possible trail alignment (shown by bolded red line) connecting Little Raven trail (shown in yellow) to

Lefthand Park Reservoir. ...........................................................................................................................................205

Figure 1‐180. Area where new alignments may be considered to create shorter, loop hikes using current

designated trails (shown in yellow). Currently no new trail alignments are shown on the map as road

improvements would be needed to allow access to this area. .................................................................................206

Figure 2‐1. Guanella Pass ATR location. ....................................................................................................................209

Figure 2‐2. Approximate location of ATRs, Guanella Pass summer 2012..................................................................210

Figure 2‐3. Average daily inbound vehicle traffic on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location and day of week category,

summer 2012.............................................................................................................................................................211

Figure 2‐4. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Guanella Pass Road at ATR #3, by date, summer 2012..........213

Figure 2‐5. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Guanella Pass Scenic Byway at ATR #3, in descending order,

summer 2012.............................................................................................................................................................214

Figure 2‐6. Design day vehicle traffic volumes (ATR #3), by hour and direction of travel, Saturday, August 18th,

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................215

Figure 2‐7. Parking accumulation & turnover data collection at Guanella Pass........................................................217

Figure 2‐8. Guanella Pass area parking turnover data collection map, designated parking lots and nearby roadside

area............................................................................................................................................................................217

Figure 2‐9. Design day parking accumulation at the Guanella Pass Lower Lot, Saturday, August 18th, 2012..........218

Figure 2‐10. Design day parking accumulation at the Guanella Pass Upper Lot, Saturday, August 18th, 2012........219

Figure 2‐11. Design day parking accumulation on the Guanella Pass roadside, Saturday, August 18th, 2012.........220

Figure 2‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Guanella Pass, by location and overall, Saturday, August 18th,

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................221

Figure 2‐13. Design day parking accumulation at Guanella Pass, Saturday, August 18th, 2012...............................222

Figure 2‐14. Weekday visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location, summer 2012. .................................224

Figure 2‐15. Weekend day visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location, summer 2012. ..........................224

Figure 2‐16. Trail counter setup, Square Top Lakes Trail. .........................................................................................225

Figure 2‐17. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, Guanella Pass,

summer 2012.............................................................................................................................................................226

Figure 2‐18. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak vehicle

accumulation, by parking location, Guanella Pass, summer 2012. ...........................................................................227

Figure 2‐19. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation, by parking location,

Guanella Pass, Saturday, August 18th, 2012. ............................................................................................................228

Figure 2‐20. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Saturday, August 18th, 2012). ...........................229

Figure 2‐21. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, Guanella Pass, summer 2012. .............................................................230
xiv

Figure 2‐22. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted at the Mount Bierstadt

Trailhead, summer 2012............................................................................................................................................235

Figure 2‐23. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted at the Square Top Lakes

Trailhead, summer 2012............................................................................................................................................237

Figure 2‐24. People at one time (PAOT) on the Mount  Bierstadt summit, summer 2012. ......................................238

Figure 2‐25. Mean and maximum PAOT on the summit of Mount Bierstadt, by sampling day, summer 2012........239

Figure 2‐26. Survey administration at the Mount Bierstadt Trailhead, summer 2014 .............................................243

Figure 2‐27. Summer 2014 Guanella Pass visitor survey log form ............................................................................244

Figure 2‐28. Including yourself, how many people are there in your personal group on this trip to Guanella Pass?

...................................................................................................................................................................................246

Figure 2‐29. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to Guanella Pass? .....247

Figure 2‐30. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group today?

...................................................................................................................................................................................248

Figure 2‐31. Which of the following activities have you done/will you do on this trip to Guanella Pass?................249

Figure 2‐32. What is your primary activity on this trip to Guanella Pass?.................................................................250

Figure 2‐33. Which of the following locations on Guanella Pass Road have you visited/will you visit on this trip to

Guanella Pass?...........................................................................................................................................................251

Figure 2‐34. Did you hike part or all the way to the summit of Mount Bierstadt today? .........................................252

Figure 2‐35. Approximately how many hours did you hike on the Mount Bierstadt Trail today? ............................253

Figure 2‐36. Approximately how many hours did you hike on the Mount Bierstadt Trail today? ............................254

Figure 2‐37. Did you feel crowded on the trail and/or the summit during your hike today? ...................................255

Figure 2‐38. Did you feel like crowding increased your risk or other people's risk of being injured at any point

during your hike today?.............................................................................................................................................255

Figure 2‐39. Did the presence of other people on the trail make you feel rushed or slow you down at any point

during your hike today?.............................................................................................................................................256

Figure 2‐40. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of Mount

Bierstadt with the number of people depicted in the photograph...........................................................................257

Figure 2‐41. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to hike on the Mount Bierstadt Trail each

day should be limited, even if it limits when they can hike on the trail, if it is needed to a) protect the quality of

visitors' experiences; b) protect visitors’ safety; c) to reduce environmental impacts.............................................258

Figure 2‐42. Which route did you use to travel to Guanella Pass on this trip? .........................................................259

Figure 2‐43. At approximately what time did you arrive at Guanella Pass today? ...................................................260

Figure 2‐44. Percentage of visitor groups who arrived at Guanella Pass on the same day or different day than when

they were contacted for the survey. .........................................................................................................................261

Figure 2‐45. In how many vehicles did you/your personal group travel on this trip to Guanella Pass? ...................262

Figure 2‐46. Where did you park on this trip to Guanella Pass? ...............................................................................263

Figure 2‐47. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at Guanella Pass on the day

they took the survey..................................................................................................................................................264

Figure 2‐48. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at

Guanella Pass on the day they took the survey.........................................................................................................265

Figure 2‐49. How much parking congestion do you think there was when you parked at Guanella Pass on this trip?

...................................................................................................................................................................................266

Figure 2‐50. Percentage who would be likely to visit Guanella Pass on a future trip, even if this was their only

option for visiting because parking lots were full......................................................................................................267

Figure 2‐51. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking lots are full

at Guanella Pass.........................................................................................................................................................268

Figure 2‐52. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to Guanella Pass?..........................................................269

Figure 2‐53. When you planned this trip to Guanella Pass, did you think about the possibility that it might be

difficult to find parking here? ....................................................................................................................................270
xv

Figure 2‐54. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you planned

this trip to Guanella Pass, how did it affect your trip plans?.....................................................................................271

Figure 2‐55. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking and

crowding conditions at Guanella Pass, if it was available for planning a future trip to Guanella Pass. ....................272

Figure 2‐56. What is your gender? ............................................................................................................................273

Figure 2‐57. In what year were you born? ................................................................................................................274

Figure 2‐58. Do you live in the United States? ..........................................................................................................275

Figure 2‐59. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in? ...................................................................276

Figure 2‐60. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in? .....................................................................277

Figure 2‐61. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?...................................................278

Figure 2‐62. Are you Hispanic or Latino?...................................................................................................................279

Figure 2‐63. What is your race?.................................................................................................................................280

Figure 3‐1. ATR location, MERA summer 2012..........................................................................................................282

Figure 3‐2. Approximate location of ATR, Mount Evans summer 2012. ...................................................................283

Figure 3‐3. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by date, summer 2012. ....................284

Figure 3‐4. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, in descending order, summer 2012. 285

Figure 3‐5. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by hour and direction of travel, Sunday,

July 22nd, 2012..........................................................................................................................................................286

Figure 3‐6. Bicycle count days relative to daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, in

descending order, summer 2012...............................................................................................................................287

Figure 3‐7. Bicycle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by hour and direction of travel, Saturday, August 4th,

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................288

Figure 2‐72. Parking accumulation & turnover data collection at MERA..................................................................288

Figure 3‐9. Mount Goliath parking accumulation and turnover data collection map...............................................289

Figure 3‐10. Summit Lake parking accumulation and turnover data collection map................................................289

Figure 3‐11. Mount Evans Summit parking accumulation and turnover data collection map..................................290

Figure 3‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Mount Goliath, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. ...................................291

Figure 3‐13. Design day parking accumulation at Mount Goliath, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. ...................................292

Figure 3‐14. Design day parking accumulation at the Summit Lake parking area, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012............293

Figure 3‐15. Design day parking accumulation at Summit Lake, Sunday July 22nd, 2012. .......................................294

Figure 3‐16. Design day parking accumulation at the Mount Evans summit, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. ..................295

Figure 3‐17. Design day parking accumulation at the Mount Evans summit, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. ..................296

Figure 2‐82. “Typically busy” day at the Mount Evans Summit parking area............................................................297

Figure 3‐19. Design day parking accumulation in MERA, by location and overall, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012............297

Figure 3‐20. Visitor parking duration at Mount Goliath, by location and day of week category, summer 2012......299

Figure 3‐21. Visitor parking duration at Summit Lake, by location and day of week category, summer 2012.........300

Figure 3‐22. Visitor parking duration at the Mount Evans summit, by location and day of week category, summer

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................302

Figure 3‐23. Trail counter setup, Chicago Lakes Overlook Trail.................................................................................302

Figure 3‐24. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, MERA, summer

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................303

Figure 3‐25. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak vehicle

accumulation, by location in MERA, summer 2012...................................................................................................305

Figure 3‐26. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation, by location in MERA,

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. ...........................................................................................................................................306

Figure 3‐27. Design day hourly inbound use, by trailhead (Sunday, July 22nd, 2012). .............................................307

Figure 3‐28. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, MERA, summer 2012...........................................................................308

Figure 3‐29. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks, MERA, summer 2012. ........................................................313

Figure 2‐94. People at one time (PAOT) on the Mount Evans summit, summer 2012. ............................................314
xvi

Figure 3‐31. Mean and maximum PAOT on the summit of Mount Evans, by sampling day, summer 2012.............315

Figure 3‐32. Survey administration at MERA, summer 2014 ....................................................................................319

Figure 3‐33. Summer 2014 Mount Evans visitor survey log form .............................................................................320

Figure 3‐34. Including yourself, how many people are there in your personal group on this trip to MERA?...........322

Figure 3‐35. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to MERA?..................323

Figure 3‐36. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group today?

...................................................................................................................................................................................324

Figure 3‐37. Which of the following locations in MERA did you visit today? ............................................................325

Figure 3‐38. Which of the following locations was your primary destination in MERA today? ................................326

Figure 3‐39. Which of the following activities did you do on this trip to MERA?......................................................327

Figure 3‐40. Which of the following is your primary activity on this trip to MERA? .................................................328

Figure 3‐41. Did you walk/hike to the summit of Mount Evans today? ....................................................................329

Figure 3‐42. Did you think it was crowded on the summit of Mount Evans today? .................................................330

Figure 3‐43. Did you feel like crowding on the summit of Mount Evans increased your risk or other people's risk of

being injured at any point while you were there today? ..........................................................................................331

Figure 3‐44. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of Mount

Evans with the number of people depicted in the photograph. ...............................................................................332

Figure 3‐45. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to visit Mount Evans each day should be

limited, even if it limits when they can visit, if it is needed to a) protect the quality of visitors' experiences; b)

protect visitors’ safety; c) to reduce environmental impacts....................................................................................333

Figure 3‐46. Which routes did you use to travel to and from MERA on this trip? ....................................................334

Figure 3‐47. At approximately what time did you arrive at MERA today?................................................................335

Figure 3‐48. Percentage of visitor groups who arrived at MERA on the same day or different day than when they

were contacted for the survey. .................................................................................................................................336

Figure 3‐49. In how many vehicles did you/your personal group travel on this trip to MERA?................................337

Figure 3‐50. Did you experience traffic congestion at the entrance station to enter MERA on this trip? ................338

Figure 3‐51. Did you experience traffic congestion while driving on the Mount Evans Road?.................................339

Figure 3‐52. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about driving on the Mount Evans Road on the day

they took the survey..................................................................................................................................................340

Figure 3‐53. Of those visitors who parked at the Mount Evans summit, the percentage who agree with each of the

statements about where they parked.......................................................................................................................341

Figure 3‐54. Of those visitors who parked at Summit Lake, the percentage who agree with each of the statements

about where they parked. .........................................................................................................................................342

Figure 3‐55. Of those visitors who parked at the Mount Goliath Natural Area, the percentage who agree with each

of the statements about where they parked.............................................................................................................343

Figure 3‐56. How much parking congestion do you think there is in MERA today? .................................................344

Figure 3‐57. Percentage who would be likely to visit MERA on a future trip, even if this was their only option for

visiting because parking lots were full.......................................................................................................................345

Figure 3‐58. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking lots are full

at MERA.....................................................................................................................................................................346

Figure 3‐59. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to MERA?......................................................................347

Figure 3‐60. When you planned this trip to MERA, did you think about the possibility that it might be difficult to

find parking here?......................................................................................................................................................348

Figure 3‐61. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you planned

this trip to MERA, how did it affect your trip plans? .................................................................................................349

Figure 3‐62. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking and

crowding conditions at Mount Evans, if it was available, when planning a future trip to Mount Evans. .................350

Figure 3‐63. What is your gender? ............................................................................................................................351

Figure 3‐64. In what year were you born? ................................................................................................................352
xvii

Figure 3‐65. Do you live in the United States? ..........................................................................................................353

Figure 3‐66. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in? ...................................................................354

Figure 3‐67. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in? .....................................................................355

Figure 3‐68. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?...................................................356

Figure 3‐69. Are you Hispanic or Latino?...................................................................................................................357

Figure 3‐70. What is your race?.................................................................................................................................357

Figure 3‐71. Vegetation and soil disturbance as a consequence of unattended parking to access Lincoln Lake

bouldering area in the Mount Evans study area. ......................................................................................................365

Figure 3‐72. Alpine vegetation and soil loss in a backcountry location in the Mount Bierstadt study area .............366

Figure 3‐73. Informal trail formation in proximity to designated parking area at Mount Bierstadt Trailhead.........367

Figure 4‐1. Long Lake, Brainard Lake Recreation Area. .............................................................................................371

Figure 4‐2. Brainard Lake Recreation Area, summer facilities...................................................................................372

Figure 4‐3. Gateway Trailhead parking accumulation, winter 2012..........................................................................373

Figure 4‐4. IPW trailhead parking accumulation, summer 2013. ..............................................................................374

Figure 4‐5. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2013. .............................................374

Figure 4‐6. Brainard Lake overall parking accumulation, summer 2013. ..................................................................375

Figure 4‐7. Brainard Lake parking management team, summer 2013. .....................................................................376

Figure 4‐8. Brainard Lake Day Use parking lot, summer 2013. .................................................................................377

Figure 4‐9. Mitchell Lake Trail, Indian Peaks Wilderness...........................................................................................378

Figure 4‐10. Brainard Lake Courtesy Station queue, summer 2013..........................................................................379

Figure 4‐11. Mount Bierstadt Trail, Guanella Pass. ...................................................................................................381

Figure 4‐12. Guanella Pass facilities. .........................................................................................................................381

Figure 4‐13. Guanella Pass Lower Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2012. ..............................................382

Figure 4‐14. Guanella Pass Upper Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2012...............................................383

Figure 4‐15. Guanella Pass roadside parking, summer 2012.....................................................................................383

Figure 4‐16. Guanella Pass overall parking accumulation, summer 2012.................................................................384

Figure 4‐17. Summit of Mount Bierstadt, summer 2012...........................................................................................384

Figure 4‐18. Mount Evans Recreation Area...............................................................................................................386

Figure 4‐19. Mount Evans Recreation Area facilities.................................................................................................387

Figure 4‐20. Summit Lake parking accumulation, summer 2012. .............................................................................388

Figure 4‐21. Summit area parking accumulation, summer 2012. .............................................................................388

Figure 4‐22. Mount Evans overall parking accumulation, summer 2012..................................................................389

Figure 4‐24. Mount Evans summit, summer 2012. ...................................................................................................389

Figure 4‐25. Bicycle and vehicle traffic on Mount Evans Highway, summer 2012....................................................390

Figure 4‐26. Mount Evans summit, summer 2012. ...................................................................................................390

Figure 4‐27. Mount Evans Welcome Station queue, summer 2012..........................................................................391

Figure 4‐28. Mount Evans Highway road damage, summer 2012.............................................................................392

Figure 6‐1. Design day parking accumulation at the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Saturday, January 28, 2012..415

Figure 6‐2. Approximate locations of ATRs on Brainard Lake Road, summer 2013. .................................................416

Figure 6‐3. Approximate location of all ATR’s, Guanella Pass summer 2012. Only data from ATR3 and ATR4 were

used in the GP parking capacity analysis...................................................................................................................426

Figure 6‐4. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of Mount

Bierstadt with the number of people depicted in the photograph...........................................................................432

Figure 6‐5. Simulated photo of 22 people‐at‐one‐time on the summit of Mount Bierstadt. ...................................433

Figure 6‐6. Approximate location of ATR, Mount Evans summer 2012. ...................................................................438

Figure 7‐1. BLRA Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................449

Figure 7‐2. Exterior (left) and interior (right) of a Goshen Coach Pacer II.................................................................454

Figure 7‐3. Guanella Pass Scenarios ..........................................................................................................................472

Figure 7‐4. StarTrans HD............................................................................................................................................477
xviii

Figure 7‐5. Mount Evans Scenarios ...........................................................................................................................493

Figure 7‐6. Champbus Challenger Ford F550.............................................................................................................497

Figure 8‐1. Component Packaging Logic....................................................................................................................515

Figure 9‐1. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at BLRA (Recommendation

1)................................................................................................................................................................................541

Figure 9‐2. Mobile variable message sign (VMS) example. .......................................................................................544

Figure 9‐3. Phase 1 Recommendations: Parking management and queuing restrictions for BLRA (Recommendations

2‐5). ...........................................................................................................................................................................545

Figure 9‐4. Phase 1 Recommendations: Improved onsite wayfinding and connectivity between parking areas

(Recommendations 6 & 7).........................................................................................................................................547

Figure 9‐5. Phase 2 Recommendations: Increased access and wildlife‐viewing area (Recommendations 9‐10). ....550

Figure 9‐6. Phase 3 Recommendation: Circulator shuttle service between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and Day

Use Lot (Recommendation 12)..................................................................................................................................552

Figure 9‐7. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at GP (Recommendation

1)................................................................................................................................................................................557

Figure 9‐9. Phase 1 Recommendation: Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking

conditions (Recommendation 2). ..............................................................................................................................559

Figure 9‐10. Phase 2 Recommendations: Active management of onsite parking (Recommendations 5‐8). ............563

Figure 9‐11. Phase 3, Option 1: Retain managed‐use permits at 300 per day as a long‐term solution

(Recommendation 9).................................................................................................................................................565

Figure 9‐12. Phase 3, Option 2: Increase permit quota to 400 per day and expand onsite parking at GP to

accommodate permitted hikers (Recommendation 10). ..........................................................................................567

Figure 9‐13. Phase 3, Option 3: Increase permit quota to 400 per day and provide transit for permit holders that

will not fit in existing designated parking spaces at GP (Recommendation 11)........................................................570

Figure 9‐15. Phase 1 Recommendations: Onsite parking management within MERA and VMS (Recommendations 1‐

4)................................................................................................................................................................................576

Figure 9‐16. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at MERA

(Recommendation 7).................................................................................................................................................579

Figure 9‐17. Phase 2, Option 1: Overflow parking at Welcome Station with shuttle to Mount Evans Summit

(Recommendation 8).................................................................................................................................................582

Figure 9‐18. Phase 2, Option 2: Overflow parking at Welcome Station with shuttle to Mount Evans summit

(Recommendation 9).................................................................................................................................................584

Figure 9‐19. Phase 2, Option 3: Day use reservation system for access to MERA (Recommendation 11)................586
xix

List of Tables

Table 1. BLRA Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations ................................................................................xxvii

Table 2. Summary of Findings and Outcomes for Physical and Wilderness Capacity Analyses ................................ xxx

Table 3. GP Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations.....................................................................................xxxi

Table 4. MERA Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations..............................................................................xxxiv

Table 1‐1. Estimated percent of BLRA winter season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic, and parking

conditions in excess of design day conditions.............................................................................................................19

Table 1‐2. Visitor parking duration in Entrance Portal parking lot, BLRA winter 2011/2012......................................24

Table 1‐3. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ..............................................29

Table 1‐4. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, BLRA winter 2011/2012.........................................................31

Table 1‐5. Visitor activity type, BLRA winter 2011/2012.............................................................................................31

Table 1‐6. Visitor group size, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ...............................................................................................32

Table 1‐7. Number of vehicles per group, BLRA winter 2011/2012............................................................................32

Table 1‐8. Vehicle occupancy rates, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ....................................................................................32

Table 1‐9. Length of stay, BLRA winter 2011/2012. ....................................................................................................33

Table 1‐10. Miles traveled during snowshoe/hike/ski, BLRA winter 2011/2012. .......................................................33

Table 1‐11. Estimated percent of BLRA summer season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic, and

parking conditions in excess of design day conditions................................................................................................52

Table 1‐12. FHWA classification of vehicles at BLRA, by ATR location, summer 2013. ...............................................54

Table 1‐13. Visitor parking duration in the IPW trailhead parking lots, by day of week category, summer 2013......71

Table 1‐14. Visitor parking duration in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer 2013. .72

Table 1‐15. Visitor parking duration in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer

2013.............................................................................................................................................................................73

Table 1‐16. Visitor parking duration in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, by day of week category, summer 2013.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................74

Table 1‐17. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, by administration site, BLRA, summer 2013........................82

Table 1‐18. Visitor group size, BLRA, summer 2013....................................................................................................82

Table 1‐19. Number of vehicles per group, BLRA, summer 2013................................................................................83

Table 1‐20. Vehicle occupancy rates, BLRA, summer 2013.........................................................................................83

Table 1‐21. Length of stay, BLRA, summer 2013. ........................................................................................................84

Table 1‐22. Summer 2014 IPW and BLRA visitor survey sampling effort. ...................................................................98

Table 1‐23. Summer 2014 Gateway visitor survey sampling effort.............................................................................98

Table 1‐24. Which routes did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip? .......................................................116

Table 1‐25. Which routes did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip? .......................................................146

Table 1‐26. Which route did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip?.........................................................175

Table 1‐27. New trail alignments and trail design considerations.............................................................................207

Table 2‐1. Percentage of Guanella Pass Road inbound vehicle traffic that travels to the national forest boundaries

and Guanella Pass, by day of week category, summer 2012.....................................................................................212

Table 2‐2. Percentage of vehicles at Guanella Pass that arrive from the north and south, by day of week category,

summer 2012.............................................................................................................................................................212

Table 2‐3. Estimated percent of Guanella Pass summer season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic,

and parking conditions in excess of design day conditions.......................................................................................214

Table 2‐4. Average and 85th percentile vehicle traffic speeds on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location, summer

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................216

Table 2‐5. FHWA classification of vehicles on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location, summer 2012. .......................216

Table 2‐6. Visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location and day of week category, summer 2012...........223

Table 2‐7. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, Guanella Pass, summer 2012. ....................................229

Table 2‐8. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, Guanella Pass, summer 2012...............................................231
xx

Table 2‐9. Visitor group size, Guanella Pass, summer 2012. .....................................................................................232

Table 2‐10. Number of vehicles per group, Guanella Pass, summer 2012................................................................232

Table 2‐11. Vehicle occupancy rates, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.........................................................................233

Table 2‐12. Hike duration, Guanella Pass, summer 2012..........................................................................................233

Table 2‐13. Miles hiked, Guanella Pass 2012.............................................................................................................234

Table 2‐14. People at one time (PAOT) sampling effort, Mount Bierstadt summit, summer 2012. .........................238

Table 2‐15. Summer 2014 Guanella Pass visitor survey sampling effort...................................................................242

Table 3‐1. Estimated percent of MERA summer season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic, and

parking conditions in excess of design day conditions..............................................................................................285

Table 3‐2. Visitor parking duration at Mount Goliath, by location and day of week category, summer 2012. ........298

Table 3‐3. Visitor parking duration at Summit Lake, by location and day of week category, summer 2012. ...........299

Table 3‐4. Visitor parking duration at the Mount Evans summit, by location and day of week category, summer

2012...........................................................................................................................................................................301

Table 3‐5. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, MERA, summer 2012.1 ...............................................307

Table 3‐6. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, MERA, summer 2012. ..........................................................309

Table 3‐7. Visitor group size, MERA, summer 2012...................................................................................................310

Table 3‐8. Number of vehicles per group, MERA, summer 2012. .............................................................................310

Table 3‐9. Vehicle occupancy rates, MERA, summer 2012........................................................................................310

Table 3‐10. Length of stay, MERA, summer 2012......................................................................................................311

Table 3‐11. Miles traveled during trip, MERA, summer 2012. ..................................................................................311

Table 3‐12. People at one time (PAOT) sampling effort, MERA, summer 2012........................................................314

Table 3‐13. Summer 2014 MERA visitor survey sampling effort. ..............................................................................317

Table 3‐14. Unofficial Trail Condition Class Definitions.............................................................................................362

Table 3‐15. Visitor‐created Sites and Areas of Dispersed Use Condition Class Definitions.......................................362

Table 3‐16. Characteristics of informal trails and visitor routes throughout the ARNF study area (CC = condition

class rating)................................................................................................................................................................363

Table 3‐17. Characteristics of visitor‐created sites throughout entire study area in ARNF (CC = condition class

rating). .......................................................................................................................................................................363

Table 3‐18. Characteristics of areas of dispersed visitor use found throughout the GP study area (CC = condition

class rating)................................................................................................................................................................363

Table 3‐19. Areas of polygons of interest to ARNF managers...................................................................................364

Table 3‐20. Summary of visitor route from Summit Lake to the summit of Mount Evans........................................364

Table 4‐1. Transportation, recreation, and resource management‐related needs, by site. .....................................370

Table 6‐1. Summary of Capacity Analyses by Site .....................................................................................................413

Table 6‐2. Estimated Hourly Parking Demand in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot on typically busy Peak Season

Summer Days (Assuming all BLRA Overflow Parking is Directed There) ...................................................................417

Table 6‐3. Estimated Hourly Unmet Parking Demand “Inside” BLRA on typically busy Peak Season Summer Days 419

Table 6‐4. Estimated Hourly Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and Visitors) “Inside” BLRA on typically busy Peak

Season Summer Days ................................................................................................................................................420

Table 6‐5. Ridership Demand Estimates for BLRA Alternative Transportation Options............................................422

Table 6‐6. Estimated Hourly Parking Accumulation at GP on typically busy Peak Season Summer Days.................427

Table 6‐7. Estimated Hourly Available Parking Spaces and Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and Visitors) on

typically busy Summer Days......................................................................................................................................429

Table 6‐8. Ridership Demand Estimates for GP Transit Options with Visitor Use Managed According to Physical

Capacity .....................................................................................................................................................................431

Table 6‐9. Unmet Parking Demand at GP with Wilderness Permit Quota ................................................................435

Table 6‐10. Summary of Findings and Outcomes for Physical and Wilderness Capacity Analyses...........................436

Table 6‐11. Estimated Hourly Net Vehicle Accumulation and Parking Demand in MERA on typically busy Peak

Season Summer Days ................................................................................................................................................440
xxi

Table 6‐12. Estimated Hourly Available Parking Spaces and Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and Visitors) on

typically busy Peak Season Summer Days.................................................................................................................442

Table 6‐13. Ridership Demand Estimates for MERA Alternative Transportation Options........................................443

Table 7‐1. Stops Served by Each Scenario .................................................................................................................449

Table 7‐2. BLRA Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary......................................................................................451

Table 7‐3. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 1................................................................451

Table 7‐4. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 1..........................................................................................453

Table 7‐5. Preliminary Options for BLRA Scenario 1 Staging.....................................................................................454

Table 7‐6. Assumptions Driving Costs in BLRA Scenario 1.........................................................................................455

Table 7‐7. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 1 ..............................................................................455

Table 7‐8. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 1 ..............................................456

Table 7‐9. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease Per Year in BLRA Scenario 1......................................456

Table 7‐10. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 1..............................................................457

Table 7‐11. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1................................................................458

Table 7‐12. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1.....................................................459

Table 7‐13. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1.....................459

Table 7‐14. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease Per Year in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1............460

Table 7‐15. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 3..............................................................461

Table 7‐16. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 3........................................................................................463

Table 7‐17. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/Scenario 3 ..................................464

Table 7‐18. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/ Scenario 3 .464

Table 7‐19. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/Scenario 3........465

Table 7‐20. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 4..............................................................465

Table 7‐21. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 4........................................................................................467

Table 7‐22. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 4 ............................................................................468

Table 7‐23. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 4 ............................................468

Table 7‐24. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in BLRA Scenario 4 ..................................................469

Table 7‐25. GP Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary........................................................................................474

Table 7‐26. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 1 .................................................................475

Table 7‐27: Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 1 ...........................................................................................476

Table 7‐28. Preliminary Options for GP Scenario 1 Staging.......................................................................................478

Table 7‐29. Assumptions Driving Costs in GP Scenario 1...........................................................................................478

Table 7‐30. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1 ................................................................................479

Table 7‐31. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1 ................................................479

Table 7‐32. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 1......................................................480

Table 7‐33. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 2 .................................................................481

Table 7‐34. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 2 ...........................................................................................482

Table 7‐35: Preliminary Options for GP Scenario 2 Staging.......................................................................................484

Table 7‐36. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 2 ................................................................................484

Table 7‐37. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 2 ................................................484

Table 7‐38. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 1......................................................485

Table 7‐39. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 3 .................................................................486

Table 7‐40. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 3 ...........................................................................................487

Table 7‐41. Assumptions Driving Costs in GP Scenario 3...........................................................................................488

Table 7‐42. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1 ................................................................................489

Table 7‐43. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1 ................................................489

Table 7‐44. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 3......................................................489

Table 7‐45. MERA Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary ..................................................................................494

Table 7‐46. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for MERA Scenario 1 ............................................................494
xxii

Table 7‐47. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for MERA Scenario 1 ......................................................................................496

Table 7‐48. MERA Scenario 1 Potential Vehicles.......................................................................................................497

Table 7‐49. Preliminary Options for MERA Scenario 1 Staging .................................................................................497

Table 7‐50. Assumptions Driving Costs in MERA Scenario 1 .....................................................................................498

Table 7‐51. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 1...........................................................................498

Table 7‐52. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 1...........................................498

Table 7‐53. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in MERA Scenario 1.................................................499

Table 7‐54. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for MERA Scenario 2 ............................................................500

Table 7‐55. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for MERA Scenario 2 ......................................................................................501

Table 7‐56. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 2...........................................................................503

Table 7‐57. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 2...........................................503

Table 7‐58. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in MERA Scenario 2.................................................504

Table 7‐59. Operations and Costs Summary of Feasible Scenarios...........................................................................505

Table 8‐1. Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................................508

Table 8‐2. Technical Criteria ......................................................................................................................................509

Table 8‐3. Requirement Criteria Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area .............................................................516

Table 8‐4. Technical Criteria Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area ...................................................................517

Table 8‐5. Brainard Lake Recreation Area Components Eligible for Packaging.........................................................518

Table 8‐6. Brainard Lake Recreation Area Packages..................................................................................................519

Table 8‐7. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area .....................................................522

Table 8‐8. Requirement Criteria Scores for Guanella Pass........................................................................................523

Table 8‐9. Technical Criteria Scores for Guanella Pass..............................................................................................524

Table 8‐10. Guanella Pass Components Eligible for Packaging .................................................................................524

Table 8‐11. Guanella Pass Packages..........................................................................................................................525

Table 8‐12. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Guanella Pass..............................................................................527

Table 8‐13. Requirement Criteria Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area ............................................................528

Table 8‐14. Technical Criteria Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area ..................................................................529

Table 8‐15. Mount Evans Recreation Area Components Eligible for Packaging........................................................531

Table 8‐16. Mount Evans Recreation Area Packages ................................................................................................532

Table 8‐17. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area ....................................................533

Table 9‐1. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management, BLRA........................................539

Table 9‐2. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management Recommendations, GP ............555

Table 9‐3. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management Recommendations, MERA.......573
xxiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This	Executive	Summary	provides	an	overview	of	key	findings	from	the	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	

National	Forests	Transportation	(ARNF)	System	Alternatives	Study.	The	ARNF	Transportation	

System	Alternatives	Study	was	conducted	under	a	Sarbanes	Transit	in	Parks	grant	awarded	to	the	

ARNF	in	response	to	previous	studies	of	growing	unacceptable	congestion	and	visitor	use	crowding	

at	three	recreation	sites	along	Colorado’s	Front	Range.	The	purpose	of	the	work	presented	in	this	

report	is	to	provide	United	States	Forest	Service	(USFS)	with	information	that	supports	integrated	

transportation	planning	and	visitor	use	management	at	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	(BLRA),	

Guanella	Pass	(GP),	and	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	(MERA).	The	information	presented	

represents	the	culmination	of	the	work	completed	for	the	ARNF	Transportation	System	

Alternatives	Study,	designed	and	conducted	during	a	5‐year	period	from	2011‐2016.		

The	design	of	the	ARNF	Transportation	System	Alternatives	Study	is	notably	different	from	

previous	assessments	of	transportation	planning	needs	at	the	three	study	sites.	In	this	study,	

analysis	of	alternatives	and	recommendations	for	transportation	improvements	were	developed	

according	to	the	maximum	levels	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	at	the	sites	without	

incurring	unacceptable	impacts	to	Forest	resources,	Wilderness	values,	and	recreation	experiences	

rather	than	in	isolation	from	these	relevant	considerations.	Moreover,	Forest	goals	and	objectives	

for	resource	condition	played	a	central	role	in	understanding	appropriate	visitor	use	capacities	at	

each	study	site.	

Project Overview

The	ARNF	Transportation	System	Alternatives	Study	started	with	baseline	data	collection	to	

document	existing	transportation,	visitor	use,	and	resource	conditions;	a	transportation	and	visitor	

use	management	needs	assessment;	and	the	development	and	analysis	of	alternatives	to	improve	

transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management	at	each	of	the	study	sites.		

The	collection	and	evaluation	of	baseline	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	provided	a	foundation	

for	defining	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs,	opportunities,	and	management	

constraints.	A	variety	of	data	types	were	collected	from	each	study	site	to	understand	current	

conditions	and	desired	future	conditions.	Data	types	collected	include	visitor	surveys,	global	

positioning	system	(GPS)	tracks	of	hiking	patterns,	trail	use	counts,	traffic	counts,	parking	lot	

counts,	and	recreation‐related	resource	impact	assessments	used	to	characterize	transportation,	

recreation,	and	resource‐related	conditions	at	each	site.	

Results	from	the	baseline	data	analysis	were	used	to	assess	and	identify	specific	transportation	and	

visitor	use	management	needs	at	each	study	site.	The	needs	identified	at	each	site	were	also	

validated	through	input	from	a	public	workshop,	conversations	with	Forest	management	staff,	and	

background	information	from	previous	studies	and	planning	documents.	While	specific	needs	
xxiv

varied	across	sites,	the	following	general	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs	were	

common	to	all	sites:	

 Peak‐period	parking	shortages	

 Lack	of	advanced	trip‐planning	and	traveler	information	

 Traffic	congestion	at	entrance	stations	and/or	on	roads	during	peak	periods	

 Intensive	Wilderness	use	and	crowding	during	peak	times	

Using	the	identified	site‐specific	visitor	use	management	and	transportation	needs	as	the	basis,	a	

range	of	potential	solutions	(“alternative	components”)	were	developed	for	consideration	in	

addressing	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	issues	at	the	study	sites.	

Further	in‐depth	analyses	and	modeling	of	baseline	study	data	were	conducted	to	evaluate	

potential	outcomes	of	component	implementation.	User	capacity	analyses	were	conducted	at	each	

site	to	evaluate	peak	season	use	conditions	in	the	context	of	site	specific	capacities	that	align	with,	

and/or	are	derived	from,	USFS	goals	and	objectives	for	management.	User	capacities	were	

operationalized	differently	at	each	site,	with	capacity	considerations	and	goals	driven	by	site‐

specific	factors	including	guidance	from	existing	management	plans,	Wilderness	designations,	and	

findings	from	this	study.	Transit	demand	analyses	were	conducted	to	estimate	the	potential	

ridership	demand	for	transit	alternatives	under	consideration.	Transit	feasibility	analyses	were	

conducted	for	the	proposed	transit	alternatives	to	provide	cost	and	service	information	for	

implementation	decision	making.	Finally,	all	components	were	evaluated	using	a	systematic	four‐

phase	approach	comparing	all	proposed	solutions	across	the	same	evaluative	scale.	

Results	of	the	user	capacity,	transit	demand,	transit	feasibility,	and	alternative	components	

analyses	and	input	from	meetings	with	the	public	and	Forest	managers	were	used	to	inform	

recommendations	for	addressing	identified	visitor	use	and	transportation	needs.	

Recommendations	are	made	according	to	the	needs	identified	at	each	site	and	the	maximum	levels	

of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	at	each	study	site	without	unacceptable	impacts	to	Forest	

resources,	Wilderness	values,	and	recreation	experiences	identified	through	the	user	capacity	

analyses	at	each	site.	Management	recommendations	at	each	site	are	organized	into	phases,	

described	below,	according	to	implementation	feasibility	and	anticipated	financial	constraints	

and/or	needs.	Strategies	for	adaptive	management,	or	management	strategies	that	can	be	employed	

to	adapt	to	changes	or	shifts	in	visitor	use	at	each	site,	are	also	discussed,	as	appropriate,	for	each	

study	site	after	phased	recommendations.			

 Phase	1	recommendations	are	short‐term	management	actions	that	generally	address	

urgent	needs,	are	less	expensive	to	implement	(than	other	proposed	recommendations),	

and	likely	do	not	require	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	compliance	(and/or	

other	time‐intensive	administrative	processes)	to	be	completed	before	implementation.	

Phase	1	recommendations	also	acknowledge	current	practices	that	are	anticipated	to	

continue	to	meet	transportation	and	visitor	use	needs.		
xxv

 Phase	2	recommendations	are	mid‐term	management	actions	that	address	identified	needs	

that	are	important,	but	not	as	urgent	as,	those	needs	addressed	in	Phase	1.	Phase	2	

recommendations	may	require	more	planning	and/or	financial	resources	than	those	in	

Phase	1.	Inclusion	of	a	recommended	action	in	Phase	2	provides	additional	time	to	

realistically	implement	these	components.	These	recommendations	should	be	considered	

for	implementation	as	soon	as	feasible,	given	budgetary	and	administrative	constraints.		

 Phase	3	recommendations	are	long‐term	solutions	that	require	significant	planning	and	

financial	support	to	fully	implement.	These	recommendations	address	identified	needs	but	

likely	cannot	be	implemented	without	the	support	of	stakeholders.	Implementation	of	these	

recommendations	is	just	as	important	as	the	implementation	of	Phase	1	and	2	

recommendations;	however,	this	phasing	acknowledges	the	efforts	needed	to	implement	

solutions	on	this	scale.		

Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results

In	the	2005	BLRA	Management	Plan1,	the	USFS	established	a	theoretical	user	capacity	for	BLRA	as	

the	maximum	number	of	visitors	that	can	be	accommodated,	per	day,	without	exceeding	designated	

parking	capacities	at	BLRA,	including	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.		

Results	of	the	user	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	visitor	use	does	not	exceed	the	designated	parking	

capacity	for	BLRA	on	typically	busy	days	during	the	winter	or	summer	seasons.	In	other	words,	

user	capacity,	as	defined	by	the	USFS	in	the	BLRA	Management	Plan,	is	not	exceeded	on	typically	

busy	days	during	the	winter	or	summer	seasons.		

Related,	the	vast	majority	of	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW)	visitors	accessing	the	IPW	via	BLRA	

(85%)	reported	in	the	2014	summer	season	visitor	survey	that	they	do	not	feel	crowded	during	

their	hike.	Ninety	percent	of	IPW	visitors	reported	that	the	presence	of	other	people	on	the	trail	did	

not	make	them	feel	rushed	and/or	did	not	cause	them	to	slow	down	at	any	point	during	their	hike.	

These	findings	suggest	that	current	visitor	use	levels,	even	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	do	

not	cause	unacceptable	visitor	crowding	in	the	IPW.		

However,	BLRA	still	faces	user	capacity	management	challenges	because	many visitors do not

voluntarily park in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot as a means for accessing BLRA.	To	make	full	

use	of	the	designated	parking	capacity	at	BLRA,	and	in	particular	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot,	an	onsite	parking	management	team	is	necessary	to	continue	enforcing	designated	parking	

requirements	within	BLRA	and	to	direct	all	overflow	parking	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

An	onsite	parking	management	team	has	been	functioning	to	eliminate	unendorsed	roadside	

																																																													

1 USDA Forest Service Boulder Ranger District, Rocky Mountain Region, Roosevelt National Forest. (2005). Brainard

Lake Recreation Area Management Plan. Available:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5228436.pdf  
xxvi

parking	since	2015.	A	continued	emphasis	should	be	made	to	direct	overflow	traffic	to	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot.		

In	addition,	visitors	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	with	the	intent	of	accessing	BLRA	

and/or	the	IPW	do	not	have	a	safe	and	convenient	way	to	access	their	destinations	“inside	BLRA.”	

Visitors	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	must	walk	two	or	more	miles	in	traffic	on	

Brainard	Lake	Road	and/or	on	what	is	currently	a	partially	developed	network	of	connector	trails	

to	access	BLRA	and	IPW	recreation	sites.	A	circulator	shuttle	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	would	provide	a	safe	and	convenient	way	to	help	manage	

visitor	use	according	to	the	USFS’s	designated	user	capacity	for	BLRA.	It	is	estimated	there	would	

be	viable	ridership	demand	for	this	service,	approximately	195	daily	riders.	

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

BLRA	recommendations	are	organized	into	three	implementation	phases	(Table	1).	They	provide	

short,	mid,	and	long‐term	approaches	for	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	according	to	

BLRA’s	designated	parking	capacity	and	corresponding	user	capacity	specified	in	the	2005	BLRA	

Management	Plan.		

 Phase	1	addresses	the	need	to	more	effectively	utilize	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	

manage	BLRA	parking	demand	and	user	capacity;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	

is	also	recommended.		

 Phase	2	focuses	on	providing	a	safe	connection	from	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	to	the	IPW	

trailheads	while	also	developing	other	trail‐based	recreation	opportunities	to	help	disperse	

use	away	from	the	IPW.		

 Phase	3	provides	a	long‐term	solution	for	increasing	the	safety	and	convenience	of	access	

between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	BLRA	destinations	through	the	provision	of	

shuttle	service	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	into	BLRA.		

An	adaptive	strategy	for	future	visitor	use	management	is	also	proposed	for	consideration.	If	

substantial	changes	to	visitor	use	of	BLRA	occur	over	the	next	five	to	ten	years,	particularly	if	

Wilderness	resource	conditions	in	the	IPW	change	due	to	increases	in	use,	then	a	managed‐use	

permit	system	and	quota	for	day	users	of	the	IPW	could	be	considered.	
xxvii

Table 1. BLRA Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Capital

Costs

Operations &

Maintenance

Phase 1    

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $8,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders   ($5,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends  ‐  ($14,000)

2. Continue presence of onsite traffic and parking management team  ‐  $41,000

3. Require mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

other lots are full and prohibit queuing at Courtesy Station   $1,000 Included in 2

4. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $6,000  ‐ 

5. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions   $120,000 $3,000

6. Complete trail connection between the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and

Brainard Lake via the Waldrop Trail $221,000  ‐ 

7. Install improved onsite wayfinding signage in parking areas $3,000  ‐ 

8.

Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info

centers*   $210,000 $54,000

Update and Maintenance of ARNF Website  ‐  ($14,000)

Creation and Distribution of Information at Information Centers ($10,000)  ‐ 

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $569,000 $118,000

Phase 2    

9.

Construct access trail to improve the flow of pedestrian traffic between parking

areas $206,000  ‐ 

10. Construct recreation trails to increase visitor opportunities and enhance enjoyment $300,000  ‐ 

Phase 2 ROM** Cost $506,000 $0

Phase 3    

11. Operate a circulator shuttle from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot $70,000 $15,000

Phase 3 ROM** Cost $70,000 $15,000

Adaptive Management    

12. Implement day use permit system and quota for Indian Peaks Wilderness   N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.  
xxviii

Guanella Pass

GP Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results

Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	data	collected	during	summer	2012	suggest	that	by	early	

morning	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days	at	GP,	the	designated	lots	at	GP	are	filled.	

Correspondingly,	the	number	of	cars	parking	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	at	GP	increases	

sharply	through	the	morning	hours.	Parking	accumulation	at	GP	reaches	its	peak	in	the	late	

morning,	at	which	time	there	are	nearly	twice	as	many	cars	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	

roadside	at	GP	than	in	the	designated	parking	lots.		

Results	from	the	2012	visitor	use	data	collection	and	2014	visitor	survey	indicate	that	Wilderness	

values	are	compromised	in	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness;	specifically,	on	typically	busy	summer	

days:		

 On	a	typically	busy	peak	season	day	approximately	800	people	per	day	hike	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail,	which	accounts	for	about	80%	of	all	hiking	use	that	occurs	in	the	GP	area.		

 Peak	visitor	densities	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	are	equivalent	to	a	moderate	level	

of	crowding	for	pedestrian	facilities	in	an	urban	environment,	such	as	a	city	sidewalk.	

 The	majority	of	weekend	hikers	(70%),	and	about	one‐third	of	weekday	hikers	(34%)	on	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	feel	crowded	during	their	hike.		

These	findings	suggest	the	physical	(i.e.,	designated	parking)	and	Wilderness	resource	capacities	of	

the	GP	area	are	exceeded.	Two	approaches	were	taken	to	analyze	and	estimate	the	capacity	at	GP,	

including	1)	a	conventional	approach	based	only	on	the	designated	parking	capacity	at	GP	and	2)	a	

resource‐based	approach	that	integrates	Wilderness	resource	and	parking	capacities	together.	The	

first	approach,	based	on	the	physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	lots	is	designed	to	

accommodate	visitor	demand	and	correspondingly	accommodates	current	levels	of	visitation	that	

have	been	documented	in	this	study	to	cause	unacceptable	levels	of	crowding	and	impact	to	

Wilderness	values	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.	The	second	approach	establishes	a	

Wilderness	resource	capacity,	based	on	a	threshold	for	the	people‐at‐one‐time	(PAOT)	on	the	

summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	and	optimizes	parking	and	transit	within	the	parameters	of	the	

Wilderness	resource	capacity.	In	this	study,	the	term	“Wilderness	resource”	is	understood	as	a	

collective	term	for	the	intended	resources	and	values	that	comprise	Wilderness,	and	are	derived	

from	the	Wilderness	Act,	including	naturalness,	opportunities	for	solitude,	and	wildness.2	Both	

approaches	were	conducted	as	part	of	the	integrated	user	capacity	analysis,	but	only	the	

Wilderness	resource	capacity‐based	approach	provides	a	sustainable	solution	for	managing	

transportation	and	visitor	use	at	GP.			

																																																													

2 Dawson, C. P., & Hendee, J. C. (2014). Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of resources and

values. Fulcrum Publishing: Golden, CO.
xxix

The	basis	for	the	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	is	visitors’	perceptions	of	and	thresholds	for	

crowding	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit.	Crowding	impacts	are	in	direct	conflict	with	Wilderness	

experience	values	outlined	in	the	Wilderness	Act	of	1964.	Furthermore,	crowding	avoidance	

behaviors	cause	resource	damage	(e.g.,	vegetation	and	soil	trampling,	social	trailing,	etc.)	as	people	

spread	out	over	a	landscape	to	get	away	from	other	visitors.	Respondents	to	the	2014	survey	of	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	hikers	were	asked	to	indicate,	for	each	of	several	simulated	photos	of	varying	

numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	if	they	would	feel	crowding	being	on	the	

summit	with	that	number	of	people.	Survey	results	were	used	to	identify	an	empirically‐based	

crowding	threshold	that	serves	to	balance	the	popularity	and	accessibility	of	the	area	with	concerns	

for	the	quality	of	Wilderness	resources.	An	overly	restrictive	threshold	would	not	be	pragmatic,	

given	the	popularity	and	accessibility	of	GP.	Meanwhile,	an	overly	relaxed	threshold	would	be	

inconsistent	with	the	Wilderness	designation	of	the	area	and	related	USFS	management	goals.	

Based	on	these	factors,	the	following	visitor‐based	crowding	threshold	was	adopted	for	the	

Wilderness	capacity	analysis:	

Wilderness Threshold: No more than 15% of visitors who hike to the summit of Mount Bierstadt on a

given day would see more than 22 people‐at‐one‐time in their viewscape on the summit of Mount

Bierstadt.

The	Wilderness	use	and	capacity	model	results	suggest	a	Wilderness	use	permit	system	with	a	

quota	of	no	more	than	400	hikers	per	day	is	required	to	manage	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	to	

reduce	crowding	conditions	on	the	summit.	This	would	reduce	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trail	by	

approximately	50%	on	a	typically	busy	peak	season	day.	

Results	from	the	physical	capacity	and	wilderness	capacity	analyses	support	substantially	different	

recommendations	for	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	at	GP,	and	corresponding	

outcomes	related	to	Wilderness	resource	values	and	Forest	Goals	(Table	2).	Only the Wilderness

resource capacity‐based approach provides a sustainable solution for managing

transportation and visitor use at GP.		
xxx

Table 2. Summary of Findings and Outcomes for Physical and Wilderness Capacity Analyses

Physical Capacity Analysis Wilderness Capacity Analysis

Mount Bierstadt Trail

Peak Use

800+ people per day 400 people per day

Wilderness Resource

Conditions

Approximately 60% of hikers encounter

more than 22 people per view or more

on the summit of Mount Bierstadt

No more than 15% of hikers encounter

more than 22 people per view on the

summit of Mount Bierstadt

Visitor Use

Management

No systematic visitor use management Wilderness use permit quota system

Transit Service

Recommendations

Transit service; ridership demand of 400

to 700 people/day

Transit service; ridership demand of 100

people/day

Alignment with Forest

Goals

Does not align with forest goals for

resource protection and Wilderness

values. May eliminate unendorsed

roadside parking

Aligns with multiple goals (resource

protection, Wilderness values,

eliminating unendorsed roadside

parking)

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

GP	recommendations	are	organized	into	three	phases	of	implementation	(Table	3).	Together,	they	

provide	short,	medium,	and	long‐term	approaches	to	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	

according	to	the	physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	at	GP	and	the	Wilderness	resource‐based	

capacity	of	the	Mt.	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.		

 Phase	1	recommendations	seek	to	reduce	unendorsed	roadside	parking	and	set	the	stage	

for	active	parking	management;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	is	also	

recommended.		

 Phase	2	recommendations	focus	on	implementing	a	Wilderness	permit	system	and	quota	

and	deploying	an	onsite	parking	management	and	permit	enforcement	team.		

 Phase	3	recommendations	present	three	long‐term	management	options	for	maximizing	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	access	under	the	managed‐use	permit	system	while	balancing	

parking	constraints	and	protecting	resource	and	Wilderness	values.		

An	adaptive	strategy	for	future	visitor	use	management	is	also	proposed	for	consideration,	should	

visitor	use	monitoring	at	GP	indicate	that	use	is	changing.	If	visitor	use	of	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

shifts	from	weekends	days	to	weekdays	due	to	weekend	permit	requirements,	managers	should	

consider	implementing	a	reduced	number	of	weekday	permits	to	preserve	a	different	experience	

for	weekday	users.	Managers	may	also	consider	increasing	the	provision	of	transit	and/or	parking	

at	GP	to	accommodate	visitor	use	if	displacement	of	GP	users	that	do	not	intend	to	hike	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	is	excessive.	
xxxi

Table 3. GP Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Phase 1 Capital   Operating &

Maintenance

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $8,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders ($5,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends ‐  ($14,000)

2.

Coordinate parking enforcement with Clear Creek County through Memorandum of

Understanding ‐  Included in 1

3. Deploy variables message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions   $80,000 $2,000

4. Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website and smartphone apps*   $200,000 $54,000

Updating and Maintenance of ARNF Website ‐  ($14,000)

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $288,000 $76,000

Phase 2    

5. Implement a managed‐use Wilderness day use permit system and quota for Mount

Bierstadt Trail (300 permits per day) ‐  $71,000

6. Deploy onsite parking management and permit quota team   ‐  $60,000

7. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $11,000  ‐ 

8. Designate parking areas for Mount Bierstadt Trail users (91 spaces) and “other” GP

users (15 spaces) $6,000  ‐ 

Phase 2 ROM** Cost $17,000 $131,000

Phase 3    

9. Option 1: Retain managed‐use permit system and quota at 300 permits per day

without expanding onsite parking as a long‐term solution ‐  Included in 5

10.  

Option 2: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per

day and expand onsite parking at GP to accommodate all permit holders in

designated parking spaces  

$113,000 $88,000

11.

Option 3: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per

day, with shuttle service from Georgetown for those permit holders that cannot

park in a designated space at GP  

$575,000 $159,000

Phase 3 ROM** Cost Dependent on Option

Selected

Adaptive Management

13.

Reduce permit quota for weekday Mount Bierstadt Trail use if demand shifts to

weekdays to preserve a different experience for weekday users N/A N/A

14. Increase transit and/or parking at GP if displacement of other GP users is excessive N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.  
xxxii

Mount Evans Recreation Area

Integrated User Capacity Analysis and Results

Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	data	collected	during	the	summer	of	2012	suggest	parking	

demand	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days	in	MERA	is	far	above	parking	capacity	from	late	

morning	through	late	afternoon/early	evening.	Between	the	hours	of	12:00	PM	and	4:00	PM	on	

typically	busy	peak	season	days	there	is	gridlock	in	parking	lots	and	on	the	road	itself	as	visitors	

wait	for	a	place	to	park	at	Summit	Lake	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	Traffic	data	collected	during	

the	2012	season	also	indicate	long	lines	of	traffic	form	at	the	Welcome	Station	on	typically	busy	

summer	days,	and	during	particularly	busy	periods,	traffic	backs	up	onto	Colorado	Highway	103.		

Parking	and	traffic	conditions	on	typically	busy	summer	days	in	MERA	conflict	with	the	paramount	

experience	in	MERA:	scenic	driving.	Findings	from	the	2014	visitor	survey	in	MERA	indicate:	

 The	vast	majority	of	visitor	groups	to	Mount	Evans	(91%)	engage	in	scenic	driving	and	61%	

of	visitor	groups	report	that	scenic	driving	is	their	primary	activity	on	their	trip	to	MERA.		

 The	majority	of	weekend	(93%)	and	weekday	(70%)	visitors	reported	that	they	

experienced	parking	congestion	during	their	visit	to	MERA.		

 More	than	two‐thirds	(69%)	of	weekend	visitor	groups	and	about	one‐third	(29%)	of	

weekday	visitor	groups	thought	that	parking	congestion	in	MERA	was	moderate	to	extreme.		

 Forty‐percent	of	MERA	visitors	that	parked	at	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	reported	that	

they	did	not	park	in	an	actual	parking	space.	

In	contrast	to	the	findings	regarding	scenic	driving,	survey	results	suggest	crowding‐related	

impacts	to	Wilderness	values	on	the	Mount	Evans	summit	are	less	problematic:	

 Very	few	visitors	reported	walking/taking	a	short	hike	(11%),	day	hiking	(8%),	or	

overnight	backpacking	(0%)	as	their	primary	activity	during	their	visit	to	MERA.	

 Less	than	half	(46%)	of	MERA	visitors	hiked	to	the	“true	summit”	of	Mount	Evans	(and	this	

is	likely	over‐reported	due	to	confusion	among	respondents	about	the	difference	between	

the	Mount	Evans	parking	lot	and	the	“true	summit”).		

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	a	minority	(17%	on	weekdays	and	44%	on	weekend	

days)	of	those	MERA	visitors	who	hiked	to	the	“true	summit”	felt	crowded	when	they	were	

there.		

Based	on	the	study	findings,	the	user	capacity	analysis	for	MERA	focuses	on	the	physical	capacity	of	

designated	parking	areas	in	MERA	to	address	the	impacts	of	parking	shortages	and	traffic	

congestion	on	scenic	driving	experiences	and	associated	visitor	safety.	

Results	of	the	user	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	visitor	use	exceeds	MERA’s	capacity,	defined	as	

available	designated	parking	spaces,	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days.	Options	for	addressing	this	

include	redirecting	visitors	to	other	recreation	destinations	in	“real‐time”	using	variable	message	

signs	and/or	onsite	staff,	via	a	reservation/permit	system	with	a	daily	quota,	or	directing	visitors	to	
xxxiii

an	overflow	parking	lot	with	transit	service	to	MERA.	Transit	demand	analyses	were	conducted	to	

estimate	hourly	ridership	demand	for	two	transit	service	options	from	overflow	parking	locations.	

Results	from	these	analyses	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	approximately	552	

visitors	who	could	not	otherwise	park	in	designated	parking	spaces	at	MERA	would	opt	to	use	

transit	service	from	an	overflow	parking	lot	near	the	MERA	Welcome	Station.	Alternatively,	

approximately	only	211	visitors	would	do	this	if	the	overflow	parking	lot	was	in	Idaho	Springs.		

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

MERA	recommendations	are	organized	into	two	phases	of	implementation	(Table	4).	Together,	they	

provide	short‐term	and	long‐term	approaches	for	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	

according	to	the	physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	at	MERA.	The	MERA	recommendations	

reflect	the	paramount	importance	of	scenic	auto	touring	to	visitors	and	the	need	to	address	

congestion‐related	impacts	to	scenic	driving	experiences.	The	recommendations	further	reflect	that	

Wilderness	use	at	MERA	is	relatively	low,	and	Wilderness	use	impacts	are	not	pronounced.		

 Phase	1	recommendations	seek	to	reduce	parking	congestion	and	unendorsed	roadside	

parking	through	active	parking	management;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	is	

also	recommended.		

 Phase	2	provides	three	options	for	limiting	vehicle	access	into	MERA	according	to	the	

physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	spaces	while	maximizing	overall	visitor	use	via	

transit	and/or	a	reservation	system.		

An	adaptive	strategy	for	future	visitor	use	management	is	also	proposed	for	consideration,	should	

visitor	use	monitoring	at	MERA	indicate	that	use	is	changing	from	baseline	conditions.	Phase	2	

provides	managers	with	two	options	for	long‐term	visitor	use	management	at	MERA	through	

limiting	parking	and	providing	transit	to	and/or	in	MERA,	and	one	option	for	long‐term	visitor	use	

management	through	implementation	of	a	managed‐use	permit	system	and	quota	for	entry	to	

MERA.	If	managers	find	implementation	of	Options	1	or	2	to	be	ineffective	for	long‐term	

management	at	MERA,	a	managed‐use	permit	system	and	quota	(Option	3)	should	be	considered	to	

actively	manage	the	number	of	arriving	visitors	at	MERA.		
xxxiv

Table 4. MERA Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Phase 1 Capital   Operating &

Maintenance

1. Deploy onsite traffic and parking management team  ‐  $41,000

2.

Coordinate parking and queuing management with CDOT through Memorandum of

Understanding ‐  $14,000

3. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $11,000  ‐ 

4. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions $40,000 $1,000

5.

Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info

centers*   $210,000 $54,000

Update and Maintenance of ARNF Website ‐  ($14,000)

Creation and Distribution of Information at Information Centers ($10,000)  ‐ 

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

6. Designate dates and/or times for bicycle access  ‐  Included in 2

7. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $6,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders ($3,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends ‐  ($14,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $267,000 $130,000

Phase 2    

8. Option 1: Designate mandatory parking in new overflow parking lot near Welcome

Station when lots are full, and operate van tour service of MERA $1,721,000 $134,000

9. Option 2: Designate mandatory overflow parking in Idaho Springs, Colorado, and

operate transit and van tours of MERA, when lots at MERA are full   $2,475,000 $270,000

10.

Option 3: Implement a managed‐use reservation system (in partnership with

CDOT), with or without overflow parking and transit

(dependent on number and type of reservations available)

‐  $220,000

Phase 2 ROM** Cost Dependent on Option

Selected

Adaptive Management

11. If applicable and needed, move toward implementation of Option 3 (above) N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.  
xxxv

Conclusion

Recommendations	for	each	of	the	study	sites	are	the	result	of	rigorous,	data‐driven	analyses	

designed	to	1)	incorporate	Forest	goals	and	objectives	for	transportation	and	recreation	

management,	and	2)	manage	visitor	use	to	the	identified	user	capacity	for	each	site	without	

incurring	unacceptable	resource	impacts.	Visitor	use	capacity	was	operationalized	differently	at	

each	study	site	incorporating	site	specific	visitor	use	data	and	direction	from	relevant	planning	

documents	and	legislation	for	each	site.	Ultimately,	recommendations	at	BLRA	and	MERA	seek	to	

manage	visitor	use	to	the	designated	parking	capacity	of	each	site,	while	recommendations	at	GP	

seek	to	manage	visitor	use	to	the	Wilderness	resource	capacity	of	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.		
1

INTRODUCTION

The	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forest	(ARNF)	Transportation	System	Alternatives	Study	was	

designed	and	conducted	during	a	5‐year	period	from	2011	through	2015.	The	primary	purpose	of	

the	study	was	to	support	integrated	transportation	planning	and	visitor	use	management	at	three	

high‐use	recreation	sites	in	Colorado	managed	by	the	US	Forest	Service	(USFS):	Brainard	Lake	

Recreation	Area,	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area,	and	Guanella	Pass	(hereafter	referred	to	as	the	

study	sites).	The	study	included	baseline	data	collection	to	document	existing	transportation,	

visitor	use,	and	resource	conditions;	a	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs	

assessment;	and	development	and	analysis	of	alternatives	to	improve	transportation,	recreation,	

and	resource	management	at	each	of	the	study	sites.	The	study	design	is	notably	different	from	

previous	assessments	of	transportation	planning	needs	at	the	study	sites.	Specifically,	analysis	of	

alternatives	and	recommendations	for	transportation	improvements	were	developed	in	this	study	

according	to	the	maximum	levels	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	at	the	sites	without	

unacceptable	impacts	to	forest	resources,	Wilderness	values,	and	recreation	experiences.	

The	study	was	funded	through	a	US	Department	of	Transportation	Federal	Transit	Administration	

Paul	S.	Sarbanes	Transit	in	Parks	Program	grant,	with	additional	support	contributed	by	the	Federal	

Highway	Administration,	Central	Federal	Lands	Highway	Division	(FHWA	CFLHD)	and	the	USFS.	

Project	partners	include	ARNF	(funding	recipient),	project	administration	by	FHWA	CFLHD,	and	

technical	contributions	by	the	U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	John	A.	Volpe	National	

Transportation	Systems	Center	and	RSG	Inc.	

Project Background

The	Front	Range	of	Colorado	contains	a	complex	of	federal	land	units	and	population	centers,	most	

notably,	Denver.	With	its	combination	of	major	population	centers	and	adjacent	public	lands,	the	

area	attracts	over	23	million	recreation	visits	annually3.	Furthermore,	it	is	one	of	the	fastest	

growing	regions	in	the	United	States,	and	is	the	fastest	growing	region	in	Colorado	(Figure	0‐1).	

																																																													

3 Interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG), Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL)

Program. (2007). Transportation observations, considerations, and recommendations relative to the Colorado

Front Range.
2

Figure 0‐1. Estimated regional population growth in Colorado by 20404.

The	ARNF	is	located	within	close	proximity	to	the	Colorado	Front	Range	metro	area	population	of	

nearly	3	million	people	(Figure	0‐2).	Due	to	its	urban‐proximity,	and	Colorado’s	longstanding	

popularity	for	nature‐based	tourism,	the	ARNF	ranks	among	the	most	heavily	visited	national	

forests	in	the	country.	Previous	studies	within	the	ARNF	identified	three	recreation	sites	facing	the	

most	immediate	transportation	and	visitor	use	needs.	These	sites	—	the	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	

Area	(BLRA),	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway	(GP),	and	the	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	(MERA)	—	

are	connected	via	major	highways	to	several	Front	Range	population	centers.	Consequently,	these	

USFS	recreation	areas	receive	intensive	levels	of	visitation,	which	have	resulted	in	a	number	of	

transportation‐related	issues	and	associated	impacts	to	natural	resources	and	visitor	experience	

quality.	The	scope	and	intensity	of	these	impacts	are	expected	to	increase	with	projected	regional	

population	growth	(Figure	0‐1).	

																																																													

4 “Population totals for Colorado and sub‐state regions, 5 year increments, 2000 ‐ 2050.” (2015). Colorado State

Demography Office. Available https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/population‐totals‐colorado‐and‐sub‐state‐

regions.
3

Figure 0‐2. Regional map of study locations.

Previous	Front	Range	interagency	transportation	and	planning	groups	identified	that	primary	

transportation	corridors,	such	as	the	I‐70	corridor,	are	insufficient	to	accommodate	current	and	

increasing	regional	recreation‐related	traffic.	Moreover,	previous	transportation	and	visitor	use	

studies	conducted	specifically	in	the	ARNF	suggest	there	are	near‐term	opportunities	for	

alternative	transportation	solutions	to	the	issues	noted	at	BLRA,	GP,	and	MERA5.	For	example,	the	

FHWA	evaluated	the	potential	for	shuttle	service	at	BLRA,	including	a	first	phase	with	service	

limited	to	BLRA	itself,	and	a	second	phase	with	connections	from	BLRA	to	Nederland,	Colorado,	via	

																																																													

5 RSG, Inc. (2010). Transit in Parks Project Analysis: Data Assessment Report. Prepared for USDA US Forest Service

Arapahoe and Roosevelt National Forests.
4

the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway,	and	from	Nederland,	Colorado,	to	Boulder,	Colorado.6	Similarly,	a	series	

of	studies	have	been	conducted	at	MERA	to	assess	the	feasibility	of	implementing	a	shuttle	system	

on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	to	reduce	parking	congestion	and	allow	visitors	to	avoid	the	stress	of	

driving	in	challenging	road	conditions	presented	by	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.7	Planning	studies	at	

GP	have	also	identified	the	potential	benefits	of	shuttle	service	to	manage	transportation	and	visitor	

use	conditions	in	the	Byway	corridor.	8These	previous	studies	document	the	need	for	consideration	

of	alternative	transportation	solutions,	in	conjunction	with	visitor	use	management	considerations,	

at	each	of	these	recreation	sites.	

While	the	problem	of	access	to	recreation	sites	is	an	important	aspect	of	this	project,	an	equally	

important	component	is	the	consideration	of	appropriate	visitor	use	capacities	for	these	recreation	

sites.	Previous	analyses	of	potential	alternative	transportation	solutions	for	BLRA,	GP,	and	MERA	

have	lacked	systematic	evaluation	of	the	limits	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	without	

unacceptable	impacts	to	visitor	experience	quality	and	natural	resource	conditions.	Unacceptable	

impacts	due	to	visitor	use	can	be	understood	as	changes	in	the	provision	of	resources,	whether	they	

be	to	experiential	or	natural,	due	to	the	level	of	visitation	experienced	at	a	site	that	are	found	to	be	

unacceptable	given	management	objectives	and/or	visitor	expectations	for	resource	provision	and	

stewardship.	Yet,	as	the	1993	shuttle	feasibility	study	at	MERA	suggests,	the	first	consideration	in	

designing	a	shuttle	system	(and/or	other	alternative	transportation	solutions)	should	be	the	

recreation	carrying	capacity	(i.e.,	user	capacity)	of	the	area9.	To	design	a	shuttle	system	for	MERA	

(or	any	of	the	other	study	sites)	that	is	in	accord	with	sustainable	levels	of	visitor	use,	the	1993	

study	notes,	a	user	capacity	model,	coupled	with	visitor	use	data	is	essential.	The	same	can	be	said	

for	the	design	of	other	alternative	transportation	solutions	for	BLRA,	GP,	and	MERA.	This	

Transportation	Systems	Alternatives	Study	is	unique	in	the	region	for	taking	an	innovative	

approach	to	transportation	planning	that	considers	the	demand	for	access	in	the	context	of	

appropriate	ecological	and	social	capacities	and	management	objectives.	At	each	of	the	three	

recreation	sites	evaluated	in	this	study,	the	management	objectives	of	USFS	managers	serve	as	the	

foundation	of	all	recommendations.	This	approach	deviates	from	the	more	traditional	demand‐

driven	approach	to	recreation	transportation	planning,	in	which	excess	demand	at	a	recreation	site	

drives	site	capacity	planning	and	decision	making.	

Project Purpose

The	purpose	of	the	ARNF	Transportation	Systems	Alternatives	Study	is	to	identify	and	evaluate	the	

feasibility	of	potential	alternative	transportation	solutions	to	improve	recreation	and	resource	

																																																													

6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2004). Federal lands alternative transportation systems study: Summary of Forest

Service ATS needs, FTA‐TRI20‐2004.1, FHWA‐FLH‐04‐006. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration and

Federal Transit Administration. 7 Clear Creek County Tourism Board & Community Matters, Inc. (2000). Mount Evans Scenic and Historic Byway

Corridor Management Plan. Available file:///Q:/Projects/_Federal/USFS/11210%20‐%20ARNF/Background/

Final%20Report%20Introduction%20Sources/MountEvansScenicBywayCMP.pdf

8 Guanella Pass Road Technical Report: Year 2025 Traffic Projections. (2002). Prepared for Federal Highway

Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 9 Lewin, Brust, Gulas, Ohmart, & Velarde. (1993). Analysis of the Feasibility of the Shuttle System.
5

management	at	BLRA,	GP,	and	MERA.	In	particular,	the	project	was	designed	to	identify,	verify,	and	

document	transportation,	visitor,	and	resource	concerns;	assess	user	capacity	levels	where	

appropriate;	and	identify	feasible	short‐term	and	long‐term	alternative	transportation	and	

congestion	management	solutions	for	the	three	sites.	Further,	the	project	is	intended	to	engage	

agency	and	public	stakeholders	in	the	development	and	analysis	of	alternatives,	and	create	a	

framework	for	future	collaboration	on	alternative	transportation	system	solutions	where	and	when	

appropriate.	Thus,	the	alternative	transportation	solutions	identified	in	this	project	provide	the	

USFS	with	the	tools	needed	to	address	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐

related	needs	at	BLRA,	GP,	and	MERA.	

Following	from	the	overall	project	purpose,	the	specific	objectives,	derived	from	Forest	Goals	and	

Objectives,	of	this	project	are	to:	

Protect Forest Resources

 Restore	resource	conditions	in	areas	where	vegetation	and	soils	have	been	impacted	by	

unendorsed	roadside	parking	and	recreational	use	in	undesignated	areas.	

 Protect	and	enhance	sensitive	forest	resources	through	implementation	of	improvements	to	

transportation	system	facilities	and	services.	

 Improve	peak‐period	visitor	use	management	to	minimize	recreation‐related	impacts	to	

forest	resources.	

Improve the Safety, Efficiency, Convenience, and Sustainability of the Transportation System

 Reduce	public	safety	risks	due	to	conflicts	among	pedestrians,	parked	vehicles,	and	moving	

traffic.	

 Reduce	traffic	congestion	and	parking	shortages	through	effective	use	of	alternative	

transportation	systems	and	visitor	use	management.	

 Provide	a	range	of	transportation	mode	choices	that	are	financially	feasible,	convenient,	and	

environmentally‐friendly.	

 Work	with	federal,	state,	regional,	and	local	partners	to	promote	coordinated	and	connected	

transportation	systems	and	services.	

Provide for Visitor Enjoyment of Forest Resources and Preserve the Quality of Visitors’ Experiences

 Improve	visitor	information	to	help	visitors	make	trip‐planning	decisions	that	enhance	the	

quality	of	their	experiences.	

 Manage	the	type	and	amount	of	Wilderness	use	to	ensure	visitors	have	outstanding	

opportunities	to	experience	Wilderness	resource	values.	

 Promote	visitor	enjoyment	of	and	learning	about	forest	resources,	without	unacceptable	

levels	of	crowding	or	other	impacts	to	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences.	

The	USFS	desires	to	improve	recreation	and	resource	management	at	the	identified	high‐use	

recreation	sites	on	the	ARNF	and	the	Pike	NF	(one	of	the	study	sites,	Guanella	Pass,	is	located	in	

both	the	ARNF	and	the	Pike	NF).	To	that	end,	this	project	identified,	verified,	documented,	

evaluated,	and	analyzed	transportation,	visitor,	and	resource	concerns;	assessed	visitor	use	and	

transportation	capacity	levels	where	appropriate;	and	identified	feasible	short‐term	and	long‐term	

alternative	transportation	and	congestion	management	solutions	for	the	three	sites.	
6

Project Scope and Report Structure

This	document	serves	as	the	final	report	for	the	ARNF	Transportation	Systems	Alternatives	Study.	

The	report	is	a	compilation	of	the	series	of	technical	memorandums	authored	throughout	the	

course	of	the	project	as	individual	project	deliverables	and	additional	new	writing	on	capacity	

analyses	and	short	and	long‐term	recommendations.	The	content	has	been	organized	into	chapters	

by	topic	and	content,	rather	than	according	to	the	chronological	and/or	numerical	order	of	the	

original	technical	memorandums.	The	outline	below	provides	a	summary	of	the	final	report	

organization.	

Baseline Data Collection: Chapters 1‐3

The	collection	and	evaluation	of	baseline	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	at	each	of	the	three	

study	sites	provided	a	foundation	for	defining	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	

problems,	opportunities,	and	management	constraints.	A	variety	of	data	types	were	collected	from	

each	study	site	to	understand	current	conditions	and	future	desired	conditions.	Data	types	collected	

include	visitor	surveys,	global	positioning	system	(GPS)	tracks	of	hiking	patterns,	trail	use	counts,	

traffic	counts,	parking	lot	counts,	and	recreation‐related	resource	impact	assessments	used	to	

characterize	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource‐related	conditions	at	each	site.	Chapters	1‐3	

report	the	data	collection	methods	and	data	summaries	for	all	transportation,	visitor	use,	and	site‐

specific	data	collected	during	the	project,	containing	the	following	sections:	

 Chapter	1:	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Summary	of	Data	Findings	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Winter	2011‐2012	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2013	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Alternative	Trail	Alignment	Analysis,	Summer	2012	

 Chapter	2:	Guanella	Pass	Summary	of	Data	Findings	

o Guanella	Pass	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2012	

o Guanella	Pass	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

 Chapter	3:	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Summary	of	Data	Findings

o Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2012	

o Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

o Ecological	Condition	Assessment,	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	and	Guanella	Pass,	

Summer	2012	

Needs Assessment and Alternatives Development: Chapters 4‐5

Results	of	baseline	data	analysis	and	modeling	were	used	assess	and	identify	specific	

transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs	at	each	study	site.	The	needs	assessment	also	

incorporated	input	from	a	public	workshop	and	background	information	from	previous	studies	and	

planning	documents.	Using	the	needs	assessment	as	the	basis,	potential	alternative	transportation	

and	visitor	use	management	solutions	(“alternative	components”)	were	developed	to	provide	the	
7

USFS	with	the	tools	needed	to	address	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐

related	issues	at	the	study	sites.	Chapters	4	and	5	outline	the	needs	identified	for	each	site,	and	the	

resultant	range	of	potential	management	solutions	developed	to	address	identified	needs,	and	

include:	

 Chapter	4:	Need	Identification	by	Site	

 Chapter	5:	Alternative	Components	by	Site	

Analyses and Evaluation of Alternatives: Chapters 6‐8

Analysis	and	modeling	of	study	data	were	conducted	to	estimate	user	capacities	for	each	of	the	

study	sites	according	to	forest	goals	and	objectives,	and	to	estimate	ridership	demand	for	potential	

shuttle/transit	scenarios	at	each	study	site.	The	ridership	demand	estimates	were	incorporated	

into	site‐specific	transit	feasibility	analyses	to	provide	a	realistic	picture	of	cost,	ridership,	and	

routes	for	potential	transit	solutions.	The	capacity,	transit	demand,	and	transit	feasibility	analyses	

provided	context	for	the	evaluation	of	proposed	alternative	components	in	the	context	of	

evaluation	criteria	and	methodology	consistent	with	management	goals	for	the	study	sites.	

Chapters	6‐8	provide	methods	and	results	of	the	user	capacity,	transit	demand,	transit	feasibility,	

and	alternative	components	analyses,	and	include:	

 Chapter	6:	ARNF	Integrated	User	Capacity	and	Transit	Demand	Analysis,	by	Site	

 Chapter	7:	Transit	Feasibility	Analyses	and	Recommendations	by	Site	

 Chapter	8:	Alternative	Components	Analyses,	Methodology	and	Results	

Short‐Term and Long‐Term Recommendations: Chapter 9

Results	of	the	capacity,	transit	demand,	transit	feasibility,	and	alternative	components	analyses	and	

input	from	meeting	with	the	public	and	forest	managers	were	used	to	inform	short‐term	and	long‐

term	recommendations	for	addressing	identified	visitor	use	and	transportation	needs.	

Recommendations	are	made	according	to	the	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs,	

and	maximum	levels	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	at	the	study	sites	without	

unacceptable	impacts	to	forest	resources,	Wilderness	values,	and	recreation	experiences.	Chapter	9	

provides	a	tiered	list	of	transportation	and	visitor	use	recommendations	to	USFS	managers	for	

addressing	the	recreation‐related	needs	identified	at	each	study	site.	

Recreation Site Descriptions

As	discussed,	the	ARNF	Transportation	System	Alternatives	Study	is	focused	on	supporting	

integrated	transportation	planning	and	visitor	use	management	at	three	high‐use	recreation	sites	in	

Colorado	managed	by	the	USFS:	BRLA,	GP,	and	MERA.	Descriptions	of	each	study	site	are	included	

below,	providing	information	on	forest	administration,	existing	infrastructure,	parking	

infrastructure	and	capacity,	and	existing	visitor	use	management	practices	(if	any).	Additional	

background	information	for	each	study	site	is	included	in	Transit in Parks Project Analysis: Data

Assessment Report	(Appendix	BB).	This	report	was	compiled	by	RSG	prior	to	the	ARNF	

Transportation	System	Alternatives	Study	and	provided	context	for	the	present	study.	
8

Brainard Lake Recreation Area

BLRA	is	the	most	popular	destination	on	the	Boulder	Ranger	District	of	the	ARNF.	BRLA	serves	as	a	

“gateway”	to	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW),	the	most‐accessible	Wilderness	area	from	the	

Denver	metro	area.	Two	hours	from	Denver	via	I‐70	and	the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Scenic	Byway,	BLRA	

provides	year‐round	and	day	use	activities	in	a	high‐mountain,	forested	setting.	The	trailheads	for	

Wilderness	camping	or	popular	day	hikes,	as	well	as	fishing,	camping,	picnicking,	hiking,	

snowshoeing,	cross‐country	skiing,	and	other	dispersed	recreation	opportunities	both	in	and	

outside	the	IPW	all	begin	in	BLRA.	

There	are	a	number	of	developed	recreation	facilities	at	BLRA	that	are	accessible	to	visitors	during	

the	summer,	including	an	entrance	station	(referred	to	hereafter	as	the	“Courtesy	Station”),	picnic	

sites,	parking	lots,	restroom	facilities,	information	kiosks,	and	a	boat	launch	(Figure	0‐3).	In	

addition,	there	is	a	47‐site	campground	at	BLRA	that	accommodates	tents,	campers,	trailers,	and	

RV’s	up	to	45	feet	in	length.	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	also	has	a	number	of	trailheads,	some	of	

which	provide	direct	access	to	the	IPW.	

Figure 0‐3. Brainard Lake Recreation Area study area map.

There	are	two	trailhead	parking	lots	at	BLRA	that	provide	direct	access	to	the	IPW	during	the	

summer;	one	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	(54	parking	spaces),	and	the	other	at	the	Long	Lake	

Trailhead	(32	parking	spaces;	Figure	0‐3).	The	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	(16	parking	spaces)	is	a	

relatively	short	distance	east	of	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	and	

provides	nearby	access	to	the	IPW	during	the	summer	hiking	season.	
9

In	2012,	the	USFS	built	a	parking	lot	directly	next	to	Brainard	Lake	with	188	parking	spaces	that	is	

open	to	visitors	during	the	summer	—	this	lot	is	referred	to	hereafter	as	the	Day	Use	Lot.	This	

parking	area	is	primarily	intended	for	day	use	visitors	to	BLRA,	and	is	located	in	BLRA	but	away	

from	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	to	help	shift	some	use	away	from	the	IPW	(Figure	0‐3).	The	

USFS	also	recently	constructed	another	parking	lot	just	outside	of	BLRA	before	the	Courtesy	Station	

on	Brainard	Lake	Road,	with	parking	capacity	for	139	automobiles	—	this	parking	area	is	hereafter	

referred	to	as	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	This	parking	area	is	open	to	BLRA	visitors	year‐

round,	and	serves	as	the	main	parking	area	for	winter	recreationists	at	BLRA	(Figure	0‐3).	While	a	

parking	fee	is	collected	from	BLRA	visitors	during	the	summer	months	as	they	enter	at	the	Courtesy	

Station,	those	visitors	who	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	do	not	have	to	pay	the	

parking	fee	to	enter	BLRA.	

In	addition	to	the	recently	constructed	parking	areas	within	BLRA,	the	USFS	also	made	changes	to	

vehicle	access	within	BLRA	and	implemented	parking	enforcement.	The	north	side	of	the	Brainard	

Lake	Road	loop	was	closed	to	vehicles	in	2013.	The	USFS	now	only	allows	pedestrian	or	bicycle	use	

along	this	section	of	the	roadway.	Prior	to	its	closure	to	vehicle	traffic,	this	section	of	road	provided	

vehicular	access	to	the	boat	launch,	a	number	of	picnic	areas,	and	the	beach	area	of	Brainard	Lake.	

Additionally,	prior	to	its	closure,	visitors	were	allowed	to	park	along	the	roadside	on	this	section	of	

road.	Since	2012,	the	USFS	has	employed	an	onsite	parking	management	team	to	limit	visitor	

parking	to	designated	spaces	within	BLRA	and	to	prevent	the	use	of	unendorsed	roadside	parking	

within	BLRA.	The	parking	management	team	staffs	one	parking	attendant	at	the	Long	Lake	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	one	parking	attendant	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	and	a	

“roving”	parking	attendant	who	monitors	roadside	parking,	closes	off	sections	of	road	once	parking	

areas	are	full,	and	manages	parking	within	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot.	The	parking	

management	team	has	been	highly	effective	in	preventing	unendorsed	roadside	parking	in	BLRA	

and	limiting	vehicle	entries	into	BLRA	to	the	number	of	available	parking	spaces.	
10

Guanella Pass Scenic Byway

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	a	National	Forest	Scenic	

Byway	located	approximately	40	miles	west	of	the	

Denver	Metropolitan	Region.	The	Scenic	Byway	is	

24	miles	in	length,	passes	through	the	ARNF	and	

the	Pike	and	San	Isabel	National	Forests.	The	road	

connects	Georgetown,	Colorado,	to	Grant,	Colorado,	

via	the	11,669’	Guanella	Pass	(Figure	4).	The	paved	

and	gravel	Scenic	Byway	carries	visitors	up	the	

flank	of	Mount	Bierstadt	and	down	to	State	

Highway	285	to	either	Denver	or	destinations	such	

as	Breckenridge,	Copper	Mountain,	and	Vail.	This	is	

a	popular	“loop	drive”	for	thousands	in	the	Denver	

metro	area	seeking	a	one‐day	“top	of	the	Rockies”	

experience.	

The	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway	provides	

outstanding	opportunities	for	scenic	driving	and	

year‐round	access	to	backcountry	recreational	

opportunities.	Recreational	use	is	particularly	

concentrated	at	GP	during	the	summer	months.	The	

area	has	two	main	parking	areas	with	bathroom	

facilities,	including	the	“Lower	Lot”	with	48	spaces,	

and	the	“Upper	Lot”	with	58	spaces	(Figure	4).	The	

parking	lots	at	GP	provide	trailhead	access	to	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness	to	the	east	of	GP	and	the	

Square	Top	Mountain	area	to	the	west.	

The	most	popular	recreation	destination	accessed	

via	the	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway	is	Mount	

Bierstadt,	one	of	the	most	easily	accessible	14,000’+	

peaks	in	Colorado.	The	Mount	Bierstadt	trail	

provides	recreationists	with	a	moderate	hike	to	the	

summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	totaling	less	than	seven	

miles	for	a	round‐trip	day	hike.	The	Upper	and	Lower	parking	lots	mentioned	above	serve	as	the	

parking	areas	for	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trailhead.	

Mount Evans Recreation Area

MERA	is	located	approximately	70	miles	southwest	of	the	Denver	Metropolitan	area,	and	28	miles	

southwest	of	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado.	Primary	access	to	MERA	is	from	I‐70	via	Idaho	Springs	and	

Colorado	Highway	103	to	the	intersection	of	Colorado	Highway	5	and	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	

The	entrance	gate	to	MERA	(hereafter	referred	to	as	the	“Welcome	Station”)	is	situated	at	the	base	

of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	which	travels	from	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	14	miles	to	the	

summit	of	Mount	Evans	(Figure	0‐5).	The	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	14,264	feet	in	elevation,	

making	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	the	highest	elevation	paved	road	in	North	America.	The	entire	

route	from	Idaho	Springs	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	designated	as	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	

and	Historic	Byway.	

Figure 0‐4. Guanella Pass Scenic Byway study area

map.
11

Figure 0‐5. Mount Evans Recreation Area study area map.

The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	location	within	both	the	ARNF	and	Pike	and	San	Isabel	National	

Forests,	and	is	bordered	on	either	side	by	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	Area	(Figure	0‐5).	The	

Mount	Evans	Highway	is	open	seasonally	depending	on	weather	and	road	conditions,	roughly	

between	Memorial	Day	and	the	first	weekend	in	October.	The	road	beyond	Summit	Lake	is	closed	

on	the	Tuesday	after	Labor	Day.	Visitor	use	in	MERA	is	concentrated	within	three	main	recreation	

areas	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	including:	

1. Mount	Goliath	Research	Natural	Area,	which	has	parking	for	16	vehicles,	provides	access	to	

the	Alpine	Interpretive	Garden,	Dos	Chappell	Nature	Center,	universally	accessible	nature	

trails,	and	the	M.	Walter	Pesman	Trail.	

2. Summit	Lake	Park,	National	Natural	Landmark,	which	has	parking	for	45	vehicles,	provides	

access	to	the	Summit	via	Lake	Trail	and	Chicago	Lakes	Trail,	rock	climbing,	fishing,	and	

interpretive	programs	at	the	Shelter	House.	
12

3. Mount	Evans	summit	area,	which	has	parking	for	38	vehicles,	offers	panoramic	views,	

interpretive	programs	on	the	summit	and	at	the	Crest	House,	wildlife	viewing,	and	a	short	

trail	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	

The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	a	steep,	narrow	roadway	providing	driving	access	to	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans.	The	outstanding	scenic	views	from	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	combined	with	the	

physical	condition	of	the	roadway,	are	sources	of	concern	among	visitors	and	USFS	managers	about	

visitors’	safety	while	driving	on	the	roadway.	Furthermore,	the	Mount	Evans	“ride”	has	become	an	

increasingly	popular	challenge	for	thousands	of	bicyclists	who	mix	with	heavily‐congested	

vehicular	traffic	along	the	roadway.	Accidents	involving	bicyclists	have	occurred	in	recent	years,	

increasing	the	salience	of	resolving	traffic	and	visitor	safety	issues	along	the	roadway.	
13

Chapter 1:BRAINARD LAKE RECREATION AREA SUMMARY OF DATA

FINDINGS
14

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use, Winter

2011‐2012

During	winter	2012,	RSG	and	Colorado	State	University	(CSU)	conducted	a	field	study	and	data	

collection	effort	in	BLRA.	The	purpose	of	the	study	was	to	collect	transportation	and	visitor	use	

data	during	the	area’s	peak	winter	visitation	period,	from	December	15th	through	April	1st.	The	

following	data	were	collected	at	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	during	winter	2012:	

 Vehicle	traffic	volumes	

 Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	rates	at	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	area	

 Visitor	use	counts	on	Brainard	Lake	Road,	Left	Hand	Park	Reservoir	Road,	and	the	winter	

use	trails	

 GPS‐based	tracking	of	visitor	use	patterns	in	the	study	area	

This	section	of	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	

summary	of	the	winter	2012	data	collection	effort	at	BLRA	and	results.	This	section	is	organized	

into	subsections	that	describe	the	data	collection	methods	and	statistical	results	for	each	of	the	

types	of	data	listed	above.	

Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	(BLRA)	is	a	popular	winter	recreation	area	for	both	local	and	out	of	

town	visitors.	During	the	winter	months,	the	road	is	plowed	from	Ward	to	the	BLRA	entrance	gate.	

While	the	entrance	gate	remains	closed	throughout	the	winter,	recreationists	can	park	in	the	

Entrance	Portal	parking	lot,	which	is	a	141	space	parking	facility	with	bathrooms	and	a	warming	

hut	(Figure	1‐1	and	Figure	1‐2).	

Figure 1‐1. Aerial view of BLRA entrance gate and

Entrance Portal parking lot (summer).

Figure 1‐2. BLRA Entrance Portal parking lot

(winter).

From	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot,	recreationists	can	snowshoe,	ski,	or	hike	in	BLRA	along	

Brainard	Lake	Road,	Lefthand	Reservoir	Road,	and/or	a	number	of	winter	recreation	trails.	

Recreationists	can	also	enter	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	using	the	winter	trail	system	in	BLRA	

(Figure	1‐3).	

Warming Hut

Winter Gate Closure

Restroom
15

Figure 1‐3. Brainard Lake Recreation Area, winter trail system.

Vehicle Traffic Volumes

Data Collection Method

 Vehicle	traffic	data	were	

recorded	with	an	Automatic	

Traffic	Recorder	(ATR)	on	

Brainard	Lake	Road,	east	of	

the	Entrance	Portal	parking	

area	and	fee	station	(see	

Figure	1‐4	and	Figure	1‐5).	

 The	ATR	recorded	inbound	

and	outbound	vehicle	traffic	

counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	

hours	per	day	from	December	

15th,	2011	through	April	1st,	

2012.	

 Field	staff	conducted	vehicle	traffic	volume	counts	via	direct	observation	at	the	ATR	

location	on	nine	weekend	days	throughout	the	winter	season.	The	direct	observation	counts	

were	used	to	correct	and	adjust	(i.e.,	calibrate)	the	raw	ATR	counts,	as	described	below.	

Figure 1‐4. ATR Location, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

ATR
16

Figure 1‐5. Approximate location of ATR, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Analysis and Results

Regression	analysis	was	conducted	to	estimate	correction	factors	for	the	hourly	vehicle	traffic	

volumes	recorded	by	the	ATR,	based	on	the	direct	observation	counts	of	hourly	vehicle	traffic	

volumes.	In	particular,	regression	models	were	estimated	with	the	direct	observation	counts	of	

hourly	vehicle	traffic	volumes	entered	as	the	dependent	variable	and	corresponding	hourly	traffic	

volumes	recorded	by	the	ATR	as	the	independent	variable.	Separate	models	were	estimated	for	

inbound	vehicle	traffic	and	outbound	vehicle	traffic.	

The	results	of	the	regression	models	suggest	there	are	strong	statistical	relationships	(R2	=	0.98)	

between	the	direct	observation	counts	and	ATR	counts	of	both	inbound	and	outbound	vehicle	

traffic	volumes	on	Brainard	Lake	Road.	Further,	the	parameter	estimates	for	the	regression	models	

were	statistically	significant	in	both	models.	These	results	provide	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	

applying	the	correction	factors	to	calibrate	the	vehicle	traffic	volumes	recorded	by	the	ATR	(i.e.,	

multiplying	the	ATR	counts	by	the	regression	model	parameter	estimates)	results	in	very	accurate	

estimates	of	inbound	and	outbound	vehicle	traffic	on	Brainard	Lake	Road.	

ATR
17

The	calibrated	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	are	reported	in	Figure	1‐6,	by	date	from	

December	15th,	2011	to	April	1st,	2012;	the	red	bars	in	the	figure	highlight	days	when	parking	

accumulation	and	turnover	data	were	collected	by	field	technicians.	

Figure 1‐6. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on BLRA Road, by date, winter 2011/2012.
18

The	calibrated	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volume	data	were	used	to	help	identify	a	“design	day”	for	

analysis	and	planning	that	represents	a	“typically	busy”	day	during	the	BLRA	winter	visitor	use	

season.	In	particular,	the	calibrated	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	were	organized	in	descending	

order,	from	the	busiest	day	(February	18,	2012)	to	the	least	busy	day	(February	22,	2012)	of	the	

study	period	(Figure	1‐7).	Potential	design	day	levels	are	depicted	with	horizontal	lines	positioned	

in	Figure	1‐7	at	the	85th,	90th,	and	95th	percentile	days	of	inbound	vehicle	traffic	during	the	study	

period.	

Figure 1‐7. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on BLRA Road, in descending order, winter 2011/2012.

Commonly,	the	85th	percentile	day	is	used	for	“conventional”	transportation	planning	and	

engineering.	If	the	85th	percentile	day	were	selected	as	the	design	day,	on	average,	less	than	15%	of	

the	days	during	a	“typical	winter	visitor	use	season”	would	exceed	what	was	planned	for	under	the	

design	day.	The	85th	percentile	day	is	arguably	less	suitable,	however,	for	transportation	planning	

in	parks	and	recreation	areas,	because	visitor	use	tends	to	be	temporally	concentrated.	To	further	

inform	the	selection	of	a	design	day	to	represent	a	typically	busy	winter	visitor	use	day	at	BLRA,	

RSG,	USFS,	and	FHWA	reviewed	estimates	of	the	percentage	of	BLRA	winter	season	visitors	that	

would	visit	BLRA	on	days	when	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	exceeded	design	day	

levels,	based	on	using	the	85th,	90th,	95th,	and	99th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	as	the	

design	day	(Table	1‐1).	It	should	be	noted	that	for	all	four	design	day	levels	considered,	100%	of	the	

days	above	the	design	day	level	of	visitor	use	were	weekend	days	or	holidays.	
19

Table 1‐1. Estimated percent of BLRA winter season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic, and

parking conditions in excess of design day conditions.

Day Rank Potential Design Day % of Visitors   Date

3rd Busiest Day 99th Percentile 6% 2/5/2012

7th Busiest Day 95th Percentile 17% 1/8/2012

12th Busiest Day 90th Percentile 28% 1/14/2012

18th Busiest Day 85th Percentile 39% 3/4/2012

A	review	and	discussion	by	RSG,	USFS,	and	FHWA	of	the	estimates	in	Table	1‐1	led	the	group	to	

conclude	that	the	85th	and	90th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	would	result	in	too	large	a	

proportion	of	winter	season	visitors	to	experience	conditions	beyond	those	planned	for	in	the	

feasibility	study	(39%	and	28%,	respectively).	The	RSG,	USFS,	and	FHWA	team	further	concluded	

that	the	95th	percentile	day	of	vehicle	traffic	would	allow	for	a	more	acceptable	proportion	of	BLRA	

winter	season	visitors	(83%)	to	experience	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	at	or	below	

design	day	levels.	The	group	noted	that	while	RSG	parking	data	collection	did	not	occur	on	the	95th

percentile	day	(7th	busiest	day	during	the	study	period),	parking	data	were	collected	on	the	10th

busiest	day	of	the	study	period,	and	total	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	differed	from	that	on	

the	95th	percentile	day	by	only	5	fewer	cars.	

Thus,	RSG,	USFS,	and	FHWA	selected	the	10th	busiest	day	of	the	study	period	(January	28th,	2012)	as	

the	BLRA	Winter	Visitor	Use	Season	Design	Day	for	analysis	and	planning	in	this	project.	As	

described,	this	decision	was	informed	and	substantiated	by	the	BLRA	vehicle	traffic	volume,	group	

size,	and	parking	data	collected	by	RSG	during	the	2011/2012	winter	visitor	use	season.	The	design	

day	is	used	as	a	reference	point	for	analyzing	most	of	the	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	

collected	at	BLRA	during	the	2011/2012	winter	visitor	use	season	and	reported	in	this	chapter.	

Arriving	and	departing	vehicles	on	the	design	day	are	displayed	in	Figure	1‐8.	The	ATR	also	

recorded	vehicle	speeds	and	vehicle	class,	as	defined	by	the	Federal	Highway	Administration.	The	

average	speed	observed	on	the	design	day	was	approximately	32	mph	on	the	section	of	road	where	

the	ATR	was	located,	and	the	85th	percentile	speed10	(often	used	for	traffic	safety	studies)	was	36	

mph.	All	of	the	vehicles	observed	on	the	design	day	were	classified	as	passenger	vehicles,	under	the	

FHWA	Scheme	F	classification.11

																																																													

10 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Sixth Edition. (2011) American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): Washington, DC. 11 Vehicle Classification Scheme F Report. (2011) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Washington, DC.
20

Figure 1‐8. Design day vehicle traffic volumes, by hour and direction of travel, Saturday, January 28,

2012.

Parking Accumulation & Turnover

Data Collection Method

 At	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	area,	a	license	

plate	recording	method	(Figure	1‐9)	was	used	

to	record:	

o An	hourly	count	of	parked	vehicles,	by	

location	(i.e.,	parking	accumulation)	

o The	amount	of	time	vehicles	were	parked,	

by	parking	lot	location	(i.e.,	parking	

turnover)	

 Parking	data	collection	was	conducted	from	

9:00	AM	to	5:00	PM	on	10	weekdays	and	12	

weekend	days	between	January	14th	and	April	

1st,	2012	(Figure	1‐10).	License	plates	were	

recorded	by	subarea	of	the	parking	lot,	and	by	

specific	parking	space.	

Figure 1‐9. Parking accumulation &

turnover data collection.
21

Figure 1‐10. BLRA Entrance Portal parking area parking turnover data collection map.
22

Analysis and Results

Figure	1‐11	displays	the	parking	accumulation	for	the	10th	busiest	day	of	the	2011/2012	winter	

visitor	use	season	(Saturday,	January	28,	2012),	which	was	selected	as	the	“design	day”	for	this	

study,	as	described	in	the	preceding	section.	The	design	day	peak	parking	accumulation	occurred	at	

noon	(86	vehicles),	and	reached	just	over	half	(61%)	of	the	capacity	of	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	

area;	there	was	no	roadside	parking	observed	at	anytime	during	the	day.	In	fact,	roadside	parking	

outside	of	the	designated	parking	area	was	observed	on	only	three	of	the	22	days	of	parking	data	

collection	during	the	2011/2012	winter	visitor	use	season.	Moreover,	on	two	of	the	three	days	

when	roadside	parking	was	observed,	visitors	chose	to	park	on	the	road,	even	though	there	were	

open	spaces	in	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot.	These	data	suggest	that	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	

lot	is	large	enough	to	accommodate	demand	(often	with	substantially	excess	parking	capacity)	

during	the	winter	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐11. Design day parking accumulation at the Entrance Portal parking lot, Saturday, January 28,

2012.

Figure	1‐12	is	a	graphical	display	of	the	parking	accumulation	at	distinct	time	periods	throughout	

the	morning,	afternoon,	and	early	evening	of	the	design	day.	The	graphics	in	Figure	1‐12	display	the	

spatial	pattern	by	which	visitors	use	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	area,	on	a	“typically	busy”	day	

during	the	winter	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA.	
23

	 	 9:00 AM: 21 vehicles, 15% full 11:00 AM: 79 vehicles, 56% full

12:00 PM (PEAK): 86 vehicles, 61% full

	 	 3:00 PM: 41 vehicles, 29% full 5:00 PM: 13 vehicles, 9% full

Figure 1‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Entrance Portal parking area, Saturday, January 28,

2012.

The	license	plate	recording	method	was	also	used	to	record	turnover	rates	for	vehicles	parked	in	

the	Entrance	Portal	parking	area.	Data	were	recorded	every	hour,	therefore,	parking	turnover	rates	

(i.e.,	the	duration	of	time	vehicles	are	parked	in	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot)	are	estimated	in	

hourly	bins.	On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot	for	approximately	

Location of parked

vehicles
24

three	hours	(Table	1‐2).	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	average	duration	of	time	

vehicles	parked	in	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot	on	weekends	versus	weekdays,	nor	were	there	

differences	in	the	turnover	rate	for	different	subareas	of	the	parking	lot	(F	=	1.677,	p	=	0.124).	

(Table	1‐2	and	Figure	1‐13).	There	were	differences	in	parking	duration,	however,	based	on	the	

time	of	day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	‐10.268,	p	<0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	before	11:00	

AM	(mean	=	4.1	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	

11:00	AM	(mean	=	2.2	hour).	

Table 1‐2. Visitor parking duration in Entrance Portal parking lot, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Hours Parked Weekday Weekend Overall

1 ‐ <2 12% 14% 13%

2 ‐ <3 26% 25% 25%

3 ‐ <4 35% 30% 31%

4 ‐ <5 15% 19% 18%

5 ‐ <6 7% 7% 7%

6 ‐ <7 2% 2% 2%

7 ‐ <8 0% 0% 0%

8 ‐ <9 0% 0% 0%

9 4% 3% 3%

Average 3.1 3.0 3.0

t‐test t = 0.335 ‐  p‐value p = 0.738

Figure 1‐13. Visitor parking duration in Entrance Portal parking lot, BLRA winter 2011/2012.
25

Finally,	93%	of	all	license	plates	recorded	as	part	of	the	parking	data	collection	effort	were	

Colorado	license	plates;	this	finding	suggests	the	vast	majority	of	visitors	to	BLRA	during	the	winter	

visitor	use	season	are	residents	of	the	state	of	Colorado,	though	some	Colorado	license	plates	that	

were	observed	may	have	been	on	rental	cars	driven	by	out‐of‐state	visitors.	

Visitor Use Counts

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	with	infrared	

trail	counters	(Figure	1‐14)	located	on	Brainard	

Lake	Road,	Lefthand	Reservoir	Road,	and	

selected	winter	use	trails	in	BLRA.	

 The	infrared	trail	counters	recorded	visitor	use	

counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	day	during	

the	winter	peak	season,	from	January	15,	2012	

through	April	1,	2012.	

 The	locations	of	the	infrared	trail	counters	used	

to	record	visitor	use	data	during	the	study	

period	are	depicted	in	Figure	1‐15.	The	visitor	

use	counting	locations	were	selected	in	consultation	with	USFS	staff	and	capture	all	of	the	

visitor	use	access	points	into	BLRA.	

 Field	staff	conducted	visitor	use	counts	via	direct	observation	at	each	of	the	infrared	trail	

counter	locations,	for	a	minimum	of	15	hours	at	each	trail	counter	location.	The	direct	

observation	counts	were	used	to	correct	and	adjust	(i.e.,	calibrate)	the	raw	infrared	trail	

counter	data.	

Figure 1‐14. Trail counter setup, Sourdough

Trail‐North Section.
26

Figure 1‐15. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, BLRA

winter 2011/2012.

Analysis and Results

Regression	analyses	were	conducted	with	the	direct	observation	counts	of	visitor	use	and	

corresponding	infrared	trail	counter	data	to	estimate	correction	factors	for	the	infrared	trail	

counter	data.	Regression	results	suggest	there	are	strong	statistical	relationships	(R2	values	ranging	

from	0.88	to	0.97)	between	the	direct	observation	counts	and	visitor	use	counts	recorded	by	the	

infrared	trail	counters.	Further,	the	parameter	estimates	for	the	regression	models	were	

statistically	significant	in	all	cases.	These	results	provide	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	applying	

the	correction	factors	to	calibrate	the	visitor	use	counts	recorded	with	the	infrared	trail	counters	

(i.e.,	multiplying	the	infrared	trail	counter	data	by	the	corresponding	parameter	estimates	from	the	

regression	models)	results	in	very	accurate	estimates	of	visitor	use	on	the	roads	and	trails	in	BLRA.	

The	calibrated	trail	counter	data	were	used	for	analysis	and	results	reported	in	this	chapter.	
27

The	Brainard	Lake	Road	was	the	most	popular	point	of	entry	into	BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012,	

with	an	average	of	23	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	over	100	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	

weekend	days	(Figure	1‐16).	The	Sourdough	Trail	(north	section),	CMC	Trail,	and	Lefthand	

Reservoir	Road	were	all	about	equally	popular	points	of	entry	into	BLRA,	with	an	average	of	about	

10	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	roughly	45	visitors	per	day	on	weekend	days.	Visitors	

were	less	likely	to	use	the	Brainard	Lake	Snowshoe	Trail	as	a	point	of	entry	into	BLRA,	but	still	

received	an	average	of	5	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	about	20	visitor	arrivals	per	day	

on	weekends.	Similarly,	the	Sourdough	Trail‐South	Section	received	an	average	of	about	5	visitors	

per	day	on	weekdays,	but	an	average	of	only	about	10	visitors	per	day	on	weekends.	Generally,	

trails	in	the	study	area	received	nearly	four	times	more	visitor	use	on	weekend	days	than	on	

weekdays.	

Figure 1‐16. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak

vehicle accumulation, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	11	

Avg. Weekend = 48

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	6	

Avg. Weekend = 11

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	23	

Avg. Weekend = 114

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	10	

Avg. Weekend = 42

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	10	

Avg. Weekend = 44

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	5	

Avg. Weekend = 21

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Avg.	Weekday	=	13	

Avg. Weekend = 80
28

Figure	1‐17	reports	calibrated	visitor	use	counts	for	the	design	day	(Saturday,	January	28,	2012),	by	

trailhead	location.	Visitor	use	on	the	design	day	was	distributed	across	the	trailhead	locations	

consistently	with	the	seasonal	averages	reported	in	Figure	1‐16;	however,	as	expected,	the	design	

day	volumes	of	visitor	use	were	higher	than	seasonal	averages	on	all	of	the	trails	(except	the	

Sourdough	Trail‐South	Section).	

Figure 1‐17. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation (Saturday,

January 28, 2012).
29

Figure	1‐18	graphs	the	design	day	hourly	visitor	use	(inbound	direction),	by	trailhead.	The	

temporal	pattern	of	visitor	use	throughout	the	day	is	generally	consistent	across	trailheads,	though	

Brainard	Lake	Road,	the	CMC	Trail,	and	the	Brainard	Lake	Snowshoe	Trail	sustain	longer	peaks	of	

inbound	visitor	use	than	the	other	trailheads.	

Figure 1‐18. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Saturday, January 28, 2012).

During	the	winter	2011/2012	study	period	(mid‐January	through	March,	2012),	monthly	visitor	

use	during	the	study	period	was	highest	in	February,	2012,	and	at	its	lowest	during	March,	2012	

(Table	1‐3).	It	should	be	noted,	by	the	second	half	of	March,	2012,	there	had	been	substantial	

snowmelt	in	BLRA12,	at	which	point	visitors	tended	to	use	the	area	less	for	winter	recreation	(i.e.,	

snowshoeing	and	skiing),	and	more	for	hiking.	In	fact,	by	the	end	of	March,	some	cyclists	were	

observed	on	Brainard	Lake	Road.	

Table 1‐3. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Sourdough

Trail (N)

Brainard

Lake Road

Brainard Lake

Snowshoe Trail

Left Hand Park

Reservoir Road

Sourdough

Trail (S)

CMC

Trail

Monthly

Total

January a 735 1,733 400 789 204 729 4,588

February 782 1,748 400 596 376 751 4,652

March 476 1,107 151 420 73 378 2,605

Overall 1,993 4,588 950 1,804 654 1,857 11,845

a Visitor use during first half of January, 2012 estimated using regression model of vehicle traffic and trail use

data.

																																																													

12 By the end of March, 2012, the snowpack was reported to be 52% of average by the Colorado Natural Resources

Conservation Service.
30

Visitor Use Tracking

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	patterns	were	

measured	using	GPS‐based	

tracking	(Figure	1‐19).	GPS	units	

were	administered	to	visitor	

groups	at	the	Entrance	Portal	

parking	lot	at	the	start	of	their	

visit	to	BLRA.	Visitors	were	

asked	to	carry	the	GPS	unit	while	

recreating	in	the	area,	and	return	

the	unit	at	the	end	of	their	visit	to	

BLRA.	Visitors	were	instructed	to	

use	a	locked	drop	box	to	return	

their	GPS	units,	if	they	returned	

to	the	Entrance	Portal	parking	lot	

after	data	collection	staff	had	left	the	study	area	for	the	day.	

 GPS	units	were	administered	on	8	weekend	days,	and	9	weekdays	from	January	14,	2012	–	

March	21,	2012	(Table	1‐4).	

 GPS	administration	was	discontinued	after	March	21	due	to	poor	snow	conditions	—	it	was	

determined	that	recreational	use	of	the	area	was	no	longer	typical	winter	use,	but	had	

transitioned	into	the	shoulder	season	between	winter	and	spring.	

 On	each	data	collection	day,	GPS	units	were	administered	to	visitors	from	9	AM	to	

approximately	2	PM,	and	collected	from	visitors	from	9	AM	to	approximately	5	PM.	

 Overall,	479	visitor	groups	were	contacted	and	463	GPS	units	were	administered	to	visitor	

groups	during	the	2011/2012	winter	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA,	resulting	in	a	97%	response	

rate	for	the	GPS‐tracking	study	(Table	1‐4).	

 For	each	visitor	group	that	participated	in	the	GPS‐tracking	study,	data	collection	staff	

recorded	the	group’s	activity	as	one	of	three	types:	1)	snowshoeing;	2)	skiing;	and	3)	

walking/hiking.	This	information	was	used	to	summarize	some	aspects	of	the	GPS‐tracking	

study	results	by	activity	type.	

 Algorithms	were	developed	to	process	the	GPS	tracks	and	eliminate	cases	with	more	than	15‐

minutes	of	missing	data	(primary	causes	of	missing	data	included	poor	satellite	reception	

and/or	equipment	malfunction).	For	cases	with	less	than	15‐minutes	of	missing	data,	

interpolation	was	used	to	estimate	location	coordinates	to	populate	the	data	gaps.	The	

reduced,	“clean”	set	of	GPS	track	data	were	used	to	analyze	and	model	visitor	use	patterns	in	

BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012.	

Figure 1‐19. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, BLRA winter

2011/2012.

GPS
31

Table 1‐4. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Date Weekend Count Refusals Response Rate

1/14/2012 Yes 47 1 98%

1/18/2012 No 7 0 100%

1/22/2012 Yes 40 1 98%

1/26/2012 No 19 0 100%

1/28/2012 Yes 39 0 100%

2/2/2012 No 6 0 100%

2/5/2012 Yes 69 0 100%

2/7/2012 No 13 4 76%

2/11/2012 Yes 78 1 99%

2/14/2012 No 17 0 100%

2/25/2012 Yes 47 2 96%

3/1/2012 No 10 0 100%

3/3/2012 Yes 26 1 96%

3/7/2012 No 10 2 83%

3/16/2012 No 13 2 87%

3/18/2012 Yes 17 2 89%

3/21/2012 No 5 0 100%

Overall    463 16 97%

Analysis and Results

On	both	weekend	days	and	weekdays,	a	majority	(55%)	of	visitor	groups	were	snowshoeing	in	

BLRA	on	the	day	they	participated	in	the	GPS‐tracking	study,	while	about	one‐third	(35%)	were	

cross‐country	skiing	(Table	1‐5).	A	small	percentage	(8%)	of	visitor	groups	hiked	(without	

snowshoes)	in	BLRA.	

Table 1‐5. Visitor activity type, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Weekday

(n=99)

Weekend

(n=365)

Overall

(n=464)

Snowshoe 43% 58% 55%

Cross‐country Ski 39% 37% 37%

Hike 17% 5% 8%

  χ2 = 15.477, p < 0.001   

Nearly	three‐quarters	(73%)	of	all	visitor	groups	were	in	groups	of	2‐4	people	during	their	visit	to	

BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012	(Table	1‐6);	however,	weekday	visitors	(26%)	were	more	likely	

than	weekend	visitors	(14%)	to	visit	BLRA	alone.	Visitor	groups	who	went	snowshoeing	or	hiked	

(mean	group	size	=	3	people)	tended	to	visit	BLRA	in	slightly	larger	groups	than	those	who	skied	

(mean	group	size	=	2	people),	and	skiers	(25%)	were	more	likely	than	snowshoeing	or	hiking	

visitors	(12%)	to	visit	BLRA	alone.	
32

Table 1‐6. Visitor group size, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Group Size

Weekday

(n=99)

Weekend

(n=365)

Overall

(n=464)

Snowshoe/Hike

(n=301)

XC Ski

(n=180)

1 person 26% 14% 16% 12% 25%

2 people 54% 51% 51% 52% 50%

3‐4 people 11% 25% 22% 24% 17%

5 or more people 9% 11% 11% 12% 8%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 14.451, p = 0.002 n/a  χ2 = 15.189, p = 0.002

Mean 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.4

The	vast	majority	(86%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week	or	type	of	activity,	traveled	to	

BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012	in	a	single	vehicle;	while	less	than	one‐fifth	(14%)	traveled	to	

BLRA	in	two	or	more	vehicles	(Table	1‐7).	

Table 1‐7. Number of vehicles per group, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Number of

Vehicles per Group

Weekday

(n=99)

Weekend

(n=365)

Overall

(n=464)

Snowshoe/Hike

(n=301)

XC Ski

(n=180)

1 vehicle 88% 85% 86% 86% 86%

2 vehicles 11% 10% 10% 9% 12%

3 vehicles 1% 4% 3% 4% 1%

4 or more vehicles 0% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 3.271, p = 0.352 n/a  χ2 = 5.334, p = 0.149

Mean 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Three‐quarters	(73%)	of	visitor	groups	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	1	to	2	people	per	vehicle.	

On	weekdays,	average	vehicle	occupancy	was	2.0	people	per	vehicle,	compared	to	a	weekend	

average	vehicle	occupancy	of	2.3	people	per	vehicle.	Visitor	groups	who	went	snowshoeing	or	hiked	

tended	to	have	higher	vehicle	occupancies	than	those	who	cross‐country	skied	(Table	1‐8).	

Table 1‐8. Vehicle occupancy rates, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Number of People

per Vehicle

Weekday

(n=99)

Weekend

(n=366)

Overall

(n=465)

Snowshoe/Hike

(n=292)

XC Ski

(n=172)

1 person 28% 15% 18% 13% 26%

2 people 56% 55% 55% 56% 55%

3‐4 people 12% 27% 24% 28% 17%

5 or more people 4% 2% 3% 3% 2%

Chi‐Square  χ2 = 16.236, p = 0.001   χ2 = 18.238, p < 0.001

Mean 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.0

Over	three‐quarters	(approximately	80%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week	or	type	of	

activity,	spent	two	or	more	hours	recreating	in	BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012	(Table	1‐9).	On	

average,	visitor	groups	spent	about	2.5	hours	snowshoeing,	cross‐country	skiing,	or	hiking	in	BLRA	

during	winter	2011/2012.	
33

Table 1‐9. Length of stay, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Travel Time

Weekday

(n=92)

Weekend

(n=336)

Overall

(n=428)

Snowshoe/Hike

(n=269)

XC Ski

(n=160)

<1 hour 4% 2% 3% 2% 4%

1 hour ‐ <2 hours 20% 16% 17% 20% 11%

2 hours ‐ <3 hours 35% 33% 33% 34% 32%

3 hours ‐ <4 hours 24% 26% 25% 25% 26%

4 or more hours 17% 23% 22% 19% 28%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 3.073, p = 0.546 n/a  χ2 = 10.483, p = 0.033

Mean (in minutes) 175.3 186.1 183.7 175.1 198.2

On	average,	visitor	groups	traveled	about	4.5	miles	on	snow‐covered	roads	and	trails	in	BLRA	

during	winter	2011/2012	(Table	1‐10).	Cross‐country	skiers	(mean	=	5.1	miles)	tended	to	cover	

more	ground	than	snowshoeing	visitors	(mean	=	4.2	miles),	with	about	one‐third	(35%)	of	cross‐

country	skiers	covering	6	or	more	miles	during	their	visit.	

Table 1‐10. Miles traveled during snowshoe/hike/ski, BLRA winter 2011/2012.

Trip Length

Weekday Weekend Overall Snowshoe/Hike Ski

(n=49) (n=165) (n=239) (n=131) (n=83)

<1 ‐ <2 miles 2% 9% 9% 8% 6%

2 ‐ <3 miles 8% 10% 10% 11% 6%

3 ‐ <4 miles 27% 18% 21% 24% 13%

4 ‐ <5 miles 33% 26% 26% 34% 17%

5 ‐ <6 miles 8% 19% 16% 13% 23%

6 ‐ <7 miles 18% 10% 10% 5% 23%

7+ miles 4% 9% 7% 5% 12%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 11.330, p = 0.079 n/a  χ2 = 30.458, p < 0.001

Mean 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 5.1

“Heat	maps”	are	included	to	provide	precise	information	about	the	spatial	characteristics	of	winter	

visitor	use	at	BLRA	(i.e.,	where	visitor	use	is	most	concentrated,	and	where	there	is	less	intensive	or	

no	visitor	use).	Generally,	the	information	contained	in	visitor	use	heat	maps	can	inform	

transportation	planning	by	identifying	locations	within	a	recreation	area	with	high	visitor	demand	

that	might	benefit	from	improved	transportation	services	and	facilities.	Moreover,	heat	maps	help	

identify	low	use	locations	to	which	visitor	use	could	potentially	be	dispersed	(using	ITS,	trail	

improvements,	etc.)	to	alleviate	congestion	in	areas	that	experience	excessive	traffic,	parking	

congestion,	crowding,	and/or	resource	impacts.	

The	heat	map	in	Figure	1‐20	depicts	the	relative	intensity	of	visitor	use	throughout	the	trail	and	

snow‐covered	road	network	in	BLRA	during	winter	2011/2012.	The	heat	map	is	derived	from	the	

GPS	track	data,	with	“cooler	colors”	(i.e.,	green	shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	and	road	

network	with	relatively	low	concentrations	of	visitor	use,	and	“hotter	colors”	(i.e.,	yellow	and	red	

shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	and	road	network	with	relatively	high	concentrations	of	

visitor	use.	For	example,	the	“hotter	color	tones”	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	suggest	this	is	one	of	the	

more	heavily	traveled	segments	of	the	overall	trail	and	road	network	in	BLRA.	
Figure 1‐20. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012.
35

Activity‐specific	heat	maps	are	depicted	in	Figure	1‐21	and	Figure	1‐22,	and	are	derived	from	the	

GPS	tracks	of	snowshoeing/hiking	routes	and	cross‐country	skiing	routes,	respectively.	The	overall	

pattern	of	visitor	use	in	the	activity‐specific	heat	maps	are	very	similar	to	that	in	the	overall	heat	

map	in	Figure	1‐20.	However,	the	activity‐specific	heat	maps	do	suggest	some	differences	in	visitor	

use	patterns	based	on	activity	type.	In	particular,	snowshoeing	and	hiking	visitors	are	generally	

concentrated	more	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	Brainard	Lake	Snowshoe	Trail,	while	cross‐

country	skiers	tend	to	be	more	concentrated	on	the	Waldrop	and	CMC	Trails.	In	addition,	the	

activity‐specific	heat	maps	suggest	that	cross‐country	skiing	routes	extend	further	out	from	the	

Entrance	Portal	parking	lot	than	snowshoeing	and	hiking	routes.	For	example,	GPS	tracks	of	cross‐

country	skiing	routes	include	the	Wapiti	Trail/Sourdough	Trail‐North	Section	loop	and	more	

southerly	sections	of	the	Sourdough	Trail‐South	Section.	
Figure 1‐21. Heat map of GPS‐based snowshoeing and hiking tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012.
Figure 1‐22. Heat map of GPS‐based cross‐country skiing tracks, BLRA winter 2011/2012.
38

The	above	heat	maps	provide	a	composite	view	of	winter	visitor	use	patterns	in	BLRA.	Additional	

analysis	of	the	GPS	tracks	was	conducted	to	summarize	and	map	the	relative	popularity	of	

particular	routes	or	subsets	of	routes	in	BLRA.	Each	GPS	track	was	visually	inspected	and	

categorized	into	one	of	several	unique	routes	or	“route	groupings”	distinguished	based	on	the	

trail(s)	and	destinations	encompassed	by	the	GPS	track.	

Three‐quarters	(76%)	of	all	GPS	tracks	could	be	categorized	into	one	of	eight	route	groupings,	

which	are	depicted	and	given	descriptive	names	in	Figure	1‐23	through	Figure	1‐30.	Half	(50%)	of	

all	the	GPS	tracks	were	assigned	to	route	groupings	that	included	travel	on	some	combination	of	

Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	directly	surrounding	trails	(i.e.,	Brainard	Lake	Snowshoe	Trail,	

Waldrop	Trail,	and	CMC	Trail)	all	or	part	of	the	way	to	Brainard	Lake	(Figure	1‐23,	Figure	1‐24,	

Figure	1‐26,	and	Figure	1‐28).	About	10%	of	the	GPS	tracks	followed	routes	on	Left	Hand	Park	

Reservoir	Road	all	or	part	of	the	way	to	Left	Hand	Reservoir	(Figure	1‐27);	similarly,	just	over	10%	

of	the	GPS	tracks	followed	routes	on	the	Sourdough	Trail	(North	or	South	Section;	Figure	1‐25).	

Very	few	GPS	tracks	extended	beyond	Brainard	Lake	to	the	Niwot/Pawnee	Trails	(4%;	Figure	1‐29)	

or	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trail	(2%;	Figure	1‐30).	Snowshoeing	visitors	were	more	likely	than	cross‐

country	skiers	to	travel	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	Left	Hand	Park	Reservoir	Road.	

Approximately	one‐quarter	(24%)	of	the	GPS	tracks	collected	during	the	study	covered	routes	that	

were	not	sufficiently	similar	to	other	GPS	tracks	to	be	grouped	into	a	route	category.	These	“other”	

routes	were	generally	longer	trips,	in	terms	of	both	time	and	distance,	and	tended	to	be	those	of	

cross‐country	skiers,	rather	than	visitor	groups	who	were	snowshoeing	or	hiking	in	BLRA.	An	

example	of	such	a	route	is	depicted	in	(Figure	1‐31),	and	follows	the	Sourdough	Trail‐North	Section	

to	the	South	St.	Vrain	Trail,	and	from	there	to	the	Little	Raven	Trail,	before	returning	to	the	

Entrance	Portal	parking	lot	via	Left	Hand	Park	Reservoir	Road.	
39

Figure 1‐23. Route Grouping #1: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake.
40

Figure 1‐24. Route Grouping #2: Brainard Lake Snowshoe Trail, Waldrop Trail, and/or CMC Trail to

Brainard Lake.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 16%	 17%	 15%	

Min Max Mean
41

Figure 1‐25. Route Grouping #3: Sourdough Trail (North or South Section), including a subset that uses

Wapiti Trail.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 12%	 12%	 12%	

Min Max Mean
42

Figure 1‐26. Route Grouping #4: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails part of the way to

Brainard Lake.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 9%	 14%	 3%	

Min Max Mean
43

Figure 1‐27. Route Grouping #5: Left Hand Park Reservoir Road all or part of the way to Left Hand

Reservoir.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 9%	 10%	 6%	

Min Max Mean
44

Figure 1‐28. Routing Group #6: Brainard Lake Snowshoe Trail, Waldrop Trail, and/or CMC Trail part of

the way to Brainard Lake.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 8%	 8%	 10%	

Min Max Mean
45

Figure 1‐29. Route Grouping #7: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake and

Niwot and/or Pawnee Trails.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 4%	 3%	 4%	

Min Max Mean
46

Figure 1‐30. Route Grouping #8: Brainard Lake Road and directly surrounding trails to Brainard Lake and

Mitchell Lake Trail.

All

Tracks

Snowshoe

/Hike Ski

% of Visitor

Groups 2%	 2%	 3%	

Min Max Mean
47

Figure 1‐31. Example of “other” route, not included in one of the eight route groupings.

Track Distance 7.2	–	7.5	miles*	

Track Time 2.9	–	6.6	hours*	

					*Completed	by	2	visitor	groups	
48	

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use,

Summer 2013

During	summer	2013,	RSG	conducted	a	field	study	and	data	collection	effort	in	BLRA.	The	purpose	of	

the	study	was	to	collect	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	during	the	area’s	peak	summer	visitation	

period,	 from	 June	 12th	 through	 September	 3rd.	 The	 following	 data	were	 collected	 at	 BLRA	 during	

summer	2013:	

 Vehicle	traffic	volumes	

 Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	rates	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead,	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use,	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead,	Long	Lake	Trailhead,	and	Red	Rock	Parking	Lots,	as	well	as	along	the	

roadside	

 Visitor	use	counts	on	the	Long	Lake,	Niwot	Cutoff,	Mitchell	Lake,	Beaver	Creek,	and	Lake	

Isabelle	Trails	

 GPS‐based	tracking	of	visitor	use	patterns	in	the	study	area	

This	section	of	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	

summary	of	the	summer	2013	data	collection	effort	at	BLRA	and	results.	This	section	is	organized	

into	subsections	that	describe	the	data	collection	methods	and	statistical	results	for	each	of	the	data	

types.	
49

Vehicle Traffic Volumes

Data Collection Method

 Vehicle	traffic	data	were	recorded	with	two	Automatic	Traffic	Recorders	(ATRs)	on	Brainard	

Lake	Road.	One	counter	(labeled	BLRA1	in	Figure	1‐32	and	Figure	1‐33)	was	located	east	of	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Lot	and	Courtesy	Station	near	the	USFS	boundary;	the	other	counter	

(labeled	BLRA2	in	Figure	1‐32)	was	located	just	west	of	the	Courtesy	Station.	

 The	ATRs	recorded	inbound	and	outbound	vehicle	traffic	counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	

day	from	June	12th,	2013	through	September	2nd,	2013.	

Figure 1‐32. Approximate location of ATRs on Brainard Lake Road, summer 2013.

   

Figure 1‐33. ATR setup on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), summer 2013.

ATR

“BLRA1”

ATR

“BLRA2”

ATR

“BLRA1”

ATR

“BLRA1”
50

Analysis and Results

Figure	1‐34	displays	average	daily	“inbound”	(i.e.,	traveling	eastbound	toward	Brainard	Lake)	

traffic	volumes	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	during	summer	2013,	by	counter	location	and	day	of	week	

category	(i.e.,	weekday,	weekend	day,	and	all	days	combined).	The	data	in	Figure	1‐34	suggest,	on	

average,	there	are	roughly	twice	as	many	vehicles	traveling	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	on	summer	

weekend	days	than	on	summer	weekdays.	The	data	in	Figure	1‐34	also	suggest	the	vast	majority	

(90%	overall)	of	inbound	vehicles	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	that	travel	past	BLRA1	pass	through	the	

BLRA	Courtesy	Station;	this	finding	is	one	indicator	that	relatively	few	BLRA	visitors	use	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	In	particular,	the	10%	of	inbound	vehicles	that	travel	past	BLRA1	

but	do	not	pass	through	the	BLRA	Courtesy	Station	could	have	done	one	of	three	things:	1)	park	at	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot;	2)	visited	Lefthand	Reservoir;	or	3)	turn	around	and	leave	the	

area	altogether.	The	traffic	data	further	suggest	that,	on	weekend	days,	a	slightly	larger	percentage	

of	vehicles	that	pass	BLRA1	stop	before	the	Courtesy	Station	(presumably	to	park	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	visit	Lefthand	Reservoir,	or	turn	around)	than	on	weekdays	(16%	on	

weekend	days,	compared	to	4%	on	weekdays).	The	weekend	versus	weekday	difference	is	likely	

due	to	the	fact	that	parking	lots	within	BLRA	rarely	filled	to	capacity	during	weekdays,	but	did	so	

regularly	on	weekends;	thus,	there	was	more	of	a	need	to	use	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	for	

overflow	parking	on	weekends	than	on	weekdays.	

Figure 1‐34. Average daily inbound vehicle traffic on Brainard Lake Road, by ATR location and day of

week category, summer 2013.

The	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	are	reported	in	Figure	1‐35,	by	date	from	June	25th,	2013	

to	September	2nd,	2013;	the	red	arrows	in	the	figure	highlight	days	when	parking	accumulation	and	

turnover	data	were	collected	by	field	technicians.	Due	to	a	technical	problem,	BLRA1	failed	to	
51

collect	traffic	volume	data	on	five	days	during	the	study	period	(August	13th	through	August	17th);	

these	missing	data	were	replaced	with	estimates	based	on	the	correlation	between	daily	inbound	

traffic	volumes	recorded	at	BLRA1	and	BLRA2.

Figure 1‐35. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1 and BLRA2), by date,

summer 2013.

As	noted,	all	BLRA	visitors	during	the	study	period	passed	BLRA1,	while	most,	but	not	all	BLRA	

visitors	drove	their	vehicles	past	BLRA2.	Therefore,	the	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volume	data	

recorded	at	BLRA1	provides	a	slightly	more	comprehensive	measure	of	BLRA	visitation,	and	were	

correspondingly	used	to	help	identify	a	“design	day”	for	analysis	and	planning	that	represents	a	

“typically	busy”	day	during	the	BLRA	summer	visitor	use	season.	In	particular,	the	inbound	vehicle	

traffic	volumes	recorded	at	BLRA1	were	organized	in	descending	order,	from	the	busiest	day	(July	

21,	2013)	to	the	least	busy	day	(June	13,	2013)	of	the	study	period	(Figure	1‐36).	Potential	design	

day	levels	are	depicted	with	horizontal	lines	positioned	in	Figure	1‐36	at	the	85th,	90th,	and	95th

percentile	days	of	inbound	vehicle	traffic	at	BLRA1	during	the	study	period.	
52

Figure 1‐36. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), in descending order,

summer 2013.

Commonly,	the	85th	percentile	day	is	used	for	“conventional”	transportation	planning	and	

engineering.	If	the	85th	percentile	day	were	selected	as	the	design	day,	on	average,	less	than	15%	of	

the	days	during	a	“typical	summer	visitor	use	season”	would	exceed	what	was	planned	for	under	

the	design	day.	The	85th	percentile	day	is	arguably	less	suitable,	however,	for	transportation	

planning	in	parks	and	recreation	areas,	because	visitor	use	tends	to	be	temporally	concentrated.	To	

further	inform	the	selection	of	a	design	day	to	represent	a	typically	busy	summer	visitor	use	day	at	

BLRA,	estimates	were	calculated	of	the	percentage	of	summer	season	visitors	that	would	visit	BLRA	

on	days	when	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	exceeded	design	day	levels,	based	on	using	

the	85th,	90th,	92nd,	95th,	and	99th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	as	the	design	day	(Table	

1‐11).	It	should	be	noted	that	for	all	five	design	day	levels	considered,	100%	of	the	days	above	the	

design	day	level	of	visitor	use	were	weekend	days	or	holidays.	

Table 1‐11. Estimated percent of BLRA summer season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic,

and parking conditions in excess of design day conditions.

Day Rank Potential Design Day % of Visitors   Date

2nd Busiest Day 99th Percentile 3% 9/2/2013

5th Busiest Day 95th Percentile 10% 8/10/2013

8th Busiest Day 92nd Percentile 16% 8/11/2013

10th Busiest Day 90th Percentile 20% 8/18/2013

14th Busiest Day 85th Percentile 28% 7/13/2013

Using	standards	developed	in	consultation	with	the	USFS	and	FHWA	to	assess	the	results	in	Table	

1‐11,	it	was	concluded	that	the	85th	and	90th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	would	result	
53

in	too	large	a	proportion	of	summer	season	visitors	to	experience	conditions	beyond	those	planned	

for	in	the	feasibility	study	(28%	and	20%,	respectively).	It	was	concluded	that	the	92nd	percentile	

day	of	vehicle	traffic	would	allow	for	a	more	acceptable	proportion	of	BLRA	summer	season	visitors	

(84%)	to	experience	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	at	or	below	design	day	levels.	

Thus,	the	8th	busiest	day	of	the	study	period	(August	11th,	2013)	was	selected	as	the	BLRA	Summer	

Visitor	Use	Season	Design	Day	for	analysis	and	planning	in	this	project.	As	described,	this	decision	

was	informed	and	substantiated	by	the	BLRA	vehicle	traffic	volume,	group	size,	and	parking	data	

collected	by	RSG	during	the	2013	summer	visitor	use	season.	The	design	day	is	used	as	a	reference	

point	for	analyzing	most	of	the	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	collected	at	BLRA	during	the	

2013	summer	visitor	use	season	and	reported	in	this	memo.	

Arriving	and	departing	vehicles	on	the	design	day	are	displayed	in	Figure	1‐37	(BLRA1)	and	Figure	

1‐38	(BLRA2).	The	arriving	and	departing	vehicle	traffic	data	in	Figure	1‐37	and	Figure	1‐38	

suggest	visitors	begin	arriving	in	BLRA	during	the	early	morning	hours;	the	number	of	arrivals	

grows	sharply	from	6:00	AM	through	the	morning	hours,	and	reaches	its	peak	around	10:00	AM.	

The	traffic	data	further	suggest	that	visitors	begin	departing	from	BLRA	in	substantive	numbers	

beginning	around	10:00	AM,	and	departures	exceed	arrivals	from	approximately	11:00	AM	through	

the	end	of	the	day.	

Figure 1‐37. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA1), by hour and direction of

travel, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.
54

Figure 1‐38. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Brainard Lake Road (BLRA2), by hour and direction of

travel, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.

The	ATRs	also	recorded	vehicle	class,	as	defined	by	FHWA,	the	results	of	which	are	summarized	in	

Table	1‐12.13	Nearly	all	of	the	vehicles	recorded	on	the	design	day	at	BLRA1	(92%)	and	at	BLRA2	

(91%)	were	classified	as	passenger	vehicles;	very	few	were	classified	as	motorcycles	(1%	at	each	

ATR	location)	or	heavy	trucks	or	buses	(5%	at	BLRA1	and	6%	at	BLRA2).	A	very	small	percentage	

of	vehicles	at	BLRA1	and	BLRA2	were	of	unknown	classification	(3%	and	2%,	respectively).	

Table 1‐12. FHWA classification of vehicles at BLRA, by ATR location, summer 2013.

ATR Location Motorcycle

Passenger

Vehicles

Heavy

Truck/Bus Unknown

USFS Boundary (BLRA1) 1% 92% 5% 3%

Inside Courtesy Station (BLRA2) 1% 91% 6% 2%

																																																													

13 Vehicle Classification Scheme F Report. (2011) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Washington, DC.
55

Parking Accumulation & Turnover

Data Collection Method

 A	license	plate	recording	method	(Figure	1‐39)	

was	used	in	designated	parking	lots	and	in	

undesignated	roadside	parking	locations	at	

BLRA	to	record:	

 An	hourly	count	of	parked	vehicles,	by	location	

(i.e.,	parking	accumulation).	

 The	amount	of	time	vehicles	were	parked,	by	

location	(i.e.,	parking	turnover).	

 Parking	data	collection	was	conducted	from	

7:00	AM	to	5:00	PM	on	7	weekdays,	10	weekend	

days,	and	1	holiday	between	August	2nd	and	

September	2nd,	2013.	License	plates	were	

recorded	by	subarea	of	the	designated	parking	

lots	and	roadside	parking	locations,	and	by	specific	parking	space	in	the	designated	lots.	

Analysis and Results

Summaries	of	hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	undesignated	

roadside	parking	areas	at	BLRA	are	reported	in	the	following	subsections	for	the	8th	busiest	day	of	

the	2013	summer	visitor	use	season	(Sunday,	August	11th,	2013),	which	was	selected	as	the	

“design	day”	for	this	study,	as	described	in	the	preceding	section.	Each	of	the	following	subsections	

also	includes	a	map	of	the	corresponding	parking	lot	or	undesignated	roadside	parking	area,	

including	the	subareas	by	which	the	parking	data	were	recorded.	The	subsections	are	organized	

according	to	the	sequence	in	which	the	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	filled	by	visitors	on	“typically	busy”	

summer	days,	starting	with	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	followed	by	

the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	and	then	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	and	finishing	up	

with	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

Long Lake and Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lots

As	noted,	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	provide	direct	access	to	the	IPW	

during	the	summer,	and	have	32	and	54	striped	parking	spaces,	respectively.	The	subareas	and	

parking	spaces	by	which	parking	data	were	collected	in	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	

Parking	Lots	are	represented	with	color	coding	in	Figure	1‐40	and	Figure	1‐41,	respectively.	As	

illustrated	in	Figure	1‐40	and	Figure	1‐41,	roadside	areas	were	included	among	the	subareas	for	

which	parking	data	were	recorded.	

Figure 1‐39. Parking accumulation &

turnover data collection at BLRA.
56

Figure 1‐40. Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.

Figure 1‐41. Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.

Figure	1‐42	displays	design	day	hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot.	As	depicted	in	Figure	1‐42,	the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	was	nearly	two‐thirds	(63%)	

full	when	the	first	parking	count	was	conducted	at	7:00	AM	on	the	design	day,	and	was	effectively	

full	from	8:00	AM	to	approximately	2:00	PM	(with	the	exception	of	a	small	number	of	handicap	and	

administrative	vehicle	parking	spaces	that	were	infrequently	occupied).	
57

Figure 1‐42. Design day parking accumulation in the Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

The	pattern	of	design	day	hourly	parking	accumulation	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

was	similar	to	that	in	the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(Figure	1‐43).	In	particular,	the	number	

of	cars	parked	in	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	reached	the	lot’s	capacity	by	8:00	AM,	and	

the	lot	remained	full	until	approximately	1:00	PM	(with	the	exception	of	a	small	number	of	

handicap	and	administrative	vehicle	parking	spaces	that	were	infrequently	occupied).	

Figure 1‐43. Design day parking accumulation in the Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.
58

Figure	1‐44	and	Figure	1‐45	are	graphical	displays	of	parking	accumulation	in	the	Long	Lake	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	respectively,	at	distinct	time	periods	throughout	the	morning	

and	afternoon	of	the	design	day.	As	depicted,	the	spaces	closest	to	the	trailheads	fill	first,	during	the	

7:00	AM	and	8:00	AM	hours.	By	9:00	AM,	both	trailhead	parking	lots	are	relatively	full,	except	for	a	

few	handicap	and	administrative	parking	spaces.	These	lots	then	remain	full	until	early	afternoon.	

No	visitors	were	observed	parking	along	the	roadside	at	either	location.	

7:00 AM: 21 vehicles, 66% full 9:00 AM: 29 vehicles, 91% full

12:00 PM: 29 vehicles, 91% full

	 	 2:00 PM: 26 vehicles, 81% full 5:00 PM: 19 vehicles, 59% full

Figure 1‐44. Design day parking accumulation in the Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

Location of parked

vehicles
59

7:00 AM: 17 vehicles, 31% full 9:00 AM: 53 vehicles, 98% full

12:00 PM: 50 vehicles, 93% full

	 	 2:00 PM: 41 vehicles, 76% full 5:00 PM: 19 vehicles, 35% full

Figure 1‐45. Design day parking accumulation in the Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

Location of parked

vehicles
60

The	parking	accumulation	data	reported	in	Figure	1‐42	through	Figure	1‐45	should	not	be	

interpreted	as	representing	the	total	parking	demand	for	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead	Parking	Lots.	In	particular,	parking	management	staff	at	BLRA	do	not	allow	vehicles	to	

drive	to	the	Long	Lake	or	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	once	they	are	full.	Rather,	once	the	

trailhead	parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	who	wish	to	hike	in	the	IPW	are	directed	to	park	in	the	Niwot	

Mountain	Parking	Lot	or	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	and	walk	from	there	to	the	IPW	

trailheads.	It	is	expected	that	without	parking	management	staff	onsite	at	BLRA,	a	substantial	

number	of	visitors	would	park	in	unendorsed	locations	in	the	trailhead	parking	lots	and	nearby	

roadside,	and	parking	accumulation	would	correspondingly	be	substantially	higher	than	the	

capacities	of	the	trailhead	parking	lots.

Niwot Mountain Parking Lot

As	noted,	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	is	located	a	relatively	short	distance	from	the	Long	Lake	

and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailheads,	providing	a	small	amount	of	overflow	parking	(16	parking	spaces)	

during	the	summer	for	visitors	destined	for	the	IPW.	Because	of	its	small	size,	the	Niwot	Mountain	

Parking	Lot	was	not	organized	into	subareas	for	data	collection;	rather,	parking	data	were	collected	

by	parking	space	in	the	lot	and	for	subareas	along	the	nearby	roadside,	as	denoted	in	Figure	1‐46.	

Figure 1‐46. Niwot Mountain Parking Lot and nearby roadside parking accumulation and turnover data

collection map.
61

Figure	1‐47	displays	design	day	hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot.	As	

depicted	in	Figure	1‐47,	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	filled	to	near	its	capacity	soon	after	the	

Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	filled	up,	and	remained	at	or	near	capacity	until	

2:00	PM.

Figure 1‐47. Design day parking accumulation in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th,

2013.

Results	of	the	parking	data	collection	suggest	virtually	no	overflow	parking	occurs	along	the	

shoulder	of	Brainard	Lake	Road.	This	is	attributable	to	the	fact	that	when	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	

lots	and	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	are	full,	traffic	management	staff	direct	visitors	to	the	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot.	It	is	expected	that,	if	visitors	were	allowed	to	drive	past	the	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	when	the	trailhead	and	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lots	are	full,	

overflow	parking	would	occur	on	Brainard	Lake	Road.	While	overflow	parking	generally	does	not	

occur	along	the	shoulder	of	Brainard	Lake	Road,	roadside	parking	does	occur	sporadically	

throughout	the	day	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	when	moose	are	sighted	along	the	south	side	of	

Brainard	Lake.	When	these	“moose	jams”	occur,	visitors	will	often	stop	their	vehicles	on	the	side	of	

the	road,	impacting	forest	resources,	or	in	the	middle	of	the	road,	causing	traffic	conflicts.	

Figure	1‐48	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	in	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	at	

distinct	time	periods	throughout	the	morning	and	afternoon	of	the	design	day.	As	depicted	in	Figure

1‐48,	visitors	fill	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	by	9:00	AM,	just	after	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	

Lake	Parking	Lots	fill.	The	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	remains	full	until	early	afternoon,	and	then	

remains	over	half	full	until	early	evening	(5:00	PM).	
62

7:00 AM: 6 vehicles, 38% full 9:00 AM: 15 vehicles, 94% full

12:00 PM: 13 vehicles, 81% full

2:00 PM: 10 vehicles, 63% full 5:00 PM: 9 vehicles, 56% full

Figure 1‐48. Design day parking accumulation in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th,

2013.

Location of parked

vehicles
63

Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot

As	noted,	there	is	a	roughly	200‐space	parking	lot	located	directly	east	of	Brainard	Lake	which	is	

intended	primarily	for	day	use	visitors.	The	lot	is	divided	into	two	sections,	including:	1)	the	Main	

Lot,	with	147	parking	spaces;	and	2)	the	Overflow	Parking	and	Large	Vehicle	Lot,	with	41	parking	

spaces,	including	4	spaces	designated	for	large	vehicles	(e.g.,	RV’s,	car	and	trailer,	etc.).	The	

subareas	and	parking	spaces	by	which	parking	data	were	collected	in	the	Main	Lot	and	Overflow	

Parking	and	Large	Vehicle	Lot	are	depicted	in	Figure	1‐49	and	Figure	1‐50,	respectively.	

Figure 1‐49. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot – Main Lot parking accumulation and turnover data

collection map.
64

Figure 1‐50. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot – Overflow Parking and Large Vehicle Lot parking

accumulation and turnover data collection map.

Figure	1‐51	and	Figure	1‐52	display	design	day	hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	Brainard	Lake	

Day	Use	Main	Lot	and	Overflow	Parking	and	Large	Vehicle	Lot,	respectively.	As	depicted	in	Figure	

1‐51,	parking	demand	was	near	or	at	capacity	in	the	Main	Lot	from	11:00	AM	to	2:00	PM.	Similarly,	

parking	demand	was	at	or	above	the	designated	parking	capacity	in	the	Overflow	Parking	and	Large	

Vehicle	Lot	during	the	three‐hour	period	from	11:00	AM	to	2:00	PM.	While	the	data	in	Figure	1‐52	

indicate	a	parking	shortage	in	the	Overflow	Parking	and	Large	Vehicle	Lot	during	the	peak	period	of	

the	design	day,	it	should	be	noted	parking	management	staff	directed	visitors	to	park	regularly	

sized	automobiles	in	designated	large	vehicle	spaces	during	the	peak	hours.	Thus,	vehicles	were	

parked	within	the	paved	footprint	of	the	lot,	but	not	according	to	the	striping	plan	for	the	lot;	this	

was	done	to	maximize	the	number	of	visitors	that	could	be	accommodated	in	the	lot	and	because	

there	was	generally	little	or	no	demand	for	large	vehicle	parking.	Together,	the	findings	in	Figure	

1‐51	and	Figure	1‐52	suggest	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	fills	to	its	capacity	and	beyond	

during	“typically	busy”	summer	days;	the	findings	also	suggest	parking	demand	begins	to	spike	in	

the	lot	during	the	9:00	AM	hour,	after	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	fill	to	

their	capacities.	
65

Figure 1‐51. Design day parking accumulation in the Main Lot of the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot,

Sunday, August 11th, 2013.

Figure 1‐52. Design day parking accumulation in the Overflow Parking and Large Vehicle Lot of the

Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.

Figure	1‐53	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	in	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	

at	distinct	time	periods	throughout	the	morning	and	afternoon	of	the	design	day.	The	spaces	closest	

to	the	bathrooms	fill	first,	during	the	9:00	AM	hour.	By	noon,	the	lot	is	completely	full,	and	standard	

sized	vehicles	fill	the	RV/large	vehicles	spaces,	per	direction	from	parking	management	staff.	The	

lot	starts	to	empty	during	the	early	afternoon	hours,	and	is	almost	completely	empty	by	5:00	PM.	
66

7:00 AM: 3 vehicles, 2% full 9:00 AM: 69 vehicles, 37% full

12:00 PM: 197 vehicles, 105% full

	 	 2:00 PM: 116 vehicles, 62% full 5:00 PM: 17 vehicles, 9% full

Figure 1‐53. Design day parking accumulation in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

Location of parked

vehicles
67

As	in	the	case	of	the	parking	accumulation	results	for	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	

Parking	Lots,	the	parking	accumulation	data	reported	in	Figure	1‐51	through	Figure	1‐53	should	

not	be	interpreted	as	representing	the	total	parking	demand	for	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	

Lot.	In	particular,	once	the	IPW	trailhead	and	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lots	are	full,	visitors	

are	stopped	at	the	Courtesy	Station	and	not	allowed	to	enter	BLRA	until	other	visitors	leave	and	

parking	spaces	become	available.	It	is	expected	that,	if	visitors	were	not	stopped	at	the	Courtesy	

Station	when	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	is	full,	a	substantial	number	of	visitors	would	

park	in	unendorsed	locations	in	the	parking	lot	and	nearby	roadside,	and	parking	accumulation	in	

and	around	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	would	correspondingly	be	substantially	higher	

than	the	lot’s	capacity.	

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

As	noted,	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	is	a	150‐space,	designated	parking	lot	located	just	east	

of	the	BLRA	Courtesy	Station.	The	subareas	and	parking	spaces	by	which	parking	data	were	

collected	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	are	depicted	in	Figure	1‐54.	

Figure 1‐54. Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.
68

Figure	1‐55	displays	design	day	hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

As	depicted	in	Figure	1‐55,	parking	demand	was	well	below	capacity	for	the	entire	day	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	and	at	its	peak	during	the	12:00	PM	hour,	parking	demand	was	just	

21%	of	the	lot’s	parking	capacity.	The	results	in	Figure	1‐55	suggest	there	is	more	than	adequate	

parking	capacity	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	accommodate	overflow	parking	on	

“typically	busy”	summer	days	in	BLRA.

Figure 1‐55. Design day parking accumulation in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

Figure	1‐56	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	

distinct	time	periods	throughout	the	morning	and	afternoon	of	the	design	day.	The	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	remains	relatively	empty	on	a	typically	busy	day	during	the	summer	visitor	

use	season.	During	the	peak	hour,	even	the	parking	spaces	closest	to	the	bathrooms	and	kiosk	are	

not	completely	full.	
69

7:00 AM: 11 vehicles, 8% full 9:00 AM: 15 vehicles, 11% full

12:00 PM: 29 vehicles, 21% full

	 	 2:00 PM: 21 vehicles, 15% full 5:00 PM: 10 vehicles, 7% full

Figure 1‐56. Design day parking accumulation in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Sunday, August

11th, 2013.

Location of parked

vehicles
70

Analysis and Results

Figure	1‐57	displays	the	parking	accumulation	in	BLRA,	by	location	and	overall,	for	the	design	day.	

The	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	filled	to	their	capacities	early	in	the	morning,	and	remained	full	or	

nearly	full	until	early	afternoon.	The	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	was	nearly	empty	during	

the	early	morning	hours,	but	filled	steadily	starting	around	8:00	AM,	once	the	Long	Lake	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	reached	their	capacities,	and	reached	its	capacity	by	noon.	

Parking	accumulation	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	remained	relatively	low	throughout	the	

entire	day,	reaching	its	peak	during	the	12:00	PM	hour,	at	which	time	the	parking	lot	was	only	

about	20%	full.	These	findings	suggest	that,	in	total,	there	is	sufficient	parking	capacity	at	BLRA	to	

meet	demand,	but	that	there	is	a	substantial	shortage	of	parking	where	visitors	would	like	to	park	

and	an	abundance	of	parking	located	where	visitors	do	not	choose	to	park	voluntarily.	

Figure 1‐57. Design day parking accumulation in BLRA, by location and overall, Sunday, August 11th,

2013.

As	noted,	the	license	plate	recording	method	was	also	used	to	record	turnover	rates	for	vehicles	

parked	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	roadside	parking	locations	in	BLRA.	Data	were	recorded	

every	hour,	therefore,	parking	turnover	rates	(i.e.,	the	duration	of	time	vehicles	are	parked	in	the	

parking	areas)	are	estimated	in	hourly	bins.	
71

There	were	no	statistical	differences	in	parking	duration	between	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead	Parking	Lots;	thus,	the	data	from	the	two	lots	have	been	combined	for	the	following	

analyses.	On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	trailhead	parking	lots	for	approximately	four	

hours	(Table	1‐13	and	Figure	1‐58).	There	was	not	a	significant	difference	in	the	average	duration	

of	time	vehicles	parked	in	the	trailhead	parking	lots	on	weekends	versus	weekdays	(t	=	0.021,	p	=	

0.984)	However,	there	was	a	significant	difference	in	parking	duration,	depending	on	the	time	of	

day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	17.674,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	at	the	trailhead	

parking	lots	before	10:00	AM	(mean	=	5.6	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	

those	who	arrived	after	10:00	AM	(mean	=	2.6	hours);	the	10:00	AM	cut	point	was	used	because	it	

provided	the	greatest	differentiation	between	visitor	groups,	based	on	parking	duration	and	sample	

sizes.	

Table 1‐13. Visitor parking duration in the IPW trailhead parking lots, by day of week category, summer

2013.

Hours Parked

Weekday

(n=250)

Weekend

(n=396)

Overall

(n=646)

1 ‐ <2 12% 18% 15%

2 ‐ <3 22% 20% 21%

3 ‐ <4 17% 15% 16%

4 ‐ <5 17% 16% 16%

5 ‐ <6 12% 10% 11%

6 ‐ <7 9% 6% 7%

7 ‐ <8 5% 6% 6%

8 ‐ <9 0% 2% 2%

9 ‐ <10 0% 2% 1%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0%

11+ 5% 5% 5%

Average 3.8 3.8 3.8

t‐test t = 0.021    

p‐value p = 0.984    

Figure 1‐58. Visitor parking duration in the IPW trailhead parking lots, by day of week category, summer

2013.
72

On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	for	approximately	three	hours	

(Table	1‐14	and	Figure	1‐59).	There	was	not	a	significant	difference	in	the	average	duration	of	time	

vehicles	parked	in	the	Niwot	Mountain	Parking	Lot	on	weekends	versus	weekdays	(t	=	0.800,	p	=	

0.425).	However,	there	was	a	significant	difference	in	parking	duration,	depending	on	the	time	of	

day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	9.874,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	at	the	Niwot	Mountain	

Parking	Lot	before	10:00	AM	(mean	=	4.6	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	

those	who	arrived	after	10:00	AM	(mean	=	2.4	hours).	

Table 1‐14. Visitor parking duration in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.

Hours Parked

Weekday

(n=113)

Weekend

(n=180)

Overall

(n=293)

1 ‐ <2 28% 23% 25%

2 ‐ <3 17% 19% 18%

3 ‐ <4 17% 13% 14%

4 ‐ <5 12% 16% 15%

5 ‐ <6 13% 14% 14%

6 ‐ <7 8% 7% 8%

7 ‐ <8 3% 6% 4%

8 ‐ <9 0% 1% 0%

9 ‐ <10 0% 1% 1%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0%

11+ 2% 0% 1%

Average 3.1 3.3 3.3

t‐test t = 0.800    

p‐value p = 0.425    

Figure 1‐59. Visitor parking duration in the Niwot Mountain Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.
73

There	were	no	statistical	differences	in	parking	duration	between	the	Main	Lot	and	Overflow	

Parking	and	Large	Vehicle	Lot	of	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot;	thus,	the	data	from	the	two	

lots	have	been	combined	for	the	following	analyses.	On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	for	approximately	three	and	a	half	hours	(Table	1‐15	and	Figure	

1‐60).	There	was	a	significant	difference	(t	=	6.071,	p	<	0.001)	in	the	average	duration	of	time	

vehicles	parked	in	the	Brainard	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	on	weekends	(mean	=	3.6	hours)	versus	

weekdays	(mean	=	2.7	hours).	There	was	also	a	significant	difference	in	parking	duration,	

depending	on	the	time	of	day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	13.094,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	

arrived	at	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	before	10:00	AM	(mean	=	4.9	hours)	parked	their	

vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	10:00	AM	(mean	=	3.0	hours).	

Table 1‐15. Visitor parking duration in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.

Hours Parked

Weekday

(n=205)

Weekend

(n=872)

Overall

(n=1,077)

1 ‐ <2 34% 16% 19%

2 ‐ <3 19% 15% 15%

3 ‐ <4 17% 19% 18%

4 ‐ <5 13% 21% 19%

5 ‐ <6 12% 17% 16%

6 ‐ <7 4% 8% 7%

7 ‐ <8 0% 3% 3%

8 ‐ <9 0% 2% 1%

9 ‐ <10 0% 0% 0%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0%

11+ 1% 0% 1%

Average 2.7 3.6 3.4

t‐test t = 6.071    

p‐value p < 0.001    

Figure 1‐60. Visitor parking duration in the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.
74

On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	for	approximately	three	

hours	(Table 1‐16	and	Figure	1‐61).	There	was	not	a	statistically	significant	difference	in	the	

average	duration	of	time	vehicles	parked	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	weekends	versus	

weekdays	(t	=	1.322,	p	=	0.187);	results	of	this	comparison	should	be	interpreted	with	caution,	

however,	due	to	the	small	number	of	weekday	parking	duration	observations.	There	was	a	

significant	difference	in	parking	duration,	depending	on	the	time	of	day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	5.548,	p

<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	before	10:00	AM	

(mean	=	4.8	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	10:00	

AM	(mean	=	2.4	hours).	

Table 1‐16. Visitor parking duration in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.

Hours Parked

Weekday

(n=11)1

Weekend

(n=331)

Overall

(n=342)

1 ‐ <2 55% 27% 28%

2 ‐ <3 9% 26% 25%

3 ‐ <4 18% 22% 22%

4 ‐ <5 18% 13% 13%

5 ‐ <6 0% 8% 7%

6 ‐ <7 0% 1% 1%

7 ‐ <8 0% 2% 1%

8 ‐ <9 0% 1% 1%

9 ‐ <10 0% 0% 0%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0%

11+ 0% 2% 2%

Average 2.0 2.8 2.8

t‐test t = 1.322    

p‐value p = 0.187    

1 Small sample size, thus, summary statistics and

statistical tests may not be applicable for weekday

data
75

Figure 1‐61. Visitor parking duration in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, by day of week category,

summer 2013.

Finally,	90%	of	all	license	plates	recorded	as	part	of	the	parking	data	collection	effort	were	

Colorado	license	plates;	this	finding	suggests	the	vast	majority	of	visitors	to	BLRA	during	the	

summer	visitor	use	season	are	residents	of	the	state	of	Colorado,	though	some	Colorado	license	

plates	that	were	observed	may	have	been	on	rental	cars	driven	by	out‐of‐state	visitors.	

Visitor Use Counts

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	with	infrared	trail	counters	(Figure	1‐62)	located	on	the	

Long	Lake,	Niwot	Cutoff,	Mitchell	Lake,	Beaver	Creek,	and	Lake	Isabelle	Trails.	The	purpose	

of	the	visitor	use	counts	was	to	provide	precise	measures	of	visitor	use	in	BLRA,	by	time	of	

day	and	key	trailhead	locations.	

 The	infrared	trail	counters	recorded	visitor	use	counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	day	

during	the	summer	peak	season.	The	visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	from	early	August	

through	Labor	Day	Weekend,	2013	on	all	trails	noted,	except	the	Lake	Isabelle	Trail,	where	

visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	from	mid‐August	through	Labor	Day	Weekend.	

 The	locations	of	the	infrared	trail	counters	used	to	record	visitor	use	data	during	the	study	

period	are	depicted	in	Figure	1‐63.	The	visitor	use	counting	locations	were	selected	in	

consultation	with	USFS	staff	and	capture	the	primary	visitor	use	access	points	into	the	IPW.	
76

 Field	staff	conducted	 visitor	use	counts	 via	direct	observation	at	each	of	 the	infrared	 trail	

counter	locations.	Direct	observation	hours	ranged	from	9.25	hours	on	the	Beaver	Creek	Trail	

to	31.75	hours	on	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trail.	The	direct	observation	counts	were	used	to	correct	

and	adjust	(i.e.,	calibrate)	the	raw	infrared	trail	counter	data,	as	described	below.	

	 	

Figure 1‐63. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, BLRA,

summer 2013.

Figure 1‐62. Infrared trail counter setup, BLRA, summer 2013.
77

Analysis and Results

Regression	analyses	were	conducted	with	the	direct	observation	counts	of	visitor	use	and	

corresponding	infrared	trail	counter	data	to	estimate	correction	factors	for	the	infrared	trail	

counter	data.	Regression	results	suggest	there	are	very	strong	statistical	relationships	(R2	values	of	

0.99	for	all	trail	counters)	between	the	direct	observation	counts	and	visitor	use	counts	recorded	by	

the	infrared	trail	counters.	Further,	the	parameter	estimates	for	the	regression	models	were	

statistically	significant	in	all	cases.	These	results	provide	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	applying	

the	correction	factors	to	calibrate	the	visitor	use	counts	recorded	with	the	infrared	trail	counters	

(i.e.,	multiplying	the	infrared	trail	counter	data	by	the	corresponding	parameter	estimates	from	the	

regression	models)	results	in	very	accurate	estimates	of	visitor	use	on	the	trails	in	BLRA.	The	

calibrated	trail	counter	data	were	used	for	analysis	and	results	reported	in	this	memo.	

The	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trails	were	the	most	popular	of	the	study	trails	during	summer	

2013,	with	an	average	of	228	and	195	visitor	arrivals	per	day,	respectively,	on	weekdays	and	over	

400	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days	(Figure	1‐64).	The	Lake	Isabelle	Trail	received	the	

next	highest	level	of	use,	with	an	average	of	110	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	217	daily	

visitor	arrivals	on	weekend	days.	Visitor	use	on	the	Niwot	Cutoff	and	Beaver	Creek	Trails	was	

substantially	lower	than	on	the	other	study	trails	noted,	with	an	average	of	57	and	38	visitor	

arrivals	per	day,	respectively,	on	weekdays	and	156	and	103	visitors	per	day,	respectively,	on	

weekend	days.	Generally,	trails	in	the	study	area	received	approximately	2	to	3	times	more	visitor	

use	on	weekend	days	than	on	weekdays.	
78

Figure 1‐64. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak

vehicle accumulation, by location in BLRA, summer 2013.

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	57	

Avg. Weekend = 156

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	38	

Avg. Weekend = 103

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	110	

Avg. Weekend = 217

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	228	

Avg. Weekend = 411

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	195	

Avg. Weekend = 412

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Brainard Lake Day Use Lot

Avg.	Weekday	=	56	

Avg. Weekend = 195

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Mitchell Lake Trailhead Lot

Avg.	Weekday	=	51	

Avg. Weekend = 53

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Long Lake Trailhead Lot

Avg.	Weekday	=	30	

Avg. Weekend = 30

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Niwot Mountain Lot

Avg.	Weekday	=	15	

Avg. Weekend = 15

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Gateway Trailhead Lot

Avg.	Weekday	=	8	

Avg. Weekend = 41
79

Figure	1‐65	reports	calibrated	visitor	use	counts	for	the	design	day	(Sunday,	August	11th,	2013),	by	

trailhead	location.	Visitor	use	on	the	design	day	was	distributed	across	the	trailhead	locations	

consistently	with	the	seasonal	averages	reported	in	Figure	1‐64;	however,	as	expected,	the	design	

day	volumes	of	visitor	use	were	higher	than	seasonal	averages	on	all	of	the	trails.	As	noted,	the	

design	day	for	the	study	was	Sunday,	August	11th,	2013,	at	which	time	a	trail	counter	was	not	yet	

installed	on	the	Lake	Isabelle	Trail.	Therefore,	the	design	day	visitor	use	level	of	the	Lake	Isabelle	

Trail	was	estimated	based	on	the	statistical	relationship14	between	visitor	use	on	the	Long	Lake	

Trail	and	Lake	Isabelle	Trail.	

Figure 1‐65. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation by location in

BLRA, Sunday, August 11th, 2013.

Figure	1‐66	graphs	the	design	day	hourly	visitor	use	(inbound	direction),	by	trail,	for	those	trails	

where	visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	during	summer	2013.	The	temporal	pattern	of	visitor	use	

throughout	the	day	is	generally	consistent	across	trails,	with	relatively	intense	surges	of	inbound	

visitor	use	from	early	in	the	morning	through	late	morning.	Inbound	visitor	use	is	particularly	

intensive	during	the	8:00	AM	to	9:00	AM	time	period	on	the	Long	Lake	Trail,	and	from	7:00	AM	to	

11:00	AM	on	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trail.	Interestingly,	there	is	a	very	early	morning	surge	of	inbound	

																																																													

14 Lake Isabelle Hourly Inbound Visitor Use = 0.559 * Long Lake Hourly Inbound Visitor Use; Adjusted R2 = 0.70.

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 174

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 117

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 225

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 378

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 389 Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Brainard Lake Day Use Lot

Design Day = 197

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Mitchell Lake Trailhead Lot

Design Day = 53

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Long Lake Trailhead Lot

Design Day = 30

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Niwot Mountain Lot

Design Day = 16

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Gateway Trailhead Lot

Design Day = 29
80

visitors	on	the	Long	Lake	Trail	during	the	6:00	AM	hour.	The	data	in	Figure	1‐66	suggest	there	is	an	

AM	peak	and	a	PM	peak	of	inbound	visitor	use	on	the	Beaver	Creek	Trail,	though	in	both	cases,	the	

peak	is	much	less	pronounced	than	on	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trails.	As	expected,	the	

peak	period	of	visitor	use	on	the	Lake	Isabelle	Trail	appears	to	be	highly	correlated	with	and	about	

an	hour	later	than	that	on	the	Long	Lake	and	Niwot	Cutoff	Trails.	

Figure 1‐66. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Sunday, August 11th, 2013).

Visitor Use Tracking

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	patterns	in	BLRA	and	the	IPW	were	measured	using	GPS‐based	tracking	(Figure	

1‐67).	GPS	units	were	administered	to	three	subsets	of	visitor	groups,	including:	1)	day	use	

and	overnight	backpacking	visitor	groups	who	drove	through	the	Courtesy	Station	and	

parked	in	BLRA;	2)	day	use	and	overnight	backpacking	visitor	groups	who	parked	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot;	and	3)	visitor	groups	who	camped	overnight	in	the	Pawnee	

Campground.	Visitors	were	asked	to	carry	the	GPS	unit	while	recreating	in	the	area;	day	use	

visitor	groups	and	those	camping	in	the	Pawnee	Campground	were	asked	to	return	the	GPS	

units	at	the	end	of	the	day	on	which	they	were	administered	the	unit,	while	backpacking	

visitor	groups	were	asked	to	return	the	GPS	units	at	the	end	of	their	visit	to	BLRA.	Visitors	

were	instructed	to	use	a	locked	drop	box	to	return	their	GPS	units,	if	they	returned	to	the	

distribution	points	after	data	collection	staff	had	left	the	study	area	for	the	day.	The	purpose	

of	the	GPS‐based	tracking	was	to	collect	precise	measures	of	the	spatial	patterns	of	visitor	

use	in	BLRA;	the	manner	in	which	these	data	can	help	information	transportation	planning	

and	visitor	use	management	at	BLRA	are	described	in	a	subsequent	section.	
81

 GPS	units	were	administered	on	9	weekend	days,	8	weekdays,	and	1	holiday	from	August	1,	

2013	–	September	2,	2013	(Table	1‐17).	On	each	data	collection	day,	GPS	units	were	

administered	to	visitors	from	7:00	AM	to	approximately	2:00	PM,	and	collected	from	

visitors	from	7:00	AM	to	approximately	5:00	PM.	

 Overall,	841	visitor	groups	were	contacted	and	782	GPS	units	were	administered	to	visitor	

groups	during	the	2013	summer	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA,	resulting	in	a	93%	response	

rate	for	the	GPS‐tracking	study	(Table	1‐17).	

 Algorithms	were	developed	to	process	the	GPS	tracks	and	eliminate	cases	with	5‐minutes	or	

more	of	missing	data	(primary	causes	of	missing	data	included	poor	satellite	reception	

and/or	equipment	malfunction).	For	cases	with	less	than	5‐minutes	of	missing	data,	

interpolation	was	used	to	estimate	location	coordinates	to	populate	the	data	gaps.	The	

reduced,	“clean”	set	of	GPS	track	data	were	used	to	analyze	and	model	visitor	use	patterns	

in	BLRA	during	summer	2013.	

	 	

Figure 1‐67. Administration of GPS units for visitor use tracking, BLRA, summer 2013.
82

Table 1‐17. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, by administration site, BLRA, summer 2013.

    Gateway Trailhead Lot Courtesy Station Pawnee Campground

Date Weekend Count Refusals Resp.

Rate

Day

Users Backpackers Refusals Resp.Rate Count Refusals Resp.Rate

8/1/2013 No . . . 26 0 0 100% . . .

8/2/2013 No . . . 67 0 2 97% . . .

8/3/2013 Yes 19 4 83% 33 5 0 87% 10 2 83%

8/9/2013 No 13 0 100% 21 1 2 88% 12 1 92%

8/10/2013 Yes 14 2 88% 22 2 1 88% 9 2 82%

8/11/2013 Yes 13 0 100% 24 0 2 92% 9 0 100%

8/12/2013 No 9 0 100% 22 1 0 96% 10 1 91%

8/16/2013 No 9 3 75% 30 2 4 83% 13 0 100%

8/17/2013 Yes 18 1 95% 22 1 3 85% 11 1 92%

8/18/2013 Yes 12 1 92% 30 0 0 100% 7 2 78%

8/21/2013 No 8 0 100% 27 1 2 90% 10 0 100%

8/24/2013 Yes . . . . . . . 7 0 100%

8/25/2013 Yes 14 1 93% 24 1 0 96% 10 2 83%

8/27/2013 No 4 1 80% 26 1 3 87% 8 1 89%

8/30/2013 No 8 0 100% 22 2 2 85% 5 5 50%

8/31/2013 Yes 12 1 92% 20 5 3 71% 8 3 73%

9/1/2013 Yes 8 0 100% 10 2 0 83% 5 0 100%

9/2/2013 No* 10 0 100% 21 0 1 95% 6 0 100%

Overall 171 14 92% 447 24 25 95% 140 20 88%

*Labor Day holiday

Analysis and Results

Nearly	three‐quarters	(73%)	of	all	summer	2013	BLRA	visitor	groups	were	groups	of	2‐4	people	

(Table	1‐18);	however,	weekday	visitors	(19%)	were	more	likely	than	weekend	visitors	(14%)	to	

visit	BLRA	alone.	Eleven	percent	of	all	visitor	groups	were	in	groups	of	at	least	5	people.	On	

average,	Pawnee	Campground	visitors	had	the	largest	group	size	(3.6	people),	while	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	visitors	had	the	smallest	group	size	(2.2	people).	Approximately	one‐quarter	

(24%)	of	Pawnee	Campground	groups	were	at	least	5	people.	

Table 1‐18. Visitor group size, BLRA, summer 2013.

Number of

People per Group

Weekday

(n=385)

Weekend

(n=456)

Overall

(n=841)

Day User

(n=461)

Gateway

(n=190)

Backpacker

(n=30)

Campground

(n=160)

1 person 19% 14% 16% 15% 26% 10% 9%

2 people 49% 45% 47% 49% 49% 67% 35%

3‐4 people 23% 29% 26% 27% 21% 17% 32%

5 or more people 8% 13% 11% 9% 4% 7% 24%

Chi‐square χ2 = 15.278, p = 0.170 n/a   χ2 = 99.156, p < 0.001

Mean1 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.6a 2.2b 2.4ab 3.6c

T‐test/ANOVA t = 3.361, p < 0.001 n/a F = 22.067, p < 0.001

1Different superscripts represent significant differences between mean scores from Tamhane’s T2 post hoc

tests
83

The	vast	majority	(90%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week,	traveled	to	BLRA	during	

summer	2013	in	a	single	vehicle,	while	only	9%	traveled	to	BLRA	in	two	or	more	vehicles	(Table	

1‐19).	However,	one‐third	(33%)	of	Pawnee	Campground	groups	traveled	to	BLRA	in	two	or	more	

vehicles.	

Table 1‐19. Number of vehicles per group, BLRA, summer 2013.

Number of Vehicles

per Group

Weekday

(n=384)

Weekend

(n=455)

Overall

(n=839)

Day User

(n=460)

Gateway

(n=190)

Backpacker

(n=30)

Campground

(n=159)

1 vehicle 96% 86% 90% 97% 93% 90% 68%

2 vehicles 4% 11% 8% 3% 6% 10% 26%

3 vehicles 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 6%

4 or more vehicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Chi‐square χ2 = 24.930, p < 0.001   n/a χ2 = 125.891, p < 0.001

Mean1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0a 1.1a 1.1a 1.4b

T‐test/ANOVA t = 5.186, p < 0.001 n/a F = 38.769, p < 0.001

1Different superscripts represent significant differences between mean scores from Tamhane’s T2 post hoc tests

Two‐thirds	(67%)	of	visitor	groups	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	1	to	2	people	per	vehicle	(Table	

1‐20).	There	was	no	difference	in	vehicle	occupancy	rate	between	weekday	(mean	=	2.4	people	per	

vehicle)	and	weekend	(mean	=	2.5	people	per	vehicle)	visitor	groups.	However,	Pawnee	

Campground	groups	averaged	2.7	people	per	vehicle,	while	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	groups	

and	backpackers	averaged	2.0	and	2.1	people	per	vehicle,	respectively.	

Table 1‐20. Vehicle occupancy rates, BLRA, summer 2013.

Number of People

per Vehicle

Weekday

(n=377)

Weekend

(n=436)

Overall

(n=813)

Day User

(n=456)

Gateway

(n=189)

Backpacker

(n=29)

Campground

(n=139)

1 person 20% 17% 18% 16% 29% 10% 13%

2 people 50% 48% 49% 48% 49% 72% 45%

3‐4 people 24% 30% 27% 29% 22% 14% 33%

5 or more people 6% 6% 6% 7% 1% 3% 9%

Chi‐square χ2 = 21.719, p = 0.245 n/a   χ2 = 143.928, p < 0.001

Mean1 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5a 2.0b 2.1ab 2.7ac

T‐test/ANOVA t = 0.881, p = 0.378 n/a F = 10.149, p < 0.001

1Different superscripts represent significant differences between mean scores from Tamhane’s T2 post hoc

tests

The	vast	majority	(84%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week	or	group	type,	spent	two	or	

more	hours	recreating	in	BLRA	during	summer	2013	(	

Table	1‐21).	There	was	no	difference	in	travel	times	between	weekday	(mean	=	4.0	hours)	and	

weekend	(mean	=	3.9	hours)	visitor	groups.	On	average,	Pawnee	Campground	groups	spent	the	

longest	time	recreating	in	BLRA	in	summer	2013	(mean	=	5.8	hours),	while	day	use	groups	who	

drove	through	the	Courtesy	Station	(mean	=	3.9	hours)	and	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	groups	

(mean	=	3.0	hours)	had	shorter	travel	times	in	BLRA.	In	the	case	of	some	backpackers,	the	GPS	units	

ran	out	of	battery	power	before	the	end	of	their	trips;	thus,	backpackers	were	excluded	from	the	

analysis	of	length	of	stay/trip	duration.	
84

Table 1‐21. Length of stay, BLRA, summer 2013.

Travel Time

Weekday Weekend Overall Day User Gateway Backpacker Campground

(n=321) (n=365) (n=686) (n=427) (n=168) (n=n/a) (n=91)

<1 hour 8% 5% 6% 5% 11% . 3%

1 hour ‐ <2 hours 12% 10% 11% 10% 14% . 9%

2 hours ‐ <3 hours 17% 21% 19% 17% 30% . 7%

3 hours ‐ <4 hours 17% 20% 19% 20% 21% . 9%

4 hours ‐ <5 hours 14% 21% 18% 20% 14% . 12%

5 hours ‐ <6 hours 12% 10% 11% 12% 5% . 16%

6 or more hours 20% 13% 17% 15% 5% . 44%

Chi‐square χ2 = 16.242, p < 0.050 n/a χ2 = 105.876, p < 0.001  

Mean1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9a 3.0b n/a 5.8c

T‐test/ANOVA t = 0.885, p = 0.377 n/a F = 59.106, p < 0.001  

1 Different superscripts represent significant differences between mean scores from Tamhane’s T2 post hoc

tests.

“Heat	maps”	are	included	to	provide	precise	information	about	the	spatial	characteristics	of	winter	

visitor	use	at	BLRA	(i.e.,	where	visitor	use	is	most	concentrated,	and	where	there	is	less	intensive	or	

no	visitor	use).	The	heat	map	in	Figure	1‐68	depicts	the	relative	intensity	of	visitor	use	throughout	

the	trail	and	road	network	in	BLRA	during	summer	2013.	Generally,	information	contained	in	

visitor	use	heat	maps	can	inform	transportation	planning	by	identifying	locations	within	a	

recreation	area	with	high	visitor	demand	that	might	benefit	form	improved	transportation	services	

and	facilities.	Moreover,	heat	maps	like	this	help	identify	locations	to	which	visitor	use	could	

potentially	be	dispersed	(using	ITS,	trail	improvements,	etc.)	to	alleviate	congestion	in	areas	that	

experience	excessive	traffic,	parking	congestion,	crowding,	and/or	resource	impacts.	

The	heat	map	is	derived	from	the	GPS	track	data,	with	“cooler	colors”	(i.e.,	green	shades)	

representing	sections	of	the	trail	and	road	network	with	relatively	low	concentrations	of	visitor	use,	

and	“hotter	colors”	(i.e.,	yellow	and	red	shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	and	road	network	

with	relatively	high	concentrations	of	visitor	use.	For	example,	the	“hotter	color	tones”	around	

Brainard	Lake	suggest	this	is	one	of	the	more	heavily	traveled	segments	of	the	overall	trail	and	road	

network	in	BLRA.	
Figure 1‐68. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for all visitor groups intercepted at BLRA, summer 2013.
86

User	group‐specific	heat	maps	derived	from	the	GPS	tracks	of	hiking	routes	are	presented	(Figure	

1‐69	through	Figure	1‐72),	and	suggest	visitor	use	patterns	within	BLRA	differ	across	the	

subgroups	of	visitors	that	were	included	in	the	GPS‐tracking	study.	In	particular,	day	use	visitor	

groups	intercepted	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	were	generally	concentrated	more	on	the	

trails	originating	near	the	Gateway	Trailhead	and	in	the	eastern	section	of	BLRA,	with	fewer	trips	to	

Brainard	Lake	and	the	IPW	trailheads	than	the	other	user	groups	(Figure	1‐70).	Visitor	groups	

camping	in	the	Pawnee	Campground	tended	to	concentrate	their	use	around	Brainard	Lake	(Figure	

1‐71),	while	GPS	tracks	of	day	use	visitor	groups	intercepted	at	the	Courtesy	Station	indicated	more	

intensive	use	of	the	IPW	hiking	trails,	particularly	to	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	(Figure	1‐69).	The	

heat	map	in	Figure	1‐72	suggests	that	backpacking	visitor	groups	intercepted	at	the	Courtesy	

Station	were	most	heavily	concentrated	in	the	IPW,	and	particularly	on	the	trails	originating	from	

the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	(Figure	1‐72).	
Figure 1‐69. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for day use visitor groups intercepted at the Courtesy Station, summ
Figure 1‐70. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for day use visitor groups intercepted at the Gateway Trailhead Park
Figure 1‐71. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted in the Pawnee Campground, summer 2
Figure 1‐72. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for backpacking visitor groups intercepted at the Courtesy Station, s
92	

The	heat	maps	in	Figure	1‐68	through	Figure	1‐72	provide	composite	views	of	summer	visitor	use	

patterns	in	BLRA.	Additional	analysis	of	the	GPS	tracks	was	conducted	to	summarize	and	map	the	

relative	popularity	of	particular	routes	or	subsets	of	routes	in	BLRA.	Each	GPS	track	was	visually	

inspected	and	categorized	into	one	of	several	unique	routes	or	“route	groupings”	distinguished	

based	on	the	trail(s)	and	destinations	encompassed	by	the	GPS	track.	In	particular,	visitor	groups	

were	classified	into	one	of	three	route	groupings:	

 Visitors	whose	routes	included	visiting	Brainard	Lake,	but	not	hiking	in	the	IPW	(Figure	

1‐73)	

 Visitors	whose	routes	included	hiking	in	the	IPW	(Figure	1‐74)	

 Visitors	whose	route	did	not	include	visiting	Brainard	Lake	or	hiking	in	the	IPW	(Figure	

1‐75).	

The	GPS‐tracking	results	presented	in	Figure	1‐73	through	Figure	1‐75	provide	several	important	

insights	about	summer	visitor	use	patterns	in	BLRA.	In	particular,	the	results	suggest	that	more	

than	half	(58%)	of	all	BLRA	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	whether	they	park	at	the	IPW	trailheads,	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	or	Pawnee	Campground,	are	

destined	for	hikes	in	the	IPW	(Figure	1‐74).	Moreover,	three‐quarters	of	all	day	use	visitors	who	

drive	through	the	Courtesy	Station	hike	in	the	IPW,	regardless	of	whether	they	park	at	the	IPW	

trailheads	or	in	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot.	These	findings	suggest	that	parking	

management	strategies	alone	may	not	be	sufficient	to	manage	visitor	use,	crowding,	and	recreation‐

related	resource	impacts	in	the	IPW;	analysis	of	crowding‐related	capacities	of	the	Wilderness	trails	

would	help	assess	whether	or	not	parking	management	alone	is	sufficient.	Interestingly,	most	

(83%),	but	not	all	backpacking	visitor	groups	hike	in	the	IPW	(Figure	1‐74);	other	backpacking	

groups	hike	routes	north	and	south	of	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	connecting	to	

Highway	72	(Figure	1‐75).	

The	GPS‐tracking	results	further	suggest	that	relatively	few	(27%)	BLRA	visitor	groups	visit	

Brainard	Lake	without	also	hiking	in	the	IPW,	though	this	is	somewhat	more	common	(41%)	for	

visitor	groups	camping	in	the	Pawnee	Campground.	Finally,	the	GPS‐tracking	results	suggest	that	

more	than	half	of	all	visitor	groups	who	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	do	not	visit	

Brainard	Lake	or	hike	in	the	IPW,	but	instead	use	trails	in	BLRA	east	of	Brainard	Lake.	That	being	

said,	one‐fifth	of	visitor	groups	who	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	hike	in	the	IPW,	

even	though	it	requires	walking	approximately	three	miles	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	just	to	reach	the	

IPW	trailheads.	Similarly,	nearly	one‐fifth	(17%)	of	visitor	groups	who	park	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	visit	Brainard	Lake,	even	though	it	requires	walking	approximately	two	miles	

on	Brainard	Lake	Road	to	reach	the	lake.	These	findings	suggest	a	substantive	proportion	of	visitor	

groups	who	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	would	likely	support	improved	access	from	

the	lot	to	Brainard	Lake	and	the	IPW	trailheads.	
93	

Figure 1‐73. Route Grouping #1: Visitors whose routes included visiting Brainard Lake, but not hiking in

the Indian Peaks Wilderness, summer 2013.
94	

Figure 1‐74. Route Grouping #2: Visitors whose routes included hiking in the Indian Peaks Wilderness,

summer 2013.
95	

Figure 1‐75. Route Grouping #3: Visitors whose routes did not include visiting Brainard Lake or hiking in

the Indian Peaks Wilderness, summer 2013.
96	

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Visitor Survey, Summer 2014

During	summer	2014,	RSG	conducted	a	series	of	three	visitor	surveys	at	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	

Area	(BLRA),	each	survey	targeting	one	of	the	following	three	visitor	group	types:	

1. Visitors	who	parked	in	BLRA	and	visited	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW)	on	the	day	they	

were	contacted	for	the	survey.	This	survey	is	hereafter	referred	to	as	the	IPW	visitor	survey.	

2. Visitors	who	parked	in	BLRA	and	did	not	visit	the	IPW	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	

the	survey.	This	survey	is	hereafter	referred	to	as	the	BLRA	visitor	survey.	

3. Visitors	who	parked	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	regardless	of	whether	or	not	

they	did	or	did	not	visit	the	IPW	that	day.	This	survey	is	hereafter	referred	to	as	the	

Gateway	visitor	survey.	

The	purpose	of	the	surveys	was	to	collect	information	that	will	help	the	US	Forest	Service	(USFS)	

improve	transportation	conditions,	and	recreation	and	resource	management	at	BLRA	and	in	the	

IPW.	In	particular,	the	survey	instruments	were	designed	to	collect	the	following	information	from	

visitors	to	BLRA:	

 Visitors’	perceptions,	experiences,	and	expectations,	with	respect	to	transportation	

conditions	and	services,	recreation	opportunities,	and	visitor	experience	quality	at	BLRA	

and	in	the	IPW.	

 Visitors’	opinions	about	potential	changes	in	operations	to	modify	and	improve	

transportation	services	and	facilities.	

 Visitors’	experiences	with	transportation‐related	issues	at	BLRA.	

The	surveys	had	a	particular	focus	on	traffic	congestion	and	parking	shortages	at	the	study	site	

during	the	summer	peak	visitation	period,	and	potential	alternative	transportation	systems	(ATS)	

strategies	to	help	mitigate	and	manage	these	issues.	Potential	ATS	strategies	of	focus	in	the	surveys	

include	shuttle/transit	service	to	and/or	within	BLRA;	visitor	information	and	Intelligent	

Transportation	Systems	(ITS)	to	manage	demand	during	peak	periods;	and	on‐the‐ground	parking	

and	traffic	management	to	optimize	the	use	of	existing	parking	and	roadway	infrastructure.	The	

survey	of	IPW	visitors	was	also	designed	to	measure	visitors’	perceptions	and	tolerances	for	

crowding	while	hiking	in	the	IPW.	

This	section	of	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	reports	a	

summary	of	each	of	the	three	BLRA	visitor	survey	results	and	methods.	
97	

Methods

Survey Instruments

The	summer	2014	visitor	survey	instruments	(Appendix	A,	B,	C)	and	methods	were	developed	by	

RSG,	in	cooperation	with	the	Federal	Highway	Administration	Central	Federal	Lands	Highway	

Division	(CFL),	USFS,	and	US	Department	of	Transportation	Volpe	Center.	Further,	the	survey	

instruments	and	methods	were	reviewed	and	approved	by	the	USFS	Office	of	Regulatory	and	

Management	Services	and	the	Office	of	Management	and	Budget	(OMB).	This	section	describes	the	

survey	instruments	and	the	methods	used	to	administer	the	visitor	surveys.	Each	of	the	three	

survey	instruments	administered	at	BLRA	during	summer	2014	is	organized	into	four	sections.	The	

first	section	of	the	survey	instruments,	titled	“Trip	Description,”	includes	questions	concerning	

respondents’	group	sizes,	the	presence	or	absence	of	children	under	the	age	of	16	in	respondents’	

groups,	activities	engaged	in	and	locations	visited	during	their	visit.	The	IPW	visitor	survey	also	

includes	questions	in	this	section	that	ask	about	visitors’	perceptions	of	and	tolerances	for	

crowding	while	hiking	in	the	IPW,	and	attitudes	about	potential	management	actions	to	prevent	

crowding,	environmental	impacts,	and	safety	issues.	

The	second	section	of	the	survey	instruments,	titled	“Travel	and	Parking,”	includes	questions	

concerning	visitors’	routes	of	travel	to	and	from	BLRA,	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	visitor	

groups	traveled	there,	visitors’	time	of	arrival,	the	location(s)	and	perceptions	about	where	visitors	

parked	their	vehicle(s),	and	visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	actions	to	manage	parking	congestion	

during	peak	visitation	periods.	The	Gateway	visitor	survey	also	includes	questions	in	this	section	

that	ask	about	the	reasons	visitors	parked	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	whether	or	not	

parking	there	interfered	with	what	they	were	planning	to	do	at	BLRA	that	day.	

The	third	section	of	the	survey	instruments,	titled	“Planning	Your	Trip	to	BLRA,”	includes	questions	

about	when	visitors	decided	to	take	a	trip	to	the	recreation	area,	the	potential	effects	of	parking	

conditions	at	BLRA	on	their	trip	planning,	and	the	likelihood	they	would	use	various	sources	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	BLRA,	if	it	was	available	for	planning	a	

future	trip.	

The	fourth	section	of	the	survey	instruments,	titled	“Background	Information,”	includes	questions	

concerning	respondents’	gender,	age,	state	or	country	of	residence,	level	of	formal	education,	

ethnicity,	and	race.	

Survey Sampling and Administration

The	population	to	which	statistical	generalization	is	intended	for	each	of	the	summer	2014	visitor	

surveys	is	as	follows:	

IPW Visitor Survey:	All	visitor	groups	who	parked	at	BLRA	and	visited	the	IPW	during	the	2014	

peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA.	

BLRA Visitor Survey:	All	visitor	groups	who	parked	at	BLRA	and	did	not	visit	the	IPW	during	the	

2014	peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA.	
98	

Gateway Visitor Survey:	All	visitor	groups	who	parked	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

during	the	2014	peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA,	regardless	of	whether	they	visited	the	IPW	or	not.	

It	should	be	noted,	for	a	subset	of	questions	within	each	visitor	survey	instrument,	the	study	

population	is	visitors	(rather	than	visitor	groups);	for	example,	questions	asking	about	the	race,	

ethnicity,	age,	and	gender	of	respondents	is	intended	to	be	generalizable	to	visitors,	not	visitor	

groups.	In	contrast,	results	for	questions	about	parking	locations,	recreation	activities,	and	similar	

group‐oriented	questions	are	intended	to	be	generalizable	to	visitor	groups.	Survey	results	are	

presented	in	this	technical	memorandum	according	to	the	target	population	for	each	individual	

question.	

The	visitor	survey	sampling	season	was	selected	in	consultation	with	CFL	and	USFS	staff	to	coincide	

with	the	peak	summer	visitation	period	at	BLRA	and	including	weekend	and	weekday	sampling	

(Table	1‐22	and	Table	1‐23).	On	each	sampling	day,	the	visitor	surveys	were	administered	from	

10:00	AM	to	6:00	PM	to	coincide	with	the	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	at	BLRA.	

Table 1‐22. Summer 2014 IPW and BLRA visitor survey sampling effort.

Date Day of Week Solicitations IPW  

Completes

BLRA

Completes

Refusals Unusable Response Rate

8/14/2014 Thursday 65 23 16 26 1 60%

8/15/2014 Friday 68 27 11 30 1 56%

8/16/2014 Saturday 96 43 10 43 0 55%

8/17/2014 Sunday 109 41 16 52 0 52%

8/20/2014 Wednesday 96 35 20 41 1 57%

8/21/2014 Thursday 91 30 21 40 0 56%

8/22/2014 Friday 47 16 11 20 0 57%

8/23/2014 Saturday 103 32 11 60 0 42%

8/24/2014 Sunday 101 37 14 50 0 50%

Total  ‐  776 284 130 362 3 53%

Note: “Unusable” are cases where a visitor group agreed to participate but returned an incomplete questionnaire.

Table 1‐23. Summer 2014 Gateway visitor survey sampling effort.

Date Day of Week Solicitations Completes Refusals Unusable Response Rate

8/14/2014 Thursday 6 6 0 0 100%

8/15/2014 Friday 4 4 0 0 100%

8/16/2014 Saturday 26 22 4 0 85%

8/17/2014 Sunday 34 26 8 0 76%

8/23/2014 Saturday 13 12 1 0 92%

8/24/2014 Sunday 21 14 7 0 67%

Total  ‐  104 84 20 0 81%

Note: “Unusable” are cases where a visitor group agreed to participate but returned an incomplete questionnaire.
99	

Survey	sample	procedures	differed	across	the	three	sites,	with	sampling	for	the	IPW	and	BLRA	

visitor	surveys	following	the	same	procedure	while	sampling	for	the	Gateway	survey	followed	a	

separate	procedure.	Each	procedure	is	described	in	detail	below.	

IPW and BLRA Visitor Surveys:	On	each	sampling	day,	two	survey	administrators	were	stationed	

at	the	Red	Rock	Lake	short‐term	parking	area	to	intercept	visitors	while	they	were	driving	on	

Brainard	Lake	Road	(Figure	1‐76).	The	survey	administrators	wore	traffic	safety	vests	and	installed	

traffic	cones	and	signs	on	the	roadway	to	help	manage	the	traffic	intercept	procedures.	

At	the	start	of	each	sampling	day,	one	survey	administrator	used	hand	signals	to	intercept	the	first	

automobile	to	approach	and	direct	the	driver	into	the	parking	area.	Once	the	vehicle	was	safely	off	

the	road,	the	survey	administrator	approached	the	automobile	and	requested	the	group’s	

participation	in	the	survey.	At	the	same	time,	a	second	survey	administrated	used	hand	signals	to	

intercept	the	next	automobile	to	approach	and	direct	the	driver	into	the	parking	area.	Once	the	

vehicle	was	safely	off	the	road,	the	second	survey	administrator	approached	the	automobile	and	

requested	the	group’s	participation	in	the	survey.	

If	an	intercepted	group	had	not	previously	participated	in	the	survey	and	agreed	to	participate,	a	

randomly	selected	adult	member	(18	years	of	age	or	older	whose	birthday	was	the	next	in	the	

group	to	occur)	of	the	group	was	given	a	copy	of	the	survey	instrument	and	asked	to	complete	it	

onsite.	Visitor	groups	who	were	unwilling	or	unable	to	participate	in	the	survey	were	thanked	for	

their	consideration.	

After	each	visitor	group	contact,	the	survey	administrator	working	with	the	group	directed	them	to	

safely	exit	the	parking	area	onto	Brainard	Lake	Road.	The	survey	administrator	then	returned	to	

the	parking	area	entrance	and	intercepted	the	next	approaching	automobile.	The	survey	

administrators	repeated	this	intercept	process	throughout	the	day.	
100	

Figure 1‐76. Survey administration at the Red Rock Lake parking area, summer 2014

Gateway Visitor Survey:	At	the	start	of	each	sampling	day,	a	survey	administrator	was	stationed	at	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	intercepted	the	first	visitor	group	they	observed	returning	

to	the	parking	lot	at	the	end	of	their	visit.	

The	survey	administrator	asked	each	intercepted	group	if	they	had	previously	participated	in	the	

visitor	survey;	visitor	groups	who	had	not	previously	participated	in	the	survey	were	asked	to	

participate	in	the	survey.	A	randomly	selected	adult	member	(18	years	of	age	or	older	whose	

birthday	was	the	next	in	the	group	to	occur)	of	each	visitor	group	who	agreed	to	participate	in	the	

survey	was	given	a	copy	of	the	survey	instrument	and	asked	to	complete	it	onsite.	Visitor	groups	

who	were	unwilling	or	unable	to	participate	in	the	survey	were	thanked	for	their	consideration.	

After	the	survey	administrator	completed	each	visitor	group	contact,	she	intercepted	the	next	

arriving	visitor	group	and	repeated	the	participant	screening	and	recruitment	process	throughout	

the	sampling	period.	

Survey Nonresponse

To	track	visitor	survey	response	rates,	survey	administrators	recorded	a	survey	log	entry	for	each	

visitor	group	asked	to	participate	in	the	summer	2014	visitor	surveys	(Figure	1‐77).	Information	

recorded	on	the	survey	log	for	each	contacted	group	included:	1)	current	time;	2)	visitor	group	size;	

3)	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	BLRA;	4)	whether	or	not	the	group	hiked	

in	the	IPW;	5)	whether	the	group	accepted	or	refused	to	participate	in	the	survey;	6)	whether	the	

survey	respondent	was	the	driver	or	a	passenger	in	his/her	group’s	car(s);	7)	the	survey	ID	number	

for	those	groups	who	participated;	8)	current	weather	conditions;	and	9)	comments	concerning	the	

contact,	as	needed	(e.g.,	if	a	group	previously	participated	or	declined	to	participate	due	to	a	

language	barrier).	
101	

Figure 1‐77. Summer 2014 BLRA visitor survey log form.

After	removing	surveys	that	were	unusable	(i.e.,	had	incomplete	data	and	were	consequently	

removed	from	analysis),	the	overall	response	rate	to	the	visitor	survey	was	53%	for	the	IPW	and	

BLRA	visitor	surveys,	and	81%	for	the	Gateway	visitor	survey.	The	survey	log	data	were	used	to	

conduct	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitor	groups	who	participated	in	the	surveys	and	

those	that	did	not,	based	on	group	size,	number	of	vehicles	used	to	travel	to	BLRA,	vehicle	

occupancy,	and	whether	or	not	the	group	hiked	in	the	IPW.	

Results	of	independent	samples	t‐tests	of	means	and	chi‐square	tests	suggest	groups	who	

participated	in	the	surveys	do	not	differ	significantly	from	those	that	did	not	participate,	in	terms	of	

group	size	(t=0.282,	p=0.778	for	IPW	and	BLRA	visitor	surveys;	t=0.344,	p=0.732	for	Gateway	

visitor	survey);	number	of	vehicles	(t=‐1.499,	p=0.134	for	IPW	and	BLRA	visitor	surveys;	t=‐1.754,	

p=0.083	for	Gateway	visitor	survey);	vehicle	occupancy	(t=1.671,	p=0.096	for	IPW	and	BLRA	visitor	

surveys;	t=1.663,	p=0.099	for	Gateway	visitor	survey);	and	whether	or	not	they	hiked	in	the	IPW	

(χ2=0.006,	p=0.940	for	IPW	and	BLRA	visitor	surveys;	χ2=0.023,	p=0.880	for	Gateway	visitor	

survey).	

In	summary,	nonresponse	bias	tests	found	no	significant	differences	between	respondents	and	

nonrespondents	for	group	size,	number	of	vehicles,	vehicle	occupancy,	and	IPW	hikes.	Therefore,	it	

is	reasonable	to	conclude	the	survey	data	are	representative	of	the	target	study	populations.	
102	

Survey Data Analysis

Survey	data	analysis	procedures	used	in	this	study	are	based	on	standard	methods	for	survey	

research	in	parks	and	recreation	settings	(Vaske,	2008)15.	Key	estimates	from	the	data	are	

descriptive	in	nature,	primarily	measures	of	central	tendency	(mean)	and	frequency	distributions.	

In	addition,	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitors’	survey	responses	on	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	were	conducted.	For	questions	with	statistically	significant	differences	in	responses	

between	weekday	and	weekend	respondents	(p‐values	≤	0.05),	results	are	presented	separately	for	

weekday	and	weekend	visitors	(groups	distinguished	with	orange	and	blue	bars	in	figures).	When	

responses	do	not	vary	significantly,	overall	results	(rather	than	separate	weekend	and	weekday	

results)	are	presented	(groups	overall	represented	with	a	black	bar	in	figures).	

Some	additional	statistical	tests	for	differences	in	survey	responses	by	various	subgroups	were	

performed.	For	example,	responses	to	questions	in	the	IPW	visitor	survey	about	parking	conditions	

from	visitors	who	parked	at	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	were	compared	to	those	from	IPW	

visitors	who	parked	in	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot.	Results	are	reported	for	subgroups	when	there	are	

statistically	significant	differences	(groups	distinguished	with	yellow	and	green	bars	in	figures);	

otherwise,	overall	results	are	presented.	

Results	for	each	of	the	three	survey	instruments	are	reported	in	the	following	sections	of	this	

chapter	in	the	following	order:	

1. IPW	Visitor	Survey	Results	

2. BLRA	Visitor	Survey	Results	

3. Gateway	Visitor	Survey	Results	

IPW Visitor Survey Results

Results	in	this	section	are	representative	of	all	visitor	groups/visitors	who	parked	at	BLRA	and	

visited	the	IPW	during	the	2014	peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA	(referred	to	hereafter	as	IPW	visitor	

groups/visitors).	

																																																													

15 Vaske, J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
103	

Trip Description

 The	distribution	of	group	sizes	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekend	day	and	

weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=2.496,	p=0.476).	

 A	majority	(52%)	of	all	groups	to	IPW	were	groups	of	two	people.	

 Solo	hikers	(19%)	and	groups	of	3	or	4	people	(20%)	were	about	equally	common.	

 There	were	few	(9%)	groups	to	IPW	with	five	or	more	people.	

 On	average,	visitors	to	IPW	hiked	in	groups	of	about	2	or	3	people.	

Figure 1‐78. Including yourself, how many people were in your personal group during your hike today?
104	

 The	percentage	of	groups	hiking	in	IPW	with	children	under	the	age	of	16	differed	

significantly	between	weekend	day	and	weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=7.357,	p=0.007).	

 On	weekend	days,	about	one‐fifth	(19%)	of	visitor	groups	to	IPW	were	hiking	with	one	or	

more	children	under	the	age	of	16.	On	weekdays,	only	8%	of	visitor	groups	were	hiking	with	

a	child	under	the	age	of	16.	

Figure 1‐79. Were there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on your hike today?
105	

 The	number	of	children	(in	groups	with	children)	did	not	differ	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=3.444,	p=0.328).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	there	was	an	average	of	two	children	in	groups	with	children	

(t=1.035,	p=0.326).	

 Of	the	relatively	few	groups	hiking	in	IPW	with	children	under	the	age	of	16,	the	vast	

majority	(82%)	were	with	only	one	or	two	children.	

 Very	few	groups	with	children	(3%)	had	five	or	more	children.	

Figure 1‐80. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group

today?
106	

 The	proportion	of	visitor	groups	to	IPW	who	were	on	a	day	hike	versus	an	overnight	

backpacking	trip	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=0.069,	p=0.792).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	large	majority	(96%)	of	respondents	were	on	a	day	hike	

and	not	an	overnight	backpacking	trip.	

Figure 1‐81. Was your hike today a day hike or part of an overnight backpacking trip?
107	

 Among	visitor	groups	to	IPW	who	went	on	an	overnight	backpacking	trip,	the	proportion	of	

visitor	groups	who	started	at	each	trailhead	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekdays	

and	weekend	days	(χ2=5.000,	p=0.082).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	equal	proportions	(40%)	of	visitor	groups	started	at	the	

Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads.	A	smaller	proportion	(20%)	started	at	the	Day	Use	

Lot.	

Very Low Sample Size on This Question Suggests Results May not Be Applicable.

Figure 1‐82. If you were on an overnight backpacking trip, at which trailhead did you start?
108	

 The	number	of	hours	that	visitor	groups	hiked	in	the	IPW	varied	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	(χ2=11.682,	p=0.039;	t=‐2.374,	p=0.018).	

 On	average,	weekday	visitor	groups	hiked	approximately	3.5	hours	and	weekend	day	visitor	

groups	hiked	about	4	hours.	

 The	vast	majority	of	visitor	groups	on	weekdays	(78%)	and	weekend	days	(78%)	hiked	

between	2	and	5	hours.	

 More	than	half	(55%)	of	weekday	visitors	groups	hiked	for	3	hours	or	less,	while	nearly	

two‐thirds	(61%)	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups	hiked	4	or	more	hours.	

Figure 1‐83. How many hours did you hike in the Indian Peaks Wilderness today?
109	

 The	locations	where	IPW	visitor	groups	started	their	hike	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=9.948,	p=0.077),	but	did	differ	substantively.	

 Just	over	half	(54%)	of	weekend	day	visitors	to	IPW	started	their	hike	at	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead.	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	was	less	popular	among	weekday	visitors	(37%).	

 Half	(50%)	of	weekday	visitors	to	IPW	started	their	hike	at	Long	Lake	Trailhead.	Long	Lake	

Trailhead	was	less	popular	among	weekend	day	visitors	(38%).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	very	few	visitors	to	IPW	started	their	hike	at	a	backcountry	

campsite,	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	or	the	Pawnee	Campground.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	backcountry	campsites	reported	by	

respondents	is	included	in	Table	1,	and	a	list	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	1	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐84. Where did you start your hike today?
110	

 The	locations	where	IPW	visitor	groups	ended	their	hike	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=9.267,	p=0.055);	however,	results	differed	

substantively.	

 Just	over	half	(55%)	of	weekend	day	visitors	to	IPW	ended	their	hike	at	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead.	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	was	less	popular	among	weekday	visitors	(39%).	

 Half	(51%)	of	weekday	visitors	to	IPW	ended	their	hike	at	Long	Lake	Trailhead.	Long	Lake	

Trailhead	was	less	popular	among	weekend	day	visitors	(37%).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	very	few	visitors	to	IPW	started	their	hike	at	a	backcountry	

campsite,	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	or	the	Pawnee	Campground.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	backcountry	campsites	reported	by	

respondents	is	included	in	Table	3,	and	a	list	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	4	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐85. Where did you end your hike today?
111	

 Over	half	(57%)	of	weekday	visitor	groups	to	IPW	hiked	to	Long	Lake,	in	comparison	to	

only	42%	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=5.942,	p=0.015).	

 Exactly	half	(50%)	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups	to	IPW	hiked	to	Mitchell	Lake,	in	

comparison	to	only	one‐third	(31%)	weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=10.568,	p=0.001).	

 While	Long	Lake	was	more	popular	on	weekdays,	and	Mitchell	Lake	was	more	popular	on	

weekend	days,	Lake	Isabelle	and	Blue	Lake	were	equally	popular,	regardless	of	the	day	of	

week.	

 Mount	Audubon	was	a	significantly	more	popular	destination	among	IPW	hiker	groups	on	

weekend	days	(18%	versus	3%;	χ2=15.260,	p<0.001).	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐86. Which of the following locations did you hike to or pass through?
112	

 Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	hiking	groups’	primary	destinations	varied	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	groups	(χ2=26.842,	p=0.008).	

 Several	primary	destinations	were	more	popular	among	weekday	hiking	groups,	including	

Lake	Isabelle	(25%	versus	19%),	Long	Lake	(20%	versus	12%)	and	Isabelle	Glacier	(8%	

versus	2%).	

 Primary	destinations	more	popular	among	hiking	groups	on	weekend	days	included	Mount	

Audubon	(16%	versus	3%)	and	Mitchell	Lake	(9%	versus	5%).	

 Blue	Lake	was	the	most	popular	primary	destination	reported	by	visitor	groups.	There	was	

no	substantive	difference	in	the	proportion	of	weekday	and	weekend	day	hiking	groups	

who	visited	Blue	Lake	as	their	primary	destination	(26%	versus	27%).	

Figure 1‐87. Which of the following was your primary destination on your hike today?
113	

 The	likelihood	of	feeling	crowded	while	hiking	on	trails	or	at	destinations	in	the	IPW	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	large	majority	(85%)	of	all	visitors	to	IPW	did	not	feel	

crowded	during	their	hike.	Only	13%	of	visitors	did	feel	crowded	during	their	hike.	

 Only	5%	of	visitors	to	IPW	felt	crowded	at	their	destinations,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

Figure 1‐88. Did you feel crowded on the trail and/or at the destinations today?
114	

 The	likelihood	of	feeling	rushed	or	slowed	down	during	their	hike,	as	a	result	of	other	

people	on	the	trail,	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	

(χ2=0.321,	p=0.571).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	a	significant	majority	(90%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	did	not	feel	

rushed	or	slowed	down	by	others	at	some	point	during	their	hike.	

Figure 1‐89. Did the presence of other people on the trail make you feel rushed or slow you down at any

point during your hike?
115	

 Respondents	were	asked	to	report	the	maximum	number	of	people	they	could	pass	or	be	

passed	by	during	a	hike	in	the	IPW	and	not	feel	crowded.	Responses	to	the	crowding‐related	

question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	(χ2=10.127,	

p=0.256).	

 A	majority	(53%)	of	visitors	would	feel	crowded	seeing	a	total	of	20	or	more	people	during	

a	hike	in	the	IPW.	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	largest	proportion	(28%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	could	

encounter	a	total	of	20	to	29	people	during	their	hike	without	feeling	crowded.	

 The	second‐largest	proportion	(19%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	could	encounter	a	total	of	10	to	19	

people	without	feeling	crowded.	

 Close	to	equal	proportions	of	visitors	to	IPW	could	encounter	a	total	of	2	to	9	people	(13%),	

30	to	30	people	(13%)	or	40	or	more	people	(12%)	without	feeling	crowded	during	their	

hike.	

 A	small	proportion	(8%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	reported	that	the	number	of	people	they	

encounter	doesn’t	affect	whether	or	not	they	feel	crowded.	

Figure 1‐90. What is the maximum number of people you could pass/be passed by over the duration of a

hike and not feel crowded?
116	

Weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	to	IPW	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	opinions	about	

whether	or	not	visitor	use	should	be	limited	in	the	IPW,	regardless	of	the	reason	for	the	use	limit	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	over	half	(53%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	believe	that	the	number	of	

people	allowed	to	hike	in	this	area	each	day	should	be	limited	to	reduce	environmental	

impacts,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	there.	

 About	one‐quarter	(26%)	of	all	visitors	to	IPW	believe	the	number	of	hikers	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	should	be	limited	to	protect	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences,	even	if	it	

limits	when	they	can	hike	there.

Figure 1‐91. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to hike in this area each day

should be limited, even if it limits when they can hike on the trail, if it is needed to a) protect the quality

of visitors' experiences, or b) reduce environmental impacts.

Travel and Parking

 There	was	no	significant	difference	in	the	routes	that	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	

groups	used	to	travel	to	and	from	BLRA	(χ2=15.145	p=0.234).	

 The	largest	proportion	(27%)	of	visitors	to	IPW,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	traveled	to	

and	from	BLRA	via	Left	Hand	Canyon.	A	slightly	smaller	proportion	(24%)	traveled	to	and	

from	BLRA	via	Boulder	Canyon,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.

 Over	three‐quarters	(77%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	took	the	same	route	home	that	they	took	to	

get	to	BLRA.

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	routes	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	6	in	Appendix	G.

Table 1‐24. Which routes did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip?

Percent of Respondents (n=241)

Route home

Route to BLRA Left Hand Canyon Boulder Canyon Peak‐to‐Peak Highway Rt. 119

Left Hand Canyon 27% 10% 2% 1%

Boulder Canyon 5% 24% 1% 2%

Peak‐to‐Peak Highway 0% 1% 18% 1%

Rt. 119 0% 0% 0% 8%
117	

 Visitor	groups’	arrival	time	at	BLRA	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=12.542,	p=0.028).	

 Nearly	half	(47%)	of	visitor	groups	on	weekend	days	arrived	before	9	AM,	compared	to	less	

than	one‐third	(31%)	on	weekdays.	In	contrast,	more	than	half	(53%)	of	weekday	visitor	

groups	arrived	between	9	AM	and	1	PM,	compared	to	just	over	one‐third	(37%)	on	

weekend	days.	

 A	notable	proportion	(12%)	of	weekend	visitor	groups	arrived	before	7	AM,	compared	to	

only	3%	of	weekday	visitor	groups.	

 Relatively	few	weekday	(15%)	and	weekend	day	(16%)	visitor	groups	to	IPW	arrived	after	

1	PM.	

Figure 1‐92. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today?
118	

 The	vast	majority	(96%)	of	all	visitor	groups	to	IPW	arrived	at	BLRA	on	the	same	day	they	

took	the	survey,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.050,	p=0.823).	

Figure 1‐93. Did you arrive on a different day?
119	

 The	majority	of	all	visitor	groups	(95%)	to	IPW	traveled	to	BLRA	in	a	single	vehicle,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.014,	p=0.993).	

Figure 1‐94. In how many vehicles did you and your group travel to BLRA on this trip?
120	

 Visitor	groups’	parking	locations	at	BLRA	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=23.436,	p<0.001).	

 Weekend	visitor	groups	to	IPW	were	significantly	more	likely	to	park	at	the	Day	Use	

Parking	Lot	next	to	Brainard	Lake;	37%	of	weekend	visitor	groups	parked	there,	in	

comparison	with	only	18%	of	weekday	visitor	groups.	

 In	contrast,	weekday	visitor	groups	to	IPW	were	significantly	more	likely	to	park	at	the	

Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot;	38%	of	weekday	visitor	groups	parked	at	the	trailhead,	in	

comparison	with	16%	of	weekend	visitor	groups.	

 About	one‐third	of	visitor	groups	parked	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	

weekdays	(34%)	and	weekend	days	(39%).	

 None	of	the	visitors	contacted	for	this	survey	parked	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	

by	virtue	of	the	sampling	procedures	used	for	this	survey	(described	previously	in	“Survey	

Sampling	and	Administration).	Visitors	who	parked	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

were	surveyed	as	part	of	the	Gateway	visitor	survey	(reported	in	“Gateway	Visitor	Survey	

Results”).	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐95. Where did you park in BLRA for your hike?
121	

 IPW	visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	large	majority	of	visitors	to	IPW	thought	their	parking	

locations	were	safe	(98%),	easy	to	find	(96%),	and	well‐marked	(96%).	

 Slightly	smaller	proportions	of	visitors	to	IPW	thought	their	parking	locations	were	

convenient	(88%)	and	close	to	their	destination	(82%).	

 The	smallest	proportion	(59%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	agreed	that	their	parking	location	was	

uncongested.	In	other	words,	approximately	40%	thought	that	where	they	parked	was	

congested,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.	

Figure 1‐96. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at BLRA on the

day they took the survey.
122	

 IPW	visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	vary	significantly,	depending	on	

where	they	parked	at	BLRA	(i.e.,	in	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	versus	in	one	of	the	two	IPW	

Trailhead	Parking	Lots).	

 Visitors	who	parked	in	the	Long	Lake	or	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	were	

significantly	more	likely	than	those	who	parked	in	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	to	think	their	

parking	location	was	convenient	(95%	versus	75%),	easy	to	find	(98%	versus	91%),	and	

close	to	their	destinations	(94%	versus	57%).	

 There	was	a	statistical,	but	not	substantive,	difference	in	whether	visitors	thought	their	

parking	location	was	safe;	97%	of	those	who	parked	in	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	thought	

where	they	parked	was	safe,	and	98%	of	those	who	parked	at	a	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

thought	it	was	safe.	

 Visitors	to	IPW	were	equally	likely	to	describe	their	parking	location	as	well‐marked	(96%)	

and	uncongested	(60%),	regardless	of	where	they	parked.	

Figure 1‐97. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they

parked at BLRA on the day they took the survey.
123	

 Weekday	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	at	BLRA	differed	significantly	from	

those	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	(χ2=22.126,	p=0.005;	t=‐4.078,	p<0.001).

 Three‐quarters	(75%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	on	weekend	days	thought	that	parking	congestion	

at	BLRA	was	moderate	to	extreme,	and	virtually	all	(93%)	thought	there	was	at	least	slight	

parking	congestion	on	the	day	they	visited.

 Weekday	visitors	to	IPW	were	less	likely	than	weekend	visitors	to	report	that	there	was	

parking	congestion	at	BLRA;	however,	more	than	half	(57%)	of	weekday	visitors	thought	

that	parking	congestion	was	moderate	to	extreme,	and	87%	thought	there	was	at	least	

slight	parking	congestion	on	the	day	they	visited.

Figure 1‐98. How much parking congestion do you think there is at BLRA today?
124	

 There	was	no	statistical	difference	between	IPW	visitor	group’s	awareness	of	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	weekend	days	versus	weekdays	(χ2=4.962,	p=0.175).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	nearly	two‐thirds	(63%)	of	IPW	visitor	groups	did	not	know	

that	if	you	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	you	do	not	have	to	pay	the	amenity	

fee	to	visit	BLRA.	Of	those,	more	than	half	(55%)	indicated	that	they	would	not	have	chosen	

to	park	there	anyway.

 Approximately	one‐third	(34%)	of	IPW	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	

were	aware	that	they	could	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	visit	BLRA	for	

free,	but	did	not	park	there	anyway.

 A	very	small	proportion	(4%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	used	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	

carpool,	and	a	similarly	small	proportion	(8%)	of	visitors	indicated	that	they	would	have	

used	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	had	they	known	about	it.

Figure 1‐99. Did you know that if you park in the lot near the entrance station (Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot) you don’t have to pay the fee to visit BLRA?
125	

 Visitors	to	IPW	were	asked	if	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip	if	their	only	

option	was	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	hike/walk	or	take	a	shuttle,	or	

park	outside	of	BLRA	and	take	a	shuttle	from	there.	Visitors’	responses	to	the	questions	did	

not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	just	over	three‐quarters	(76%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	be	

likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	and	take	a	10	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	the	starting	point	of	their	hike.

 However,	less	than	one‐third	(30%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	

future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	then	

walk/hike	3	miles	to	the	starting	point	of	their	hike.

 An	even	smaller	proportion	(19%)	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	

future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	town	and	then	take	a	40	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	

the	starting	point	of	their	hike.

Figure 1‐100. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only

option for visiting because parking lots were full.
126	

 Visitors’	attitudes	about	two	potential	parking	management	actions	at	BLRA	varied	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p<0.05).	Attitudes	about	four	other	

potential	parking	management	actions	did	not	vary	significantly.	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	more	than	three‐quarters	(80%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	agreed	

that	when	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	full,	visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	at	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	then	take	a	10	minute	shuttle.

 Nearly	two‐thirds	(66%)	of	weekend	visitors	thought	that	visitors	should	be	stopped	at	the	

entrance	station	until	some	parking	spaces	open	up,	and	only	then	allowed	to	enter.	Fewer	

than	half	(49%)	of	weekday	visitors	agreed	with	the	same.

 Just	over	half	(53%)	of	weekend	visitors	agreed	that	visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	at	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	then	walk/hike	to	their	starting	point.	Weekday	

visitors	were	less	supportive	of	this	option;	only	39%	agreed.

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	about	one‐third	(32%)	of	IPW	visitors	agree	that	visitors	

should	be	allowed	to	enter	BLRA	around	until	a	parking	space	opens	up.

 Similarly,	about	one‐third	(34%)	of	visitors	to	IPW,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	

agreed	that	visitors	should	be	directed	to	other	recreation	areas	when	parking	lots	are	full	

at	BLRA.

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	only	a	small	proportion	(19%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	agreed	that	

visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	in	town	and	take	a	40	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	the	

starting	point	of	their	hike.

Figure 1‐101. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking

lots are full at BLRA.
127	

Planning Your Trip to BLRA

 The	time	frame	in	which	visitors	to	IPW	planned	their	trips	to	BLRA	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=8.903,	p=0.064).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	a	large	majority	(86%)	of	visitors	planned	their	trips	to	BLRA	

within	a	week	prior	to	visiting.	More	specifically,	over	half	(58%)	planned	their	trip	within	

the	24‐hours	prior	to	their	trip.	

 Very	few	(15%)	visitors	planned	their	trip	more	than	a	week	prior	to	visiting	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐102. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA?
128	

 Significantly	more	weekend	than	weekday	visitors	to	IPW	anticipated	that	it	would	be	

difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA	(χ2=3.988,	p=0.046).

 The	majority	(58%)	of	weekend	visitors	anticipated	that	it	would	be	difficult	to	find	parking	

at	BLRA,	while	the	majority	(54%)	of	weekday	visitors	did	not	anticipate	that	it	would	be	

difficult.

Figure 1‐103. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be

difficult to find parking here?
129	

 For	visitors	to	IPW	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	

parking	at	BLRA,	a	follow‐up	question	asked	how	that	affected	their	trip	plans.	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	close	to	two‐thirds	(62%)	of	visitors	who	thought	about	the	

possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA	when	they	planned	their	trip	

reported	that	this	did	not	affect	their	trip	plans.	

 Weekday	visitors	(30%)	were	much	more	likely	than	weekend	day	visitors	(1%)	to	plan	

their	visit	to	BLRA	for	a	day	of	the	week	that	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded	

(χ2=25.813,	p<0.001).	

 Weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	responses	to	any	of	

the	other	statements	included	in	this	question.	

 Of	note,	one‐third	(35%)	of	all	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	of	parking	

congestion	visited	at	a	time	of	day	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded,	regardless	of	the	

day	of	week.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	effects	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Appendix	B.	

Figure 1‐104. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you

planned this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?
130	

 Visitors	were	asked	how	likely	they	would	be	to	use	each	of	several	sources	for	information	

about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	BLRA,	if	it	were	available	for	planning	a	future	

trip	to	BLRA.	Responses	to	the	question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	

weekend	day	visitor	groups.

 The	vast	majority	(82%)	of	visitors	to	IPW	indicated	they	would	be	likely	to	use	a	website	

for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	BLRA	when	planning	a	future	trip.

 A	smartphone	app	ranked	second	among	the	information	sources,	with	over	half	(56%)	of	

visitors	indicating	they’d	be	likely	to	use	one	to	plan	a	future	trip	to	BLRA.

 Over	one‐third	of	visitors	to	IPW	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	social	media	(44%),	text	

updates	on	a	cellular	phone/smartphone	(34%),	and	an	AM	radio	station	(34%)	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	BLRA.	Just	under	one‐third	(31%)	indicated	

they	would	use	a	telephone	information	line	with	a	message	updated	daily.

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	effects	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Appendix	B.

Figure 1‐105. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking

and crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA.
131	

Background Information

 There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	gender	of	IPW	visitors	on	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=2.425,	p=0.119).	

 Slightly	more	than	half	(55%)	of	respondents	were	male,	and	slightly	less	than	half	(45%)	

were	female.	

Figure 1‐106. What is your gender?
132	

 On	average,	visitors	contacted	on	weekdays	(mean	=	51	years	of	age)	were	slightly	older	

than	those	contacted	on	weekend	days	(mean	=	45	years	of	age;	t=3.093,	p=0.002).

 The	majority	(58%)	of	weekday	visitors	were	55	years	of	age	or	older,	while	half	(50%)	of	

weekend	day	visitors	were	between	18	and	44	years	of	age	(χ2=37.249,	p<0.001).

Figure 1‐107. How old are you?
133	

 Visitors	were	overwhelmingly	(97%)	residents	of	the	United	States,	regardless	of	the	day	of	

the	week	when	they	visited	IPW	(χ2=0.355,	p=0.551).	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	countries	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Table	10	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐108. Do you live in the United States?
134	

 The	state	of	residence	of	visitors	to	IPW	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=10.795,	p=0.001).	

 The	vast	majority	(89%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	were	residents	of	Colorado	and	few	

(11%)	were	residents	of	other	states.

 A	slightly	smaller	majority	(72%)	of	weekday	visitors	were	residents	of	Colorado,	with	over	

one‐quarter	(28%)	of	visitors	residing	in	other	states.

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	states	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Table	11	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐109. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in?
135	

 Among	Colorado	residents	who	visited	the	IPW,	visitors’	city	of	residence	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=2.115,	p=0.715).	

 Among	Colorado	residents	who	visited	the	IPW,	over	half	(56%)	reside	in	the	Boulder	

metropolitan	area.	

 Over	one‐third	(38%)	of	Colorado	residents	who	visited	IPW	live	in	the	Denver‐Aurora‐

Lakewood	metropolitan	area.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	zip	codes	reported	by	respondents	who	are	residents	of	

Colorado	is	included	in	Table	12	in	Appendix	G.	

Figure 1‐110. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in?
136	

 The	education	level	of	visitors	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=12.584,	p=0.013).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(81%	on	weekdays,	88%	on	weekends)	of	

IPW	visitors	have	earned	a	college,	business	or	trade	school	degree	or	higher.	

Figure 1‐111. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?
137	

 Very	few	(3%)	visitors	reported	being	Hispanic	or	Latino,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week	

when	they	visited	IPW	(χ2=1.394,	p=0.238).

Figure 1‐112. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

 Visitors’	self‐reported	race	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(97%)	of	visitors	reported	their	race	as	

white.	

Figure 1‐113. What is your race?
138	

BLRA Visitor Survey Results

Results	in	this	section	are	representative	of	all	visitor	groups/visitors	who	parked	at	BLRA	and	did	

no	visit	the	IPW	during	the	2014	peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA	(referred	to	hereafter	as	visitor	

groups/visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area).	

Trip Description

 The	distribution	of	group	sizes	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekend	day	and	

weekday	visitor	groups	at	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	(χ2=2.451,	p=0.484).	

 A	majority	(53%)	of	all	visitors	groups	at	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	were	groups	of	

two	people.	

 One‐fifth	(20%)	of	all	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	were	groups	of	3	or	4	

people.	

 Solo	visitors	(14%)	and	groups	of	5	or	more	people	(13%)	were	about	equally	common.	

 On	average,	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	were	in	groups	of	3	people,	regardless	

of	day	of	week	(t=‐1.658,	p=0.101).	

Figure 1‐114. Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group on this trip to Brainard

Lake Recreation Area (BLRA)?
139	

 The	percentage	of	groups	visiting	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	with	children	under	the	

age	of	16	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekend	day	and	weekday	visitor	groups	

(χ2=2.790,	p=0.095).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	most	(80%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	

groups	were	visiting	without	children	under	the	age	of	16.	

Figure 1‐115. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on your trip to BLRA?
140	

 The	number	of	children	in	groups	with	children	did	not	differ	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2 =	3.840,	p=0.279).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	there	was	an	average	of	just	over	two	children	in	groups	with	

children	(t=‐1.166, p=0.255).	

 Of	the	relatively	few	groups	visiting	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	with	children	under	

the	age	of	16,	approximately	three‐quarters	(73%)	were	with	only	one	or	two	children.	

Figure 1‐116. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal

group today?
141	

 For	most	locations	visited	in	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area,	the	proportion	of	

respondents	who	visited	those	locations	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	

weekend	visitors	(p>0.05).	

 The	number	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	that	stopped	at	Red	Rock	

Lake	did	vary	significantly	between	weekday	(15%)	and	weekend	day	(4%)	visitor	groups	

(χ2=4.188,	p=0.041).	

 The	vast	majority	(98%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	visited	Brainard	

Lake.	

 Smaller	proportions	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	visited	Pawnee	

Campground	(43%),	Long	Lake	Trail	(23%),	and	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trail	(12%).	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Table	13	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐117. Which of the following locations in BLRA have you/will you visit on this trip?
142	

 The	primary	destination	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	contacted	on	

weekdays	did	not	vary	significantly	from	that	of	visitor	groups	contacted	on	weekend	days	

(χ2=9.797,	p=0.200).	

 Brainard	Lake	was	the	most	popular	primary	destination	reported	by	visitor	groups	to	

BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area,	with	over	half	(58%)	of	visitor	groups	reporting	this.	

 A	few	(8%)	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	reported	that	they	did	not	have	

a	primary	destination	on	their	trip	to	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐118. Which of the locations listed in Question 3 was your primary destination on this trip to

BLRA?
143	

 The	activities	participated	in	by	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups (p>0.05	for	all	tests,	except	

for	“Other”	responses).	

 Nearly	three‐quarters	(71%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	walked	or	

hiked	for	less	than	one	hour.	

 Close	to	one‐third	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	

the	week,	participated	in	camping	in	Pawnee	Campground	(32%)	and	day	hiking	of	more	

than	1	hour	(31%).	

 About	one‐quarter	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	participated	in	

picnicking	(27%)	and	creative	arts	(24%),	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	located	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Appendix	B.	

Figure 1‐119. Which of the following activities have you done during this trip to BLRA?
144	

 The	primary	activity	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=12.671,	p=0.081).	

 Camping	in	Pawnee	Campground	was	the	primary	activity	for	the	largest	proportion	(25%)	

of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups.	

 A	slightly	smaller	proportion	(20%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	

indicated	that	a	walk	or	short	hike	of	less	than	one	hour	was	their	primary	activity	in	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐120. Which of the following activities was your primary activity on this trip to BLRA?
145	

 Among	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	who	camped	in	the	Pawnee	

Campground,	the	number	of	nights	spent	camping	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=1.086,	p=0.581;	t=0.288,	p=0.775).	

 Nearly	half	(49%)	of	all	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	who	camped	in	

Pawnee	Campground	spent	two	nights	there.	Nearly	one‐third	(31%)	spent	3	or	more	

nights,	and	20%	spent	1	night.	

Figure 1‐121. If you camped in the Pawnee Campground, how many nights did you spend there?
146	

Travel and Parking

 There	was	no	significant	difference	in	the	routes	that	weekday	and	weekend	day	BLRA	

developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	used	to	travel	to	and	from	BLRA	(χ2=11.416	

p=0.653).	

 The	largest	proportion	(21%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	traveled	to	

and	from	BLRA	via	the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.	Slightly	

smaller	proportions	(20%	and	19%,	respectively)	traveled	to	and	from	BLRA	via	Left	Hand	

Canyon	and	Boulder	Canyon,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.

 Close	to	three‐quarters	(73%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	took	the	same	

route	home	that	they	took	to	get	to	BLRA.

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	routes	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	15	in	Appendix	H.

Table 1‐25. Which routes did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip?

Percent of Respondents (n=106)

Route home

Route to BLRA Left Hand Canyon Boulder Canyon Peak‐to‐Peak Highway Rt. 119

Left Hand Canyon 20% 6% 3% 2%

Boulder Canyon 1% 19% 4% 1%

Peak‐to‐Peak Highway 1% 2% 21% 3%

Rt. 119 0% 1% 6% 13%
147	

 BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups’	arrival	times	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=7.350,	p=0.196).	

 Approximately	one‐third	(34%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	arrived	

at	BLRA	between	9	AM	and	11	AM,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 Just	over	one‐quarter	(26%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	arrived	

between	1	PM	and	3	PM.	

 Equal	proportions	of	visitors	arrived	prior	to	9	AM	(12%)	and	after	3	PM	(12%),	regardless	

of	the	day	of	week.	

Figure 1‐122. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today?
148	

 Nearly	three‐quarters	(72%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	arrived	at	

BLRA	on	the	same	day	they	took	the	survey,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.165,	

p=0.684).	

 Slightly	over	one‐quarter	(28%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	arrived	at	BLRA	

prior	to	the	day	they	took	the	survey.	

Figure 1‐123. Did you arrive on a different day?
149	

 The	vast	majority	(83%)	of	all	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	traveled	to	

BLRA	in	a	single	vehicle,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=2.398,	p=0.302).	

Figure 1‐124. In how many vehicles did you and your personal group travel to BLRA on this trip?
150	

 BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups’	parking	location	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 The	vast	majority	(88%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	groups	parked	in	the	

Day	Use	Parking	Lot	next	to	Brainard	Lake	(56%)	or	their	campsite	in	the	Pawnee	

Campground	(32%),	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Table	16	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐125. Where did you park in BLRA today?
151	

 BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	significant	majority	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	

recreation	area	thought	their	parking	locations	were	safe	(99%),	well‐marked	(99%),	easy	

to	find	(98%),	and	convenient	(97%).	

 A	slightly	smaller	proportion	(88%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	agreed	that	

their	parking	locations	were	close	to	their	destination.	

 The	smallest	proportion	(63%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	thought	

their	parking	location	was	uncongested.	That	is,	just	under	40%	of	visitors	thought	their	

parking	location	was	congested.	

Figure 1‐126. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they

parked at BLRA on the day they took the survey.
152	

 BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	at	BLRA	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=14.447,	p=0.071).	

 Just	over	one‐third	(36%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	indicated	that	

there	was	no	parking	congestion	at	BLRA	on	the	day	they	took	the	survey.	

 Close	to	half	(42%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	thought	that	there	was	

moderate	to	extreme	parking	congestion	at	BLRA,	and	64%	thought	there	was	at	least	slight	

parking	congestion.	

Figure 1‐127. How much parking congestion do you think there is at BLRA today?
153	

 There	was	not	statistical	difference	between	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitor	

groups’	awareness	of	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	weekend	days	versus	weekdays	

(χ2=3.055,	p=0.383).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	nearly	three‐quarters	(71%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	

recreation	area	did	not	know	that	if	you	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	you	do	

not	have	to	pay	the	amenity	fee	to	visit	BLRA.	Of	those,	about	two‐thirds	(65%)	indicated	

that	they	would	not	have	chosen	to	park	there	anyway.	

 Approximately	one‐quarter	(26%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	were	aware	that	they	could	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	and	visit	BLRA	for	free,	but	no	one	in	their	group	parked	there.	

 A	very	small	proportion	(3%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	used	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	carpool,	and	a	slightly	larger	proportion	(6%)	indicated	

that	they	would	have	used	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	had	they	known	about	it.	

Figure 1‐128. Do you know that if you park in the lot near the entrance station (Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot) you don't have to pay the fee to visit BLRA?
154	

 Visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	were	asked	if	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	

a	future	trip	if	their	only	option	was	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	

hike/walk	or	take	a	shuttle,	or	park	outside	of	BLRA	and	take	a	shuttle	from	there.	Visitors’	

responses	to	the	questions	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	approximately	two‐thirds	(68%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	

be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	and	take	a	10	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 Just	under	half	(43%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	

to	visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

and	then	walk/hike	2	miles	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 Only	16%	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	

visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	town	and	then	take	a	40	minute	

shuttle	bus	ride	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐129. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only

option for visiting because parking lots were full.
155	

 BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	parking	management	

actions	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	

all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	nearly	three‐quarters	(73%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	

area	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	full,	visitors	should	be	directed	to	

park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	take	a	10	minute	shuttle	to	their	destination	

in	BLRA.	

 Over	half	(53%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	thought	that	visitors	should	be	

allowed	to	enter	BLRA	and	drive	around	until	a	parking	space	opens	up.	

 Nearly	equal	proportions	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	thought	that	visitors	

to	BLRA	should	be	stopped	at	the	entrance	station	until	some	parking	spaces	open	up	and	

only	then	allowed	to	enter	(43%)	or	should	park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	

then	walk/hike	about	2	miles	on	a	trail	to	their	destination	in	BLRA	(45%).	

 The	smallest	proportions	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	thought	that	visitors	

should	be	directed	to	other	recreation	areas	instead	of	BLRA	(29%)	or	directed	to	park	in	

town	and	then	take	a	40	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	BLRA	(22%).	

Figure 1‐130. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking

lots are full at BLRA.
156	

Planning Your Trip to BLRA

 The	time	frame	in	which	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	planned	their	trips	

did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=1.078,	p=0.898).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	more	than	half	(55%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	

visitors	planned	their	trip	within	24	hours	of	their	visit,	and	over	one‐third	(35%)	planned	

their	trip	on	the	day	they	visited.	

 About	one‐quarter	(27%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	planned	their	trip	

more	than	a	week	prior	to	visiting.	

Figure 1‐131. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA?
157	

 The	number	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	who	anticipated	that	it	would	

be	difficult	to	find	parking	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	

visitors	(χ2=0.413,	p=0.521).	

 Close	to	three‐quarters	(72%)	of	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	did	not	anticipate	

that	it	would	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐132. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be

difficult to find parking here?
158	

 For	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	

might	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA,	a	follow‐up	question	asked	how	that	affected	

their	trip	plans.	

 Regardless	of	day	of	week,	over	one‐quarter	(27%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	

recreation	area	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	

BLRA	when	they	planned	their	trip	reported	that	this	did	not	affect	their	plans.	

 Weekday	visitors	(43%)	were	significantly	more	likely	than	weekend	day	visitors	(8%)	to	

plan	their	visit	to	BLRA	for	a	day	of	the	week	that	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded	

(χ2=4.309,	p=0.038).	

 Weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	responses	to	any	of	

the	other	statements	included	in	this	question.	

 Over	one‐third	(39%)	of	all	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	who	thought	about	the	

possibility	of	parking	congestion	visited	at	a	time	of	day	they	thought	would	be	less	

crowded,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	effects	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	17	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐133. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you

planned this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?
159	

BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	were	asked	how	likely	they	would	be	to	use	each	of	several	

sources	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	BLRA,	if	it	were	available	for	

planning	a	future	trip	to	BLRA.	Responses	to	the	question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 The	large	majority	(83%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	indicated	they	

would	be	likely	to	use	a	website	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	BLRA	when	

planning	a	future	trip.	

 Approximately	half	of	all	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	said	they	would	be	

likely	to	use	an	AM	radio	station	(53%)	or	a	tourist	information	center	(52%).	

 Over	one‐third	(37%)	of	all	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	indicated	that	they	

would	be	likely	to	use	text	updates	on	a	cell	phone	or	smartphone.	About	one‐quarter	said	

they	would	be	likely	to	use	social	media	(28%),	a	smartphone	app	(24%),	or	a	telephone	

information	line	with	a	live	person	(24%).	

Figure 1‐134. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking

and crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA.
160	

Background Information

 There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	gender	of	visitors	on	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=0.001,	p=0.973).	

 Roughly	half	of	all	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	were	male	(53%)	and	half	

were	female	(47%).	

Figure 1‐135. What is your gender?
161	

 On	average,	BLRA	developed	recreation	area	visitors	contacted	on	weekdays	(mean	=	58	

years	of	age)	were	slightly	older	than	those	contacted	on	weekend	days	(mean	=	49	years	of	

age;	t=3.019,	p=0.003).	

 When	grouped	by	age	category,	there	was	no	significant	difference	in	the	ages	of	weekday	

and	weekend	day	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	(χ2=10.407,	p=0.064).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	majority	(52%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	

recreation	area	were	55	years	old	or	older.	

Figure 1‐136. How old are you?
162	

 Visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	were	overwhelming	(98%)	residents	of	the	

United	States,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week	when	they	visited	BLRA	(χ2=1.346,	

p=0.246).	

 	A	frequency	distribution	of	all	countries	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	

in	Table	18	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐137. Do you live in the United States?
163	

 The	state	of	residence	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=0.089,	p=0.766).	

 The	large	majority	(85%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	were	residents	of	

Colorado,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	states	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Table	19	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐138. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in?
164	

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area,	visitors’	city	of	residence	

did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=5.875,	p=0.209).	

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area,	over	half	(56%)	live	in	the	

Denver‐Aurora‐Lakewood	metropolitan	area	and	just	over	one‐third	(37%)	live	in	the	

Boulder	metropolitan	area.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	zip	codes	reported	by	respondents	who	are	residents	of	

Colorado	is	included	in	Table	20	in	Appendix	H.	

Figure 1‐139. If you live in Colorado, what metropolitan area do you live in?
165	

 The	education	level	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=3.784,	p=0.581).	

 Approximately	three‐quarters	(76%)	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	have	

earned	a	college,	business	or	trade	school	degree	or	higher.	

Figure 1‐140. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?
166	

 Very	few	(4%)	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	reported	being	Hispanic	or	

Latino,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week	they	visited	BLRA	(χ2=0.868,	p=0.351).	

Figure 1‐141. Are you Hispanic or Latino?
167	

 Weekend	day	visitors	(100%)	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	were	statistically	(but	

not	substantively)	more	likely	than	weekday	visitors	(94%)	to	report	their	race	as	white	

(χ2=4.847,	p=0.028).	

 There	was	no	substantive	difference	between	the	proportions	of	weekday	visitors	and	

weekend	day	visitors	who	reported	their	race	as	white.	

 Otherwise,	the	self‐reported	race	of	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days,	and	there	were	essentially	no	

nonwhite	visitors	to	BLRA’s	developed	recreation	area	on	weekdays	or	weekend	days.	

Figure 1‐142. What is your race?
168	

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot Visitor Survey Results

Results	in	this	section	are	representative	of	all	visitor	groups/visitors	who	parked	at	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	during	the	2014	peak	visitation	period	at	BLRA,	regardless	of	whether	or	not	

they	visited	the	IPW	(referred	to	hereafter	as	Gateway	visitor	groups/visitors).	

Trip Description

 The	distribution	of	Gateway	visitor	group	sizes	varied	significantly	between	weekday	and	

weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=11.940,	p=0.008).	

 On	average,	weekday	visitor	groups	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	had	two	people	and	weekend	

day	visitor	groups	had	three	people	(t=‐2.360,	p=0.028).	

 Nearly	two‐thirds	(60%)	of	weekday	visitor	groups	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	were	solo	

groups,	in	contrast	to	only	15%	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups.	

 One‐half	(50%)	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	had	two	people,	

while	only	30%	of	weekday	groups	had	two	people.	

 One‐third	(35%)	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	on	weekend	days	were	in	groups	of	3	or	more	

people,	compared	to	just	12%	on	weekdays.	

Figure 1‐143. Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group on this trip to Brainard

Lake Recreation Area (BLRA)?
169	

 The	percentage	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	hiking	with	children	under	the	age	of	16	did	not	

differ	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=0.737,	p=0.391).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(80%)	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	visited	

without	children	under	the	age	of	16.	

Figure 1‐144. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to BLRA?
170	

 The	number	of	children	(in	visitor	groups	with	children)	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=3.200,	p=0.202).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	there	was	an	average	of	just	over	two	children	per	group	in	

Gateway	visitor	groups	with	children	(t=1.235,	p=0.237).	

 Of	the	relatively	few	Gateway	visitor	groups	with	children	under	the	age	of	16,	three‐

quarters	(75%)	had	one	or	two	children.	

Figure 1‐145. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal

group?
171	

 The	activities	that	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	participated	in	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups,	with	the	exception	of	

camping	in	the	Pawnee	Campground	(χ2=7.489,	p=0.006).	

 Over	three‐quarters	(77%)	of	visitors	to	Gateway	Trailhead	were	day	hiking	for	more	than	

one	hour.	

 One‐third	(33%)	of	visitors	to	Gateway	Trailhead	were	going	on	a	walk	or	hike	of	less	than	

one	hour.	

 While	10%	of	weekday	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	were	also	camping	in	Pawnee	

Campground,	there	were	no	weekday	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	who	were	camping	

in	the	Pawnee	Campground.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	activities	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Table	21	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐146. Which of the following activities have you done during this trip to BLRA?
172	

 Gateway	visitor	groups’	primary	activity	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=12.220,	p=0.142).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	day	hiking	for	more	than	one	hour	was	the	primary	activity	

for	the	majority	(67%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead.	

Figure 1‐147. Which of the activities listed in Question 3 was your primary activity on this trip to BLRA?
173	

Visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	were	given	a	map	of	BLRA	and	asked	to	mark	their	route	of	travel	

through	BLRA	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey.	These	results	are	summarized	below.	

 Gateway	visitor	groups’	route	of	travel	through	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=6.552,	p=0.088).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	nearly	half	(46%)	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	indicated	

that	they	used	trails	in	the	Gateway	area	of	BLRA	(e.g.,	Sourdough	Trail,	South	St.	Vrain	

Trail,	etc.),	and	did	not	venture	to	Brainard	Lake	or	the	IPW.	

 Just	under	one‐third	(29%)	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	walked/hiked	to	Brainard	Lake	via	

trails	and/or	Brainard	Lake	Road,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.	

 Relatively	few	Gateway	visitor	groups	walked/hiked	to	the	IPW	via	trails	and/or	roads	

(11%)	or	visited	Lefthand	Reservoir	and/or	Red	Rock	Lake	(14%),	regardless	of	the	day	of	

the	week.	

Figure 1‐148. Which route of travel through BLRA did you use today?
174	

 Gateway	visitor	groups’	primary	destinations	in	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=3.703,	p=0.593).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	close	to	one‐third	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	indicated	

that	Brainard	Lake	was	their	primary	destination	(31%)	or	that	they	did	not	have	a	primary	

destination	(31%).	

 Close	to	equal	proportions	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	listed	the	IPW	(13%),	trails	

in	the	Gateway	area	(10%),	and	Lefthand	Reservoir	and/or	Red	Rock	Lake	(10%)	as	their	

primary	destination	in	BLRA,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Table	22	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐149. Which location in BLRA was your primary destination on this trip?
175	

Travel and Parking

 There	was	no	significant	difference	in	the	routes	that	weekday	and	weekend	day	Gateway	

visitor	groups	used	to	travel	to	and	from	BLRA	(χ2=16.322,	p=0.091).	

 The	largest	proportion	(38%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	traveled	to	and	from	

BLRA	via	Left	Hand	Canyon.	The	second‐largest	proportion	(28%)	traveled	to	and	from	

BLRA	via	Boulder	Canyon.	

 Nearly	three‐quarters	(72%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	used	the	same	route	to	

travel	to	and	from	BLRA.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	routes	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Appendix	B.	

Table 1‐26. Which route did you use to travel to and from BLRA on this trip?

Percent of Respondents (n=64)

Route home

Route to BLRA Left Hand Canyon Boulder Canyon Peak‐to‐Peak Highway Rt. 119

Left Hand Canyon 38% 11% 3% 2%

Boulder Canyon 6% 28% 0% 0%

Peak‐to‐Peak Highway 2% 2% 5% 0%

Rt. 119 0% 0% 2% 3%
176	

 Gateway	visitors	groups’	arrival	time	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	

and	weekend	days	(χ2=2.238,	p=0.815).	

 The	vast	majority	(80%)	of	Gateway	visitor	groups	arrived	at	BLRA	between	9	AM	and	1	

PM,	and	about	one‐half	(49%)	arrived	between	9	AM	and	11	AM,	regardless	of	the	day	of	

week.	

 Few	Gateway	visitor	groups	arrived	at	BLRA	prior	to	9	AM	(7%)	or	after	1	PM	(14%).	

Figure 1‐150. At approximately what time did you arrive at BLRA today?
177	

 Whether	or	not	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	arrived	on	the	day	they	completed	the	or	

prior	to	that	day	varied	significantly,	but	not	substantively,	between	weekday	and	weekend	

day	groups	(χ2=7.489,	p=0.006).	

 Nearly	all	Gateway	visitor	groups	(90%)	on	weekdays	and	almost	all	(99%)	on	weekend	

days	arrived	at	BLRA	on	the	same	day	they	took	the	survey.	

Figure 1‐151. Did you arrive on a different day?
178	

 The	vast	majority	(96%)	of	all	Gateway	visitor	groups	traveled	to	BLRA	in	a	single	vehicle,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.426,	p=0.514).	

Figure 1‐152. In how many vehicles did you and your personal group travel to BLRA on this trip?
179	

 Gateway	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	virtually	all	Gateway	visitors	thought	their	parking	locations	

in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	were	safe	(99%),	easy	to	find	(99%),	well‐marked	

(94%),	and	convenient	(93%).	

 Most	(86%)	Gateway	visitors	thought	that	their	parking	locations	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	were	uncongested.	

 A	smaller	majority	(67%)	of	Gateway	visitors	thought	that	their	parking	location	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	was	close	to	their	destination.	

Figure 1‐153. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of parking in the Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot on the day they took the survey.
180	

 Gateway	visitors	were	asked	whether	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

interfered	with	what	they	were	planning	to	do	at	BLRA	that	day.	Responses	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	more	than	three‐quarters	(79%)	of	Gateway	visitors	

reported	that	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	did	not	interfere	with	their	

plans.	

 However,	nearly	one‐fifth	(18%)	of	Gateway	visitors	reported	that	parking	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	interfered	with	their	plans	to	hike	in	the	IPW	(i.e.,	on	the	Mitchell	

Lake	Trail	or	Long	Lake	Trail).	

 A	small	proportion	(4%)	of	Gateway	visitors	indicated	that	parking	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	interfered	with	their	plans	to	visit	Brainard	Lake.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	ways	parking	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	interfered	with	respondents	plan	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	24	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐154. Did parking in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot interfere with what you were planning to

do at BLRA today?
181	

 Among	Gateway	visitors	who	responded	that	parking	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

interfered	with	what	they	were	planning	to	do	at	BLRA	that	day,	the	majority	(59%)	chose	

to	hike	on	the	trails	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	instead.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	activities	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Appendix	B.	

Low Sample Size on This Question Suggests Results May not Be Applicable.

Figure 1‐155. If parking in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot interfered with what you were planning to

do at BLRA today, what did you do instead?
182	

 Gateway	visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	which	description	best	explained	why	they	parked	

in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey.	

Responses	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Approximately	one‐third	(30%)	of	all	Gateway	visitor	groups	parked	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	there	to	avoid	paying	the	BLRA	entrance	fee.	

 Additionally,	one‐quarter	(24%)	of	all	Gateway	visitor	groups	parked	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	because	parking	lots	closer	to	their	destination	in	BLRA	were	full,	and	

relatively	few	(11%)	indicated	that	they	parked	there	because	it	was	the	closest	parking	lot	

to	their	destination	in	BLRA.	

 Just	under	one‐quarter	(23%)	of	all	Gateway	visitor	groups	parked	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	because	they	wanted	to	hike	or	bike	from	there.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	reasons	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Table	26	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐156. What reasons best explain why you parked in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot today?
183	

 Gateway	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=8.220,	p=0.314).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	nearly	two‐thirds	(64%)	of	Gateway	visitors	thought	there	

was	slight	or	no	parking	congestion	at	all	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	on	the	day	

they	took	the	survey.	

Figure 1‐157. How much parking congestion do you think there is in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

today?
184	

 Gateway	visitors	were	asked	whether	they	agree	with	two	statements	about	parking	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	Responses	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	

weekend	day	visitor	groups	(p>0.05	for	both	tests).	

 Over	half	(55%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	agreed	that	it	is	worth	it	to	park	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	avoid	paying	the	entrance	fee.

 Only	15%	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	indicated	that	they	would	not	have	come	to	

BLRA	had	they	known	that	they	would	have	to	park	so	far	from	their	destination.	

Figure 1‐158. Percentage who agree with each of the following statements about parking in the Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot.
185	

 Visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	were	asked	if	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	

future	trip	if	their	only	option	was	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	

hike/walk	or	take	a	shuttle,	or	park	outside	of	BLRA	and	take	a	shuttle	from	there.	Visitors’	

responses	to	the	questions	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Nearly	three‐quarters	(72%)	of	Gateway	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	

future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	walk/hike	

about	2	miles	on	a	trail	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 A	similar	proportion	(70%)	of	Gateway	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	

future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	take	a	10	

minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 Only	17%	of	Gateway	visitors	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	BLRA	on	a	future	

trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	town	and	then	take	a	40	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	their	

destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐159. Percentage who would be likely to visit BLRA on a future trip, even if this was their only

option for visiting because parking lots were full.
186	

 Gateway	visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	parking	management	actions	at	BLRA	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	approximately	two‐thirds	(68%)	of	Gateway	visitors	agreed	

that	when	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	full,	visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	take	a	10	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 A	similar	proportion	(67%)	of	Gateway	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	

full,	visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	walk	or	

hike	2	miles	to	their	destination(s)	in	BLRA.	

 Just	under	half	(48%)	of	Gateway	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	are	BLRA	are	full,	

visitors	should	be	stopped	at	the	entrance	station	until	parking	spaces	open	up,	and	only	

then	allowed	to	enter.	A	slightly	smaller	proportion	(44%)	of	Gateway	visitors	indicated	

that	when	parking	lots	at	BLRA	are	full,	visitors	should	be	allowed	to	enter	BLRA	and	drive	

around	until	a	space	opens	up.	

 Over	one‐third	(39%)	of	Gateway	visitors	thought	that	when	parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	

should	be	directed	to	other	recreation	areas	instead	of	visiting	BLRA	that	day.	

Figure 1‐160. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking

lots are full.
187	

Planning Your Trip to BLRA

 The	time	frame	in	which	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	planned	their	trips	varied	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=9.762,	p=0.045).	

 Nearly	two‐thirds	(60%)	of	weekday	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	planned	their	trip	on	

the	same	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey,	in	comparison	to	only	41%	of	weekend	

day	visitors.	

 Nearly	half	(45%)	of	weekend	day	visitors	planned	their	trip	the	day	before	they	visited	

Gateway,	while	only	20%	of	weekday	visitors	did	the	same.	

 However,	the	vast	majority	of	Gateway	visitors	on	weekdays	(80%)	and	weekend	days	

(86%)	planned	their	trip	to	BLRA	within	24	hours	of	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	

survey.	

 Weekday	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	(10%)	were	more	likely	weekend	day	visitors	

(3%)	to	plan	their	trip	more	than	a	week	in	advance.	

Figure 1‐161. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to BLRA?
188	

 The	percentage	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	who	anticipated	that	it	would	be	

difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	

day	visitors	(χ2=0.881,	p=0.348).	

 The	majority	(79%)	of	Gateway	visitors	did	not	anticipate	that	it	would	be	difficult	to	find	

parking	at	BLRA.	

Figure 1‐162. When you planned this trip to BLRA, did you think about the possibility that it might be

difficult to find parking here?
189	

 For	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	

difficult	to	find	parking	at	BLRA,	a	follow‐up	question	asked	how	that	affected	their	trip	

plans.	Responses	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 The	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	parking	did	not	affect	the	plans	of	over	half	

(59%)	of	all	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 Of	the	Gateway	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	

parking	at	BLRA,	just	under	one‐third	(29%)	visited	at	a	time	of	day	they	thought	would	be	

less	crowded.	A	slightly	smaller	proportion	(18%)	indicated	that	they	avoided	places	they	

thought	would	be	crowded.	

Low Sample Size on This Question Suggests Results May not Be Applicable.

Figure 1‐163. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you

planned this trip to BLRA, how did it affect your trip plans?
190	

 Gateway	visitors	were	asked	how	likely	they	would	be	to	use	each	of	several	sources	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	BLRA,	if	it	were	available	for	

planning	a	future	trip	to	BLRA.	Responses	to	the	question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 The	vast	majority	(85%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	indicated	they	would	be	likely	

to	use	a	website	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	BLRA	when	planning	a	

future	trip.	

 Over	half	of	all	Gateway	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	use	a	smartphone	app	(58%)	

and	a	tourist	information	center	(55%).	

 Between	one‐quarter	and	one‐third	of	all	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	indicated	that	

they	would	be	likely	to	use	text	updates	on	a	cell	phone	or	smartphone	(30%),	a	telephone	

information	line	with	a	live	person	(30%),	a	telephone	information	line	with	a	message	

updated	daily	(27%),	and	social	media	(26%)	for	information.	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	sources	reported	by	respondents	is	

included	in	Table	27	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐164. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking

and crowding conditions at BLRA, if it was available for planning a future trip to BLRA.
191	

Background Information

 There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	gender	of	Gateway	visitors	on	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=0.236,	p=0.627).	

 Slightly	under	half	(43%)	of	all	Gateway	visitors	were	male,	and	slightly	over	half	(57%)	

were	female.	

Figure 1‐165. What is your gender?
192	

 The	age	of	Gateway	visitors	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=4.416,	p=0.491).	

 On	average,	Gateway	visitors	were	46	years	of	age	(t=0.972,	p=0.334).	

 One‐half	(50%)	of	Gateway	visitors	were	18	to	44	years	of	age,	and	one‐half	(50%)	were	45	

years	of	age	or	older.	

 Close	to	one‐third	(29%)	of	all	Gateway	visitors	were	between	35	and	44	years	of	age,	and	

one‐fifth	were	55	to	64	years	of	age.	

Figure 1‐166. How old are you?
193	

 Nearly	all	(99%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	were	residents	of	the	United	States,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	week	when	they	visited	(χ2=0.137,	p=0.712).	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	countries	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Table	28	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐167. Do you live in the United States?
194	

 Gateway	visitors’	state	of	residence	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=0.953,	p=0.329).	

 The	large	majority	(90%)	of	Gateway	visitors	were	residents	of	Colorado,	regardless	of	the	

day	of	week.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	states	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Table	29	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐168. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in?
195	

 Among	Colorado	residents	who	visited	the	Gateway	Trailhead,	visitors’	city	of	residence	did	

not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=0.249,	p=0.883).	

 Among	Colorado	residents	who	visited	the	Gateway	Trailhead,	over	half	(55%)	live	in	the	

Boulder	metropolitan	area,	and	just	under	half	(44%)	live	in	the	Denver‐Aurora‐Lakewood	

metropolitan	area.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	zip	codes	reported	by	respondents	who	are	residents	of	

Colorado	is	included	in	Table	30	in	Appendix	I.	

Figure 1‐169. If you live in Colorado, what metropolitan area do you live in?
196	

 The	education	level	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=1.157,	p=0.885).	

 The	large	majority	(90%)	of	Gateway	visitors	have	earned	a	college,	business	or	trade	

school	degree	or	higher.	

Figure 1‐170. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?
197	

 Very	few	(4%)	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	reported	being	Hispanic	or	Latino,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.384,	p=0.536).	

Figure 1‐171. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

 Gateway	visitors’	self‐reported	race	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(96%)	of	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

reported	their	race	as	white.	

Figure 1‐172. What is your race?
198	

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Alternative Trail Alignment Analysis,

Summer 2012

Utah	State	University	(USU),	in	partnership	with	RSG,	conducted	an	analysis	of	potential	alignments	

for	new	trails	in	BLRA	during	summer	2012.	The	trail	alignment	analysis	included	in	this	section	

was	included	in	the	overall	ARNF	Alternative	Transportation	Systems	project	to	provide	USFS	BLRA	

managers	with	new	alignments	that	would	address	the	following	site‐specific	issues	at	BLRA:	

 Recreation	impacts	in	the	Indian	Peak	Wilderness,	an	area	that	can	be	easily	accessed	from	

trailheads	at	BLRA.	The	proposed	trail	alignments	have	the	potential	to	diffuse	use	away	

from	the	Wilderness	Area	to	other	recreation	areas	in	BLRA.	

 Pedestrian	and	bicycle	traffic	in	the	context	of	new	transportation	and	infrastructure	

changes	at	BLRA	that	will	take	place	during	the	summer	of	2013.	Specifically,	new	trail	

alignments	will	help	to	reduce	the	possibility	of	unattended	parking	and	facilitate	

pedestrian	flow	by	providing	trailhead	access	from	newly	constructed	parking	areas	in	the	

BLRA.	The	trails	have	the	potential	to	increase	visitor	safety	by	keeping	visitors	off	of	

roadways	and	on	designated	pedestrian	pathways.	

This	section	of	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	

summary	of	the	suggested	trail	alignments	for	new	trails	at	BLRA.	A	discussion	of	methods	and	

suggested	trail	alignments	is	included,	with	a	GIS	map	and	text	description	of	each	proposed	

alignment.	
199	

Methods

A	scoping	meeting	was	held	with	managers	in	September	2012	to	identify	the	types	and	locations	of	

new	trails	in	the	BLRA	study	area.	Possible	trail	alignments	were	drawn	on	a	paper	map	and	also	

digitized	“on‐the‐fly”	in	ArcMap	GIS.	An	associated	site	visit	was	conducted	at	BLRA	(see	Figure	

1‐173)	with	managers	during	which	important	locations	for	trail	alignment	were	identified,	

possible	complications	were	noted,	and	important	features	on	the	landscape	were	mapped	with	a	

high‐accuracy	Trimble	GeoXT	GPS.	Drafts	of	these	findings	were	circulated	to	key	USFS	personnel	

for	review,	and	all	revisions	were	incorporated	into	the	suggested	alignments	that	follow.	

Note: All suggestions for new trail alignments are shown in red in figures and a summary of

trail design considerations is shown in Table 1‐27.

Figure 1‐173. General map of the Brainard Lake Recreation Area.
200	

Trail Alignments

Mitchell Creek Picnic Area to Mitchell Lake Trailhead

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐174):	Trail	should	begin	on	pedestrian‐only	

section	of	roadway.	The	new	trail	can	possibly	follow	alignment	of	the	already	present	visitor‐

created	trail	to	Colorado	Mountain	Club	cabin	(trail	improvement	may	be	needed).	Once	the	trail	

begins	to	meet	the	roadway,	the	new	trail	should	parallel	the	road	and	continue	to	and	through	(or	

possibly	around)	the	Mitchell	Lake	trailhead	parking	area.	

Figure 1‐174. Possible trail alignment (in red) from Mitchell Creek Picnic area, past Colorado Mountain

Cabin (not shown on map) to Mitchell Lake trailhead parking area.
201	

Mitchell Creek Picnic Area to Long Lake Trailhead

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐175):	Trail	should	begin	limited	on	or	across	the	

road	template	on	the	pedestrian‐only	section	of	road	way	by	the	Mitchell	Lake	Picnic	area.	Next	the	

trail	should	follow	the	trail	to	the	access	road	to	Mitchell	Creek	Trailhead,	cross	the	road,	and	turn	

southwest	along	the	road	shoulder	and	cross	Mitchell	Creek.	The	trail	should	then	veer	off	the	road	

up	the	ridgeline	parallel	to	the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	access	road.	The	trails	(proposed	and	existing)	

would	then	meet	until	the	Long	Lake	parking	area	and	diverge	around	to	provide	trail	access.	The	

trail	should	cross	the	road	and	continue	on	the	opposite	side	of	the	road	way	to	the	west	of	the	

river.	The	trail	should	then	follow	the	most	reasonable	slope	alignment	with	considerations	for	soil	

type	to	the	Long	Lake	parking	area.	Signs	to	warn	drivers	of	pedestrians	crossing	the	road	way	may	

need	to	be	placed	at	road	crossings.	

Figure 1‐175. Possible trail alignment from Mitchell Creek Picnic area to Long Lake trailhead. New trail

alignment to Long Lake is shown as bolded red line, trail alignment for possible Mitchell Creek trailhead

parking (see Figure 1‐174) is shown as the lighter red line.
202	

Full Access Loop Around Brainard Lake

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐176):	For	a	full	access	nature	trail	to	be	

constructed	around	Brainard	Lake,	part	of	the	trail	should	follow	the	pedestrian‐only	section	of	the	

road.	The	trail	should	then	cut	toward	the	lake	through	the	Mitchell	Creek	picnic	area.	Some	of	the	

picnic	area	was	constructed	by	the	CCC	and	therefore	consideration	will	need	to	be	taken	as	to	how	

to	cut	the	trail	from	the	road	through	the	picnic	area.	The	trail	should	then	follow	from	the	picnic	

area	through	the	wooded	area	(many	visitor‐created	trails	cut	through	this	area)	to	an	appropriate	

creek	crossing.	The	creek	crossing	location	should	be	chosen	based	on	where	it	is	most	feasible	to	

build	a	full	access	bridge.	The	trail	should	then	follow	close	to	the	lake	as	soil	conditions	and	

topography	allow.	A	connecting	trail	should	fork	from	the	main	all	access	trail	to	allow	access	to	the	

Niwot	Cutoff	Trail	–	this	fork	should	by‐pass	the	Niwot	picnic	area.	The	Brainard	Lake	Loop	Trail	

should	terminate	on	the	south	side	of	the	bridge	on	the	east	end	of	the	lake	to	provide	access	to	the	

parking	lot	next	to	the	Pawnee	campground.	Managers	could	consider	providing	an	interesting	and	

educational	experience	for	those	hiking	around	the	lake.	

Figure 1‐176. Possible trail alignment for all access loop around Brainard Lake (bold red line). The loop

will connect from the south side of Mitchell Creek picnic area to the pedestrian‐only portion of Brainard

Lake Road. The trail will also include a cutoff to the Niwot Cutoff Trail (shown in yellow in southwest

corner).
203	

Portal Parking Lot to Brainard Lake (via Waldrop Trail)

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐177	and	Figure	1‐178):	This	trail	would	serve	as	

a	means	to	get	visitors	from	the	Brainard	Lake	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	Brainard	Lake.	As	

such,	the	trail	should	be	large	capacity,	allow	for	multiple	uses	such	as	bikes	and	strollers,	be	wide	

enough	for	two‐way	traffic,	and	contain	choke	points/bends	to	slow	visitors	to	maintain	the	safety	

of	the	trail.	The	trail	should	follow	an	already	existing	alignment	from	the	Portal	Parking	Lot	to	the	

currently	existing	Waldrop	Trail.	The	trail	should	follow	the	Waldrop	Trail	(trail	improvement	will	

be	needed	on	the	Waldrop	Trail)	until	the	trail	begins	to	head	north	and	the	new	trail	alignment	

should	fork	off	toward	to	the	Pawnee	Campground.	The	new	trail	alignment	should	pass	the	

campground	to	the	north	and	cut	back	toward	the	new	parking	area	where	the	trail	should	

terminate.	All	new	trail	alignments	should	be	far	enough	away	from	the	road	to	discourage	visitors	

from	cutting	the	trail	and	using	the	road	to	access	Brainard	Lake.	A	short	cutoff	trail	should	also	be	

placed	from	the	new	trail	alignment	to	the	road	to	allow	access	to	Red	Rock	Lakes.	Pedestrian	signs	

will	be	needed	to	warn	motorist	of	a	trail	crossing	to	Red	Rock	Lakes.	

Figure 1‐177. Possible trail alignment (shown in bolded red) from portal parking area to Waldrop

connection, including cutoff to Red Rock Lake. The new trail alignment will connect to the existing

Waldrop trail (shown in brown).
204	

Figure 1‐178. Possible trail alignment completing Waldrop trail from portal parking to new day use

parking area. New trail alignment (shown by red bolded line) will branch from Waldrop trail (shown in

brown).
205	

Trail from Little Raven to Lefthand Park Reservoir

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐179):	Currently	there	is	not	direct	trail	route	

from	BLRA	to	the	Lefthand	Park	Reservoir.	The	presently	available	route	is	hiking	the	road	from	the	

BLRA	fee	gate.	A	new	trail	alignment	would	provide	a	shortcut	from	Little	Raven	to	the	Lefthand	

Park	Reservoir.	The	shortcut	is	currently	placed	through	areas	with	the	lowest	slope	percentage.	A	

trail	construction	survey	for	the	Little	Raven	trail	will	need	to	be	completed	in	order	to	determine	if	

it	is	feasible	to	connect	any	additional	trail	connections	to	or	from	it.	

Figure 1‐179. Possible trail alignment (shown by bolded red line) connecting Little Raven trail (shown in

yellow) to Lefthand Park Reservoir.
206	

Loop Trails Connecting Sourdough and Little Raven

Suggested	Alignment	and	Considerations	(Figure	1‐180):	Managers	suggested	that	providing	a	loop	

trail	toward	the	east	of	the	BLRA	might	divert	use	away	from	the	wilderness.	However,	loops	

connecting	the	Sourdough	and	Little	Raven	trail	would	most	likely	require	the	use	of	the	USFS	road	

to	Lefthand	Park	Reservoir.	During	the	scoping	exercise,	it	seemed	as	if	significant	road	

improvements	would	be	required	to	make	these	loops	appeal	to	hikers.	

Figure 1‐180. Area where new alignments may be considered to create shorter, loop hikes using current

designated trails (shown in yellow). Currently no new trail alignments are shown on the map as road

improvements would be needed to allow access to this area.
207	

Summary of New Trail Alignments and Considerations

Table 1‐27. New trail alignments and trail design considerations.

New Trail Alignment

Associated

Figures

Anticipated

Use Level

Use Type to

Accommodat

e Difficulty

Design

Considerations

Mitchell Creek Picnic Area

to Mitchell Lake Trailhead

Figure

1‐174

Medium Foot Traffic Moderate

Moderate slope,

narrower trail (< 1m),

natural trail surface

Mitchell Creek Picnic Area

to Long Lake

Figure

1‐175

Medium Foot Traffic Moderate

Moderate slope,

narrower trail (<1 m),

natural trail surface

Full Access Loop around

Brainard Lake

Figure

1‐176 High

Foot traffic,

children,

seniors,

mobility

impaired,

bicycle

East

ADA Compliance,

accommodate two‐

way traffic

Portal Parking Lot to

Brainard Lake (via

Waldrop Trail)

Figure

1‐177, &

Figure

1‐178

High

Foot traffic,

children,

bicycle

Easy

Low slope, hardened

surface, wide enough

to accommodate

multidirectional

traffic

Trail from Little Raven to

Lefthand Park Reservoir

Figure

1‐179 High

Foot traffic,

children,

bicycle

Easy

Low slope, hardened

surface, wide enough

to accommodate

multidirectional

traffic

Loop Trails connecting

Sourdough and Little

Raven

Figure

1‐180 N/A N/A N/A

Road improvements

would be needed to

allow for access to

any possible new trail

alignments

Consideration of Highway Improvement

In	addition	to	trail	improvements	and	the	installation	of	new	trails	at	BLRA,	consideration	should	

be	given	to	improvements	on	HW	72	to	accommodate	both	bicycles	and	pedestrians	safely.	Road	

improvements,	particularly	shoulder	improvement,	may	be	needed	along	HW	72	to	accommodate	

cyclists/pedestrians	using	HW	72	to	access	the	BLRA.	Additional	signage	may	also	be	necessary	to	

ensure	the	safety	of	pedestrians	and	cyclists.	Evaluation	of	the	feasibility	of	such	improvements	is	

outside	the	scope	of	this	particular	report.	However,	the	cost	of	road	widening	may	prove	to	be	

prohibitive	and	we	recommend	a	feasibility	study	examining	the	possibility	of	new	signage	and	

shoulder	widening.	
208

Chapter 2: GUANELLA PASS SUMMARY OF DATA FINDINGS
209

Guanella Pass Transportation and Visitor Use, Summer 2012

RSG	and	Colorado	State	University	(CSU)	conducted	a	field	study	and	data	collection	effort	at	Guanella	

Pass	during	the	summer	of	2012.	The	purpose	of	the	study	was	to	collect	transportation	and	visitor	

use	data	during	the	area’s	peak	summer	visitation	period,	from	June	23rd through	September	3rd. The	

following	data	were	collected	at	Guanella	Pass	during	summer	2012:	

 Vehicle	traffic	volumes	

 Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	rates	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	on	the	roadside	

at	Guanella	Pass	

 Visitor	use	counts	on	selected	trails	at	Guanella	Pass	

 GPS‐based	tracking	of	visitor	use	patterns	in	the	study	area	

 People	at	one	time	(PAOT)	counts	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	

This	section	of	Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	summary	of	the	

summer	2012	data	collection	effort	at	Guanella	Pass	and	results.	This	section	is	organized	into	

subsections	that	describe	the	data	collection	methods	and	statistical	results	for	each	of	the	types	of	

data	listed	above.	

Vehicle Traffic Volumes

Data Collection Method

 Vehicle	traffic	data	were	

recorded	with	Automatic	Traffic	

Recorders	(ATR’s)	at	six	

locations	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	

(see	Figure	2‐1	and	Figure	2‐2).	

 ATR’s	#1	and	#6	in	Figure	2‐2	

were	used	to	count	all	inbound	

and	outbound	traffic	on	Guanella	

Pass	Road.	

 ATR’s	#2	and	#5	were	used	to	

count	all	traffic	entering	and	

exiting	ARNF	and	PNF.	

 ATR’s	#3	and	#4	were	used	to	

count	all	traffic	entering	and	

exiting	Guanella	Pass.	

 The	ATR’s	were	configured	to	record	vehicle	traffic	counts	by	direction	of	travel	and	vehicle	

class	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	day	from	May	25th	through	September	3rd,	2012.	

 Due	to	the	high	degree	of	accuracy	and	precision	of	the	ATR’s	used	in	the	study,	it	was	not	

necessary	to	calibrate	the	vehicle	traffic	count	data	with	direct	observation	counts.	

Figure 2‐1. Guanella Pass ATR location.

ATR
210

Figure 2‐2. Approximate location of ATRs, Guanella Pass summer 2012.
211

Analysis and Results

Figure	2‐3	displays	average	daily	“inbound”	(i.e.,	traveling	in	the	direction	of	Guanella	Pass)	traffic	

volumes	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	during	summer	2012,	by	counter	location	and	day	of	week	category	

(i.e.,	weekday,	weekend	day,	and	all	days	combined).	The	data	in	Figure	2‐3	suggest,	on	average,	

there	are	roughly	twice	as	many	vehicles	traveling	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	on	summer	weekend	

days	than	on	summer	weekdays.	In	addition,	there	is	generally	about	twice	as	much	summer	

weekend	traffic	on	the	“Georgetown	side”	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	than	on	the	“Grant	side”	of	

Guanella	Pass	Road;	traffic	volumes	are	more	similar	on	either	side	of	Guanella	Pass	during	summer	

weekdays,	though	they	are	still	greater	on	the	“Georgetown	side”	of	Guanella	Pass	Road.	

Figure 2‐3. Average daily inbound vehicle traffic on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location and day of week

category, summer 2012.

Analysis	of	the	ATR	data	suggest	that	approximately	three‐quarters	(75%)	of	vehicles	entering	

Guanella	Pass	Road	at	Georgetown	or	Grant	on	summer	weekdays	travel	at	least	to	the	national	

forest	boundaries,	and	nearly	two‐thirds	(60%)	travel	to	Guanella	Pass	(Table	2‐1).	On	summer	

weekend	days,	the	vast	majority	(85%)	of	vehicles	entering	Guanella	Pass	Road	at	Georgetown	or	

Grant	travel	at	least	to	the	national	forest	boundaries,	and	three‐quarters	(75%)	travel	to	Guanella	

Pass.	
212

Table 2‐1. Percentage of Guanella Pass Road inbound vehicle traffic that travels to the national forest

boundaries and Guanella Pass, by day of week category, summer 2012.

Average on

Weekdays

Average on

Weekend

Overall

Average

Traffic to national forest boundaries 75% 85% 78%

Traffic to Guanella Pass 60% 75% 65%

The	majority	(66%)	of	vehicles	at	Guanella	Pass	arrive	from	the	north	side	of	the	pass,	while	about	

one‐third	(34%)	arrive	from	the	south	side	of	the	pass	(Table	2‐2).	The	percentages	of	vehicles	at	

Guanella	Pass	arriving	from	the	north	and	south	side	of	the	pass	are	similar	on	weekend	days	and	

weekdays.	It	should	be	noted,	however,	that	these	percentages	are	approximate,	because	some	

visitors	passed	back	and	forth	over	the	ATR’s	located	near	Guanella	Pass	(ATR’s	#3	and	#4	in	

Figure	2‐2)	while	they	were	looking	for	a	place	to	park.	That	being	said,	the	percentages	are	

consistent	with	the	traffic	volumes	reported	by	location	in	Figure	2‐3,	and	therefore	appear	to	be	

valid	estimates	of	vehicle	traffic	arrival	patterns	at	Guanella	Pass.	

Table 2‐2. Percentage of vehicles at Guanella Pass that arrive from the north and south, by day of week

category, summer 2012.

Average on

Weekdays

Average on

Weekend

Overall

Average

Arrive from north side of Guanella Pass 66% 65% 66%

Arrive from south side of Guanella Pass 34% 35% 34%

As	the	summaries	of	the	ATR	data	suggest,	the	majority	of	visitors	travel	to	Guanella	Pass	from	the	

direction	of	Georgetown,	CO	(Figure	2‐3	and	Table	2‐2).	Therefore,	the	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	

volume	data	recorded	at	ATR	#3	were	used	to	help	identify	a	“design	day”	for	analysis	and	planning	

that	represents	a	“typically	busy”	summer	day	at	Guanella	Pass.	To	do	this,	the	daily	inbound	

vehicle	traffic	data	recorded	by	ATR	#3	were	plotted,	by	date	from	May	25th,	2012	to	September	3rd,	

2012,	to	assess	day	of	week	and	seasonal	traffic	patterns	(Figure	2‐4;	NOTE:	the	red	bars	highlight	

days	when	parking	data	were	collected	at	Guanella	Pass).	
213

Figure 2‐4. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Guanella Pass Road at ATR #3, by date, summer

2012.

Next,	the	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	recorded	by	ATR	#3	were	organized	in	descending	order,	

from	the	busiest	day	(June	17,	2012)	to	the	least	busy	day	(June	7,	2012)	of	the	study	period	(Figure	

2‐5).	Potential	design	day	levels	are	depicted	with	horizontal	lines	positioned	in	Figure	2‐5	at	the	

85th,	90th,	and	95th	percentile	days	of	inbound	vehicle	traffic	during	the	study	period.	
214

Figure 2‐5. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Guanella Pass Scenic Byway at ATR #3, in descending

order, summer 2012.

Commonly,	the	85th	percentile	day	is	used	for	“conventional”	transportation	planning	and	

engineering.	If	the	85th	percentile	day	were	selected	as	the	design	day,	on	average,	less	than	15%	of	

the	days	during	a	“typical	summer	visitor	use	season”	would	exceed	what	was	planned	for	under	

the	design	day.	The	85th	percentile	day	is	arguably	less	suitable,	however,	for	transportation	

planning	in	parks	and	recreation	areas,	because	visitor	use	tends	to	be	temporally	concentrated.	To	

further	inform	the	selection	of	a	design	day	to	represent	a	typically	busy	summer	visitor	use	day	at	

Guanella	Pass,	estimates	were	calculated	of	the	percentage	of	Guanella	Pass	summer	season	visitors	

that	would	visit	Guanella	Pass	on	days	when	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	exceeded	

design	day	levels,	based	on	using	the	85th,	90th,	95th,	and	99th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	

volumes	as	the	design	day	(Table	2‐3).	It	should	be	noted	that	for	all	four	design	day	levels	

considered,	100%	of	the	days	above	the	design	day	level	of	visitor	use	were	weekend	days	or	

holidays.	

Table 2‐3. Estimated percent of Guanella Pass summer season visitors that would experience visitor use,

traffic, and parking conditions in excess of design day conditions.

Day Rank Potential Design Day Use Level % of Visitors   Date

2nd Busiest Day 99th Percentile 1,752 2% 7/21/2012

6th Busiest Day 95th Percentile 1,627 11% 8/4/2012

12th Busiest Day 90th Percentile 1,500 24% 8/12/2012

16th Busiest Day 85th Percentile 1,339 31% 7/1/2012
215

Using	standards	developed	in	consultation	with	USFS	and	FHWA	to	assess	the	results	in	Table	2‐3,	

it	was	concluded	that	the	85th	and	90th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	would	result	in	too

large	a	proportion	of	summer	season	visitors	at	Guanella	Pass	to	experience	conditions	beyond	

those	planned	for	in	the	feasibility	study	(31%	and	24%,	respectively).	It	was	concluded	that	the	

95th	percentile	day	of	vehicle	traffic	would	allow	for	a	more	acceptable	proportion	of	Guanella	Pass	

summer	season	visitors	(89%)	to	experience	visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	at	or	below	

design	day	levels.	While	RSG	parking	data	collection	did	not	occur	on	the	95th	percentile	day	(6th

busiest	day	during	the	study	period),	parking	data	were	collected	on	the	7th	busiest	day	of	the	study	

period	(8/18/2012).	Total	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	for	this	day	differed	from	that	on	

the	95th	percentile	day	by	2	fewer	cars.	

Thus,	the	7th	busiest	day	of	the	study	period	(August	18,	2012)	was	selected	as	the	Guanella	Pass	

Summer	Visitor	Use	Season	Design	Day	for	analysis	and	planning	in	this	project.	As	described,	this	

decision	was	informed	and	substantiated	by	the	Guanella	Pass	vehicle	traffic	volume,	group	size,	

and	parking	data	collected	by	RSG	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season.	The	design	day	is	

used	as	a	reference	point	for	analyzing	most	of	the	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	collected	at	

Guanella	Pass	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season	and	reported	in	this	memo.	

Arriving	(traveling	southbound	toward	Guanella	Pass)	and	departing	(traveling	northbound	toward	

Georgetown,	CO)	vehicles	recorded	by	ATR	#3	on	the	design	day	are	displayed	in	Figure	2‐6.	The	

arriving	and	departing	vehicle	traffic	data	in	Figure	2‐6	suggest	there	is	a	very	early	morning	

“pulse”	of	visitor	use	associated	with	visitors	attempting	to	climb	and	descend	the	summit	of	Mount	

Bierstadt	before	afternoon	thunderstorms.	Correspondingly,	the	traffic	data	in	Figure	2‐6	suggest	

that	by	noon,	there	are	more	departing	than	arriving	visitors	at	Guanella	Pass,	and	by	midafternoon,	

here	are	many	more	departing	than	arriving	visitors.	

Figure 2‐6. Design day vehicle traffic volumes (ATR #3), by hour and direction of travel, Saturday, August

18th, 2012.
216

The	ATR’s	used	in	the	study	record	the	vehicle	speed	and	Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA)	

class	of	each	vehicle	that	is	detected	by	the	counters.	The	average	speed	of	vehicles	detected	by	the	

ATR’s	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	ranged	from	24	to	32	mph,	depending	on	ATR	location,	and	the	85th

percentile	speed1	(often	used	for	traffic	safety	studies)	ranged	from	28	to	37	mph,	depending	on	

ATR	location	(Table	2‐4).	

Table 2‐4. Average and 85th percentile vehicle traffic speeds on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location,

summer 2012.

ATR Location

Average

Speed

85th Percentile

Speed

Georgetown, CO (ATR #1) 24 mph 28 mph

NF Boundary, North (ATR #2) 31 mph 35 mph

Guanella Pass, North (ATR #3) 32 mph 37 mph

Guanella Pass, South (ATR #4) 31 mph 36 mph

NF Boundary, South (ATR #5) 27 mph 32 mph

Grant, CO (ATR #6) 30 mph 34 mph

Nearly	all	of	the	vehicles	detected	by	the	ATR’s	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	were	classified	as	passenger	

vehicles	(82%	to	94%,	depending	on	ATR	location),	under	the	FHWA	Scheme	F	classification	(Table	

2‐5).2	Very	few	vehicles	were	classified	as	motorcycles	(3%	or	fewer,	depending	on	ATR	location),	

or	as	heavy	trucks	or	buses	(3%	to	6%,	depending	on	ATR	location).	A	relatively	small	number	of	

cases	were	classified	by	the	ATR’s	as	“unknown”	vehicle	types.	

Table 2‐5. FHWA classification of vehicles on Guanella Pass Road, by ATR location, summer 2012.

ATR Location Motorcycle

Passenger

Vehicles

Heavy

Truck/Bus Unknown

Georgetown, CO (ATR #1) <1% 86% 5% 10%

NF Boundary, North (ATR #2) <1% 94% 3% 3%

Guanella Pass, North (ATR #3) 3% 91% 5% 2%

Guanella Pass, South (ATR #4) 1% 82% 4% 13%

NF Boundary, South (ATR #5) <1% 85% 5% 9%

Grant, CO (ATR #6) <1% 85% 6% 9%

																																																													

1 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Sixth Edition. (2011) American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): Washington, DC.

2 Vehicle Classification Scheme F Report. (2011) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Washington, DC.
217

Parking Accumulation & Turnover

Data Collection Method

 A	license	plate	recording	method	(Figure	

2‐7)	was	used	in	the	designated	parking	

lots	and	on	the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass	

to	record:	

o An	hourly	count	of	parked	

vehicles,	by	location	(i.e.,	parking	

accumulation)	

o The	amount	of	time	vehicles	were	

parked,	by	parking	location	(i.e.,	

parking	turnover)	

 Parking	data	collection	was	conducted	

from	6:00	AM	to	5:00	PM	on	13	

weekdays	and	10	weekend	days	between	

June	23rd	and	September	3rd,	2012.	License	plates	were	recorded	by	subarea	of	the	

designated	lots	and	roadside,	and	by	specific	parking	space	in	the	designated	lots	(Figure	

2‐8).	

Figure 2‐8. Guanella Pass area parking turnover data collection map, designated parking lots and nearby

roadside area.

Figure 2‐7. Parking accumulation & turnover

data collection at Guanella Pass.
218

Analysis and Results

Hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	on	the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass	is	

displayed	in	Figure	2‐9	through	Figure	2‐11	for	the	7th	busiest	day	of	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	

season	(Saturday,	August	18th	2012),	which	was	selected	as	the	“design	day”	for	this	study,	as	

described	in	the	preceding	section.	

As	depicted	in	Figure	2‐9,	the	Lower	Lot	was	already	filled	beyond	its	capacity	when	the	first	

parking	count	was	conducted	at	6:00	AM,	and	the	parking	lot	continued	to	be	filled	beyond	its	

capacity	until	approximately	2:00	PM.	Parking	accumulation	in	the	Lower	Lot	reached	its	peak	of	64	

vehicles	during	the	10:00	AM	hour.	

Figure 2‐9. Design day parking accumulation at the Guanella Pass Lower Lot, Saturday, August 18th,

2012.

As	depicted	in	Figure	2‐10,	the	Upper	Lot	was	filled	to	its	capacity	by	9:00	AM,	and	was	then	filled	

just	beyond	its	capacity	until	approximately	1:00	PM.	Parking	accumulation	in	the	Upper	Lot	

reached	its	peak	of	61	vehicles	during	the	10:00	AM	hour,	which	is	the	same	hour	when	parking	

accumulation	in	the	Lower	Lot	reached	its	peak.	
219

Figure 2‐10. Design day parking accumulation at the Guanella Pass Upper Lot, Saturday, August 18th,

2012.

As	depicted	in	Figure	2‐11,	there	were	already	cars	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	at	

Guanella	Pass	when	the	first	parking	count	was	conducted	at	6:00	AM.	The	number	of	cars	parked	

in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	increased	sharply	during	the	early	morning	hours,	as	the	

designated	parking	lots	at	Guanella	Pass	filled	beyond	capacity.	Unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	

Guanella	Pass	reached	its	peak	at	231	vehicles	during	the	11:00	AM	hour,	which	is	one	hour	later	

than	when	parking	accumulation	in	the	Lower	and	Upper	Lots	reached	its	peak.	
220

Figure 2‐11. Design day parking accumulation on the Guanella Pass roadside, Saturday, August 18th,

2012.

Figure	2‐12	displays	parking	accumulation,	by	location	and	overall,	for	the	design	day.	The	data	in	

Figure	2‐12	suggest	that,	by	early	morning	on	a	“typically	busy”	summer	day	at	Guanella	Pass,	the	

designated	lots	at	Guanella	Pass	are	filled	with	vehicles	beyond	their	capacities.	Correspondingly,	

the	number	of	cars	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass	increases	sharply	

through	the	morning	hours.	Overall	parking	accumulation	at	Guanella	Pass	reaches	its	peak	in	the	

late	morning,	at	which	time	there	are	nearly	twice	as	many	cars	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	

the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass	(231	vehicles)	than	in	the	designated	parking	lots	(125	vehicles).	
221

Figure 2‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Guanella Pass, by location and overall, Saturday,

August 18th, 2012.

Figure	2‐13	is	a	graphical	display	of	Guanella	Pass	parking	accumulation	at	distinct	time	periods	

throughout	the	morning,	afternoon,	and	evening	of	the	design	day.	The	graphics	in	Figure	2‐13	

display	the	spatial	pattern	by	which	visitors	use	the	designated	parking	lots	and	unendorsed	spaces	

on	the	roadside,	on	a	“typically	busy”	day	during	the	summer	visitor	use	season	at	Guanella	Pass.	As	

depicted	in	Figure	2‐13,	on	a	“typically	busy”	summer	day	at	Guanella	Pass,	the	Lower	Lot	and	

nearby	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	fill	first,	followed	by	the	Upper	Lot,	and	then	visitors	

park	in	unendorsed	spaces	as	far	down	the	side	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	as	necessary.	This	pattern	of	

parking	use	is	directly	related	to	the	fact	that	most	visitors	at	Guanella	Pass	(particularly	during	

morning	hours)	traveled	there	to	hike	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	and	therefore	try	to	park	

as	close	as	they	can	to	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead,	which	is	located	adjacent	to	the	Lower	Lot.	
222

6:00 AM: Lower Lot: 51 vehicles, 106% full

Upper Lot: 3 vehicles, 5% full

Roadside: 16 vehicles

8:00 AM: Lower Lot: 57 vehicles, 119% full

     Upper Lot: 47 vehicles, 81% full

Roadside: 147 vehicles

11:00 AM (PEAK): Lower Lot: 64 vehicles, 133% full

Upper Lot: 61 vehicles, 105% full

       Roadside: 231 vehicles

	 	

2:00 PM: Lower Lot: 40 vehicles, 83% full

Upper Lot: 32 vehicles, 55% full

Roadside: 112 vehicles

5:00 PM: Lower Lot: 11 vehicles, 23% full

Upper Lot: 9 vehicles, 16% full

Roadside: 16 vehicles

Figure 2‐13. Design day parking accumulation at Guanella Pass, Saturday, August 18th, 2012.

Location of parked

vehicles  
223

As	noted,	the	license	plate	recording	method	was	also	used	to	record	turnover	rates	for	vehicles	

parked	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	on	the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass.	Data	were	recorded	

every	hour,	therefore,	parking	turnover	rates	(i.e.,	the	duration	of	time	vehicles	are	parked	at	

Guanella	Pass)	are	estimated	in	hourly	bins.	On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	in	the	Upper	and	

Lower	Lots	and	along	the	roadside	for	approximately	four	to	four	and	a	half	hours	(Table	2‐6,	

Figure	2‐14,	and	Figure	2‐15).	In	the	Lower	Lot,	cars	tended	to	be	parked	for	longer	periods	of	time	

on	weekdays	than	on	weekend	days,	while	in	the	Upper	Lot,	cars	tended	to	be	parked	for	longer	

durations	on	weekend	days	than	on	weekdays;	there	were	no	differences	in	the	duration	cars	

tended	to	be	parked	on	the	roadside	by	day	of	week	category	(Table	2‐6,	Figure	2‐14,	and	Figure	

2‐15).	There	were	also	statistically	significant	differences	in	parking	duration	based	on	the	time	of	

day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	39.085,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	before	10:00	AM	

(mean	=	5.9	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	much	longer,	on	average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	

10:00	AM	(mean	=	2.5	hours).	

Table 2‐6. Visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location and day of week category, summer

2012.

Lower Lot Upper Lot Roadside

Hours

Parked

Weekday

(n=197)

Weekend

(n=190)

Overall

(n=387)

Weekday

(n=141)

Weekend

(n=381)

Overall

(n=522)

Weekday

(n=86)

Weekend

(n=633)

Overall

(n=719)

1 ‐ <2 14% 31% 22% 32% 25% 27% 12% 13% 13%

2 ‐ <3 4% 7% 5% 15% 10% 12% 7% 7% 7%

3 ‐ <4 5% 6% 5% 12% 10% 11% 6% 6% 6%

4 ‐ <5 8% 14% 11% 15% 9% 11% 15% 9% 10%

5 ‐ <6 24% 12% 18% 13% 15% 14% 22% 23% 23%

6 ‐ <7 23% 14% 19% 6% 13% 11% 24% 22% 23%

7 ‐ <8 12% 7% 10% 5% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11%

8 ‐ <9 6% 4% 5% 1% 4% 3% 1% 5% 5%

9 ‐ <10 4% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%

10 ‐ <11 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

11 ‐ <12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12+ 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Average 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.1 4.1 3.8 4.7 4.7 4.7

t‐test t = 3.730     t = ‐4.418     t = ‐0.200   

p‐value p < 0.001     p < 0.001     p = 0.842    
224

Figure 2‐14. Weekday visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location, summer 2012.

Figure 2‐15. Weekend day visitor parking duration at Guanella Pass, by location, summer 2012.
225

Finally,	86%	of	all	license	plates	recorded	as	part	of	the	parking	data	collection	effort	were	

Colorado	license	plates;	this	finding	suggests	the	vast	majority	of	visitors	to	Guanella	Pass	during	

the	summer	visitor	use	season	are	residents	of	the	state	of	Colorado,	though	some	Colorado	license	

plates	that	were	observed	may	have	been	on	rental	cars	driven	by	out‐of‐state	visitors.	

Visitor Use Counts

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	with	infrared	

trail	counters	(Figure	2‐16)	located	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail,	Rosalie	Trail,	and	Square	Top	

Lakes	Trail	(Figure	2‐17).	

 The	infrared	trail	counters	recorded	visitor	use	

counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	day	during	

the	summer	peak	season,	from	June	23rd,	2012	

through	September	3rd,	2012.	

 The	locations	of	the	infrared	trail	counters	used	

to	record	visitor	use	data	during	the	study	

period	are	depicted	in	Figure	2‐17.	The	visitor	

use	counting	locations	were	selected	in	consultation	with	USFS	staff	and	capture	the	

primary	visitor	use	access	points	into	the	ARNF	and	PNF	from	Guanella	Pass.	

 Field	staff	conducted	visitor	use	counts	via	direct	observation	at	each	of	the	infrared	trail	

counter	locations,	for	a	minimum	of	56	hours	at	each	trail	counter	location.	The	direct	

observation	counts	were	used	to	correct	and	adjust	(i.e.,	calibrate)	the	raw	infrared	trail	

counter	data,	as	described	below.	

Figure 2‐16. Trail counter setup,

Square Top Lakes Trail.

Trail Counter
226

Figure 2‐17. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, Guanella

Pass, summer 2012.

Analysis and Results

Regression	analyses	were	conducted	with	the	direct	observation	counts	of	visitor	use	and	

corresponding	infrared	trail	counter	data	to	estimate	correction	factors	for	the	infrared	trail	

counter	data.	Regression	results	suggest	there	are	strong	statistical	relationships	(R2	values	ranging	

from	0.65	to	0.99)	between	the	direct	observation	counts	and	visitor	use	counts	recorded	by	the	

infrared	trail	counters.	Further,	the	parameter	estimates	for	the	regression	models	were	

statistically	significant	in	all	cases.	These	results	provide	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	applying	

the	correction	factors	to	calibrate	the	visitor	use	counts	recorded	with	the	infrared	trail	counters	

(i.e.,	multiplying	the	infrared	trail	counter	data	by	the	corresponding	parameter	estimates	from	the	

regression	models)	results	in	very	accurate	estimates	of	visitor	use	on	the	trails	in	the	Guanella	

Pass	area.	The	calibrated	trail	counter	data	were	used	for	analysis	and	results.	

As	expected,	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	was,	by	far,	the	most	popular	trail	within	the	Guanella	Pass	

area,	with	an	average	of	187	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	579	visitor	arrivals	per	day	

on	weekend	days	(Figure	2‐18).	The	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	was	the	second	most	popular	trail	in	

the	Guanella	Pass	area,	but	average	daily	visitor	use	was	only	about	one‐fifth	of	that	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail.	In	particular,	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	received	an	average	of	41	visitor	arrivals	

per	day	on	weekdays	and	96	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days.	The	Rosalie	Trail	received	

much	lower	visitor	use,	with	an	average	of	7	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays,	and	16	visitor	

arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days.	Generally,	trails	in	the	study	area	received	more	than	twice	as	

much	visitor	use	on	weekend	days	than	on	weekdays.	
227

Figure 2‐18. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak

vehicle accumulation, by parking location, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Figure	2‐19	reports	calibrated	inbound	visitor	use	counts	for	the	design	day	(Saturday,	August	18th,	

2012),	by	trailhead	location.	Visitor	use	on	the	design	day	was	distributed	across	the	trailhead	

locations	consistently	with	the	seasonal	averages	reported	in	Figure	2‐19;	however,	as	expected,	

the	design	day	volumes	of	visitor	use	were	higher	than	seasonal	averages	on	all	of	the	trails.	

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	7	

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Lower Lot

Avg Weekday = 53

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	187	

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Upper Lot

Avg Weekday = 24

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	41	

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Roadside
228

Figure 2‐19. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation, by parking

location, Guanella Pass, Saturday, August 18th, 2012.

Figure	2‐20	graphs	the	design	day	hourly	visitor	use	(inbound	direction),	by	trailhead.	Hourly	

inbound	visitor	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	increases	sharply	between	the	5:00	AM	and	7:00	

AM	hours	of	the	morning,	with	the	peak	occurring	during	the	7:00	AM	hour.	Visitor	arrivals	on	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	drop	sharply	by	9:00	AM	and	are	near	zero	from	3:00	PM	to	the	end	of	the	

day.	There	are	two	peak	periods	of	visitor	use	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail,	including	a	late	

morning	peak	during	the	10:00	AM	hour	and	an	early	afternoon	peak	during	the	1:00	PM;	in	both	

cases,	the	peaks	of	visitor	use	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	are	much	less	pronounced	than	the	

early	morning	peak	period	of	visitor	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Visitor	use	on	the	Rosalie	

Trail	was	very	low	throughout	the	day,	and	no	peak	periods	of	visitor	use	were	observed	on	the	

trail.	

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 24

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Lower Lot

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 805

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Upper Lot

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 101

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Roadside
229

Figure 2‐20. Design day hourly inbound visitor use, by trailhead (Saturday, August 18th, 2012).

Monthly	visitor	use	during	the	study	period	was	roughly	the	same	during	July	and	August,	2012	

(Table	2‐7).	Visitor	use	data	were	collected	for	only	the	last	10	days	of	June	and	only	through	the	

Labor	Day	Weekend	in	September;	consequently,	there	aren’t	sufficient	data	to	compare	visitor	use	

during	June	and	September	to	each	other	or	to	July	and	August.	

Table 2‐7. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Bierstadt Square Top Lakes Rosalie Monthly Total

June2 3,115 702 114 3,930

July 8,841 1,907 341 11,089

August 8,992 1,506 261 10,758

September3 1,867 233 26 2,126

Total 22,816 4,348 741 27,904

1

Missing data due to counter malfunction was filled with weekday/weekend average.

2

Sampling period includes only June 20th – June 30th, 2012.

3

Sampling period includes only September 1st – September 3rd.
230

Visitor Use Tracking

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	patterns	were	

measured	using	GPS‐based	

tracking	(Figure	2‐21).	GPS	

units	were	administered	to	

visitor	groups	at	both	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead	and	

the	Square	Top	Lakes	trailhead	

at	the	start	of	their	hikes.	

Visitors	were	asked	to	carry	

the	GPS	units	while	recreating	

in	the	area,	and	return	the	

units	at	the	end	of	their	visit	to	

Guanella	Pass.	Visitors	were	

instructed	to	use	a	locked	drop	

box	to	return	their	GPS	units,	if	

they	returned	to	the	trailhead	after	data	collection	staff	had	left	the	study	area	for	the	day.	

 GPS	units	were	administered	on	10	weekend	days,	and	12	weekdays	from	June	23rd,	2012	–	

September	3rd,	2012	

 On	each	data	collection	day,	GPS	units	were	administered	to	visitors	from	6:00	AM	to	

approximately	1:00	PM,	and	collected	from	visitors	from	6:00	AM	to	approximately	2:00	

PM.	

 Overall,	1,081 visitor	groups	were	contacted	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	1,051	GPS	

units	were	administered	to	visitor	groups	hiking	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	during	the	2012	

summer	visitor	use	season,	resulting	in	a	97%	response	rate	(Table	2‐8).	On	the	Square	Top	

Lakes	Trail,	358	visitor	groups	were	contacted	and	352	GPS	units	were	administered	to	

visitor	groups	hiking	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	

season,	resulting	in	a	98%	response	rate	(Table	2‐8).	

 Algorithms	were	developed	to	process	the	GPS	tracks	and	eliminate	cases	with	more	than	

10‐minutes	of	missing	data	(primary	causes	of	missing	data	included	poor	satellite	

reception	and/or	equipment	malfunction).	For	cases	with	less	than	10‐minutes	of	missing	

data,	interpolation	was	used	to	estimate	location	coordinates	to	populate	the	data	gaps.	The	

reduced,	“clean”	set	of	GPS	track	data	were	used	to	analyze	and	model	visitor	use	patterns	

in	the	Guanella	Pass	area	during	summer	2012.	

Figure 2‐21. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, Guanella Pass,

summer 2012.
231

Table 2‐8. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Analysis and Results

The	majority	of	visitors	hiking	on	both	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	(73%)	and	the	Square	Top	Lakes	

Trail	(76%)	were	in	groups	of	2‐4	people	during	their	visit	to	Guanella	Pass	during	summer	2012;	

however,	weekday	visitors	(21%)	to	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	were	more	likely	than	weekend	

visitors	(13%)	to	visit	Guanella	Pass	alone.	On	average,	visitor	groups	hiked	both	trails	in	groups	of	

approximately	three	people.	

Date Weekend

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Count Refusals Response Rate Count Refusals Response Rate

6/23/2012 Yes 67 3 96% 21 0 100%

6/27/2012 No 28 1 97% 15 0 100%

6/29/2012 No 50 8 86% 20 1 95%

7/1/2012 Yes 58 3 95% 30 0 100%

7/7/2012 Yes 53 1 98% 14 0 100%

7/13/2012 No 47 0 100% 14 0 100%

7/15/2012 Yes 53 2 96% 22 1 96%

7/16/2012 No 49 2 96% 13 0 100%

7/21/2012 Yes 44 0 100% 26 0 100%

7/23/2012 No 47 0 100% 4 0 100%

7/27/2012 No 47 0 100% 11 1 92%

7/29/2012 Yes 47 0 100% 26 0 100%

8/5/2012 Yes 55 0 100% 22 0 100%

8/6/2012 No 33 0 100% 9 2 82%

8/7/2012 No 48 4 92% 16 0 100%

8/10/2012 No 48 4 92% 16 0 100%

8/16/2012 No 31 1 97% 8 0 100%

8/18/2012 Yes 50 0 100% 23 1 96%

8/24/2012 No 47 0 100% 5 0 100%

8/26/2012 Yes 58 0 100% 10 0 100%

9/1/2012 Yes 47 0 100% 17 0 100%

9/3/2012 No 44 1 98% 10 0 100%

Overall    1,051 30 97% 352 6 98%
232

Table 2‐9. Visitor group size, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Number of People

per Group

Weekday

(n=519)

Weekend

(n=522)

Overall

(n=1,041)

Weekday

(n=137)

Weekend

(n=190)

Overall

(n=327)

1 person 15% 11% 13% 21% 13% 17%

2 people 47% 47% 47% 43% 59% 53%

3‐4 people 25% 27% 26% 28% 19% 23%

5 or more people 13% 15% 14% 8% 8% 8%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 3.937, p = 0.268 n/a  χ2 = 9.900, p = 0.019 n/a

Mean 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

The	vast	majority	of	visitor	groups	traveled	to	Guanella	Pass	during	summer	2012	in	a	single	

vehicle;	however,	visitor	groups	hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	(11%)	were	more	likely	than	

those	hiking	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	(3%)	to	travel	to	Guanella	Pass	in	more	than	one	vehicle	

(Table	2‐10).	In	addition,	visitor	groups	hiking	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	on	weekends	were	slightly	

more	likely	to	travel	to	Guanella	Pass	in	more	than	one	vehicle	than	visitor	groups	who	hiked	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	on	weekdays.	

Table 2‐10. Number of vehicles per group, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Number of Vehicles

per Group

Weekday

(n=519)

Weekend

(n=517)

Overall

(n=1,036)

Weekday

(n=137)

Weekend

(n=188)

Overall

(n=325)

1 vehicle 92% 87% 89% 98% 96% 97%

2 vehicles 5% 9% 7% 2% 3% 3%

3 vehicles 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1%

4 or more vehicles 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 8.342, p = 0.039 n/a  χ2 = 1.780, p = 0.411 n/a

Mean 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0

Approximately	two‐thirds	of	visitor	groups	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	(63%)	and	Square	Top	

Lakes	Trail	(71%)	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	1	to	2	people	per	vehicle	(Table	2‐11).	Visitor	

groups	who	hiked	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	on	weekdays	had	a	statistically,	but	not	substantively,	

higher	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	(2.4	people	per	vehicle)	compared	to	those	who	hiked	the	

trail	on	weekends	(2.3	people	per	vehicle).	
233

Table 2‐11. Vehicle occupancy rates, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Number of People

per Vehicle

Weekday

(n=506)

Weekend

(n=497)

Overall

(n=1,003)

Weekday

(n=136)

Weekend

(n=187)

Overall

(n=323)

1 person 16% 13% 14% 21% 13% 17%

2 people 49% 50% 49% 44% 61% 54%

3‐4 people 29% 31% 30% 28% 19% 23%

5 or more people 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 1.959, p = 0.581 n/a  χ2 = 9.650, p = 0.022 n/a

Mean 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4

The	vast	majority	(85%)	of	visitor	groups	who	hiked	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	regardless	of	day	

of	week,	spent	four	or	more	hours	on	the	trail	during	summer	2012	(Table	2‐12).	On	average,	

visitor	groups	who	hiked	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	spent	five	and	a	half	hours	on	the	trail.	The	

vast	majority	(91%)	of	visitor	groups	who	hiked	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail,	regardless	of	day	of	

week,	spent	two	or	more	hours	on	the	trail	during	summer	2012	(Table	2‐12).	On	average,	visitors	

groups	who	hiked	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail	spent	just	under	four	hours	on	the	trail.	

Table 2‐12. Hike duration, Guanella Pass, summer 2012.

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Travel Time

Weekday

(n=519)

Weekend

(n=522)

Overall

(n=1,041)

Weekday

(n=137)

Weekend

(n=190)

Overall

(n=327)

<1 hour 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

1 hour ‐ <2 hours 2% 3% 3% 5% 6% 6%

2 hours ‐ <3 hours 4% 2% 3% 32% 23% 27%

3 hour ‐ <4 hours 7% 6% 6% 22% 27% 25%

4 hours ‐ <5 hours 21% 19% 20% 18% 18% 18%

5 hours ‐ <6 hours 29% 28% 28% 9% 11% 10%

6 or more hours 34% 40% 37% 11% 11% 11%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 11.372, p = 0.078 n/a  χ2 = 3.630, p = 0.727 n/a

Mean (in minutes) 328.2 347.0 144.4 224.1 232.4 144.4

On	average,	visitor	groups	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	hiked	just	over	six	miles	on	the	trail	during	

summer	2012	(Table	2‐13);	weekend	visitor	groups	(mean	=	6.3	miles	hiked)	hiked	a	statistically,	

but	not	substantively,	greater	distance	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	than	weekday	visitor	groups	

(mean	=	6.2	miles	hiked).	On	average,	visitor	groups	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail,	regardless	of	

day	of	week,	hiked	just	over	four	miles	on	the	trail	during	summer	2012	(Table	2‐13).	
234

Table 2‐13. Miles hiked, Guanella Pass 2012.

Mount Bierstadt Trail Square Top Lakes Trail

Trip Length

Weekday Weekend Overall Weekday Weekend Overall

(n=398) (n=403) (n=801) (n=101) (n=139) (n=240)

<1 ‐ <2 miles 4% 5% 5% 4% 8% 6%

2 ‐ <3 miles 1% 2% 1% 7% 8% 8%

3 ‐ <4 miles 5% 3% 4% 24% 22% 23%

4 ‐ <5 miles 2% 2% 2% 39% 37% 38%

5 ‐ <6 miles 4% 4% 4% 11% 9% 10%

6 ‐ <7 miles 75% 70% 73% 12% 12% 12%

7+ miles 9% 14% 11% 4% 4% 4%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 12.979, p = 0.043 n/a  χ2 = 2.776, p = 0.836 n/a

Mean 6.2 6.3 6.3 4.4 4.3 4.3

“Heat	maps”	are	included	to	provide	precise	information	about	the	spatial	characteristics	of	hiking	

use	on	the	trails	at	Guanella	Pass	(i.e.,	where	visitor	use	is	most	concentrated,	and	where	there	is	

less	intensive	or	no	visitor	use).	The	heat	map	in	Figure	2‐22	depicts	the	relative	intensity	of	visitor	

use	throughout	the	trail	network	and	backcountry	area	at	Guanella	Pass	for	visitor	groups	who	

were	administered	a	GPS	unit	at	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead	during	summer	2012.	Generally,	

information	contained	in	visitor	use	heat	maps	can	inform	transportation	planning	by	identifying	

locations	within	a	recreation	area	with	high	visitor	demand	that	might	benefit	form	improved	

transportation	services	and	facilities.	Moreover,	heat	maps	like	this	help	identify	locations	to	which	

visitor	use	could	potentially	be	dispersed	(using	ITS,	trail	improvements,	etc.)	to	alleviate	

congestion	in	areas	that	experience	excessive	traffic,	parking	congestion,	crowding,	and/or	

resource	impacts.	

The	heat	map	is	derived	from	the	GPS	track	data,	with	“cooler	colors”	(i.e.,	green	shades)	

representing	sections	of	the	trail	network	with	relatively	low	concentrations	of	visitor	use,	and	

“hotter	colors”	(i.e.,	yellow	and	red	shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	network	with	

relatively	high	concentrations	of	visitor	use.	For	example,	the	“hotter	color	tones”	on	the	trail	to	and	

summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	denote	this	as	the	most	heavily	used	hiking	route	from	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trailhead.	The	broadly	ranging	network	of	“cooler	color	tones”	suggests	that	there	are	a	

number	of	other	hiking	routes	relatively	small	numbers	of	visitors	follow	from	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trailhead,	and	depict	precisely	where	those	routes	are	located	on	the	landscape.	
Figure 2‐22. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted at the Mount Bierstadt Trailhead, sum
236

The	heat	map	in	Figure	2‐23	depicts	the	relative	intensity	of	visitor	use	throughout	the	trail	

network	and	backcountry	area	at	Guanella	Pass	for	visitor	groups	who	were	administered	a	GPS	

unit	at	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trailhead	during	summer	2012.	As	noted,	the	heat	map	is	derived	

from	the	GPS	track	data,	with	“cooler	colors”	(i.e.,	green	shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	

network	with	relatively	low	concentrations	of	visitor	use,	and	“hotter	colors”	(i.e.,	yellow	and	red	

shades)	representing	sections	of	the	trail	network	with	relatively	high	concentrations	of	visitor	use.	

For	example,	the	“hotter	color	tones”	on	the	trail	to	and	at	the	lower	Square	Top	Lake	denote	this	as	

the	most	popular	route	and	destination	from	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trailhead.	The	GPS	track	data	in	

Figure	2‐23	also	suggest	the	hike	to	Square	Top	Mountain,	west	of	Square	Top	Lakes	is	a	relatively	

popular	route	for	visitor	groups	hiking	from	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trailhead.	
Figure 2‐23. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks for visitor groups intercepted at the Square Top Lakes Trailhead, sum
238

People At One Time (PAOT) Counts

Data Collection Method

 The	number	of	people	at	one	

time	(PAOT)	on	the	summit	of	

Mount	Bierstadt	was	measured	

via	direct	observation	(Figure	

2‐24)	

 Generally,	PAOT	counts	were	

conducted	from	approximately	

8:30	AM	to	11:00	AM,	although	

severe	weather	conditions	on	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	

frequently	affected	the	

sampling	period.	In	particular,	

the	threat	of	thunderstorms	

frequently	required	field	staff	

to	descend	from	the	summit	

earlier	than	11:00	AM.	

 The	PAOT	counts	were	conducted	on	five	weekdays	and	seven	weekend	days	between	July	

1st	and	September	3rd,	2012.	On	each	sampling	day,	field	staff	recorded	an	“instantaneous	

count”	of	the	total	number	of	people	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	every	5	minutes,	

resulting	in	148	weekday	and	239	weekend	day	PAOT	observations	(Table	2‐14).	

Table 2‐14. People at one time (PAOT) sampling effort, Mount Bierstadt summit, summer 2012.

Date Weekend

Number of

observations

7/1/2012 Yes 31

7/21/2012 Yes 34

7/29/2012 Yes 34

8/5/2012 Yes 32

8/6/2012 No 34

8/10/2012 No 27

8/16/2012 No 34

8/18/2012 Yes 25

8/24/2012 No 21

8/26/2012 Yes 38

9/1/2012 Yes 45

Figure 2‐24. People at one time (PAOT) on the Mount  

Bierstadt summit, summer 2012.
239

Date Weekend

Number of

observations

9/3/2012 No 32

Total    387

Analysis and Results

On	weekdays	during	summer	2012,	there	was	an	average	of	approximately	17	people	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	summit	at	one	time;	on	weekend	days	during	summer	2012,	there	was	an	average	of	

approximately	28	people	on	the	summit	at	one	time.	The	maximum	number	of	visitors	observed	at	

one	time	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	was	approximately	133	visitors,	and	this	occurred	on	

Saturday,	August	18th,	2012	(i.e.,	the	design	day	for	this	study,	selected	to	represent	a	“typically	

busy,”	but	not	the	busiest	summer	day	at	Guanella	Pass).	Figure	2‐25	displays	the	daily	average	and	

daily	maximum	number	of	visitors	observed	at	one	time	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	for	each	

PAOT	sampling	day	during	summer	2012.	As	a	point	of	reference,	the	maximum	PAOT	on	the	design	

day	(Saturday,	August	18th)	results	in	a	density	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	

approximately	equivalent	to	a	Pedestrian	Level	of	Service	C,	which	is	considered	a	moderate	level	of	

crowding	in	an	urban	environment,	such	as	on	a	city	sidewalk.1

Figure 2‐25. Mean and maximum PAOT on the summit of Mount Bierstadt, by sampling day, summer

2012.

																																																													

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). (2010) Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C.
240

Guanella Pass Visitor Survey, Summer 2014

During	summer	2014,	RSG	conducted	a	visitor	survey	at	Guanella	Pass.	The	purpose	of	the	survey	

was	to	collect	information	that	will	help	the	US	Forest	Service	(USFS)	improve	transportation	

conditions,	and	recreation	and	resource	management	at	Guanella	Pass.	In	particular,	the	survey	

instrument	was	designed	to	collect	the	following	information	from	visitors	to	Guanella	Pass:	

 Visitors’	perceptions,	experiences,	and	expectations,	with	respect	to	transportation	

conditions	and	services,	recreation	opportunities,	and	visitor	experience	quality	at	Guanella	

Pass	and	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

 Visitors’	opinions	about	potential	changes	in	operations	to	modify	and	improve	

transportation	services	and	facilities	

 Transportation‐related	issues	experienced	by	visitors	

Survey	questions	had	a	particular	emphasis	on	traffic	congestion	and	parking	shortages	at	the	study	

site	during	the	summer	peak	visitation	period	and	potential	alternative	transportation	systems	

(ATS)	strategies	to	help	mitigate	and	manage	these	issues.	These	potential	ATS	strategies	of	focus	in	

the	survey	include	shuttle/transit	service	to	Guanella	Pass,	visitor	information	and	Intelligent	

Transportation	Systems	(ITS)	to	manage	demand	during	peak	periods,	and	on‐the‐ground	parking	

and	traffic	management	to	optimize	the	use	of	existing	parking	and	roadway	infrastructure.	The	

survey	was	also	designed	to	measure	visitors’	perceptions	and	tolerances	for	crowding	while	hiking	

on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

This	section	of	Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	summary	of	the	

summer	2014	survey	data	collection	effort	and	results.	This	section	is	organized	into	subsections	

that	describe	the	survey	methods	and	statistical	results	for	the	survey	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

users	conducted	at	GP.	
241

Methods

Survey Instrument

The	summer	2014	Guanella	Pass	visitor	survey	instrument	(Appendix	J,	K)	and	methods	were	

developed	by	RSG,	in	cooperation	with	the	Federal	Highway	Administration	Central	Federal	Lands	

Highway	Division	(CFL),	USFS,	and	US	Department	of	Transportation	Volpe	Center.	Further,	the	

survey	instrument	and	methods	were	reviewed	and	approved	by	the	USFS	Office	of	Regulatory	and	

Management	Services	and	the	Office	of	Management	and	Budget	(OMB).	

The	summer	2014	Guanella	Pass	visitor	survey	instrument	is	organized	into	five	sections.	The	first	

section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Trip	Description,”	includes	questions	concerning	

respondents’	group	sizes,	the	presence	or	absence	of	children	under	the	age	of	16	in	respondents’	

groups,	activities	engaged	in	during	their	visit	to	Guanella	Pass,	and	other	locations	visited	on	

Guanella	Pass	Road.	

The	second	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Hike	to	Mount	Bierstadt	Summit”	includes	

questions	for	those	visitors	who	hiked	part	or	all	of	the	way	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	on	

the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey.	The	questions	in	this	section	ask	about	visitors’	

perceptions	of	crowding	on	the	trail	and	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	and	attitudes	about	

potential	management	actions	to	prevent	crowding,	environmental	impacts,	and	safety	issues.	This	

section	includes	a	question	asking	people	to	evaluate	a	series	of	photo	simulations	depicting	

varying	numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	The	photo	simulations	are	included	

in	Appendix	L.	

The	third	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Travel	and	Parking,”	includes	questions	

concerning	visitors’	routes	of	travel	to	and	from	Guanella	Pass,	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	

visitor	groups	traveled	there,	visitors’	time	of	arrival,	the	location(s)	and	perceptions	about	where	

visitors	parked	their	vehicle(s),	and	visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	actions	to	manage	parking	

congestion	during	peak	visitation	periods.	

The	fourth	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Planning	Your	Trip	to	Guanella	Pass,”	includes	

questions	about	when	visitors	decided	to	take	a	trip	to	the	recreation	area,	the	potential	effects	of	

parking	conditions	at	Guanella	Pass	on	their	trip	planning,	and	the	likelihood	they	would	use	

various	sources	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	Guanella	Pass,	if	it	was	

available	for	planning	a	future	trip.	

The	fifth	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Background	Information,”	includes	questions	

concerning	respondents’	gender,	age,	state	or	country	of	residence,	level	of	formal	education,	

ethnicity,	and	race.	

Survey Sampling and Administration

The	population	to	which	statistical	generalization	is	intended	for	the	summer	2014	Guanella	Pass	

visitor	survey	is	all	visitor	groups	who	walked/hiked	at	least	part	of	the	way	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	during	the	summer	2014	peak	visitation	period	at	Guanella	Pass.	It	should	be	noted,	

for	a	subset	of	questions,	the	study	population	is	visitors	(rather	than	visitor	groups);	for	example,	
242

questions	asking	about	the	race,	ethnicity,	age,	and	gender	of	respondents	is	intended	to	be	

generalizable	to	visitors,	not	visitor	groups.	In	contrast,	results	for	questions	about	parking	

locations,	recreation	activities,	and	similar	group‐oriented	questions	are	intended	to	be	

generalizable	to	visitor	groups.	Survey	results	that	follow	are	presented	according	to	the	target	

population	for	each	individual	question.	

The	summer	2014	Guanella	Pass	visitor	survey	was	administered	to	visitors	at	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trailhead	on	four	weekend	days	and	six	weekdays,	during	summer	2014;	the	sampling	season	was	

selected	in	consultation	with	CFL	and	USFS	staff	to	coincide	with	the	peak	summer	visitation	period	

at	Guanella	Pass	(Table	2‐15).	On	each	sampling	day,	the	visitor	survey	was	administered	from	9:00	

AM	to	5:00	PM	to	coincide	with	the	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

Table 2‐15. Summer 2014 Guanella Pass visitor survey sampling effort.

Date Day of Week Solicitations Completes Refusals Unusable Response Rate

7/18/2014 Friday 58 48 10 0 83%

7/20/2014 Sunday 75 58 17 0 77%

7/23/2014 Wednesday 20 19 1 0 95%

7/24/2014 Thursday 49 38 11 0 78%

7/26/2014 Saturday 61 37 24 1 61%

8/1/2014 Friday 23 15 8 0 65%

8/3/2014 Sunday 89 60 29 0 67%

8/6/2014 Wednesday 70 56 14 3 80%

8/7/2014 Thursday 21 19 2 0 90%

8/9/2014 Saturday 86 56 30 0 65%

Total  ‐  552 406 146 4 74%

Note: “Unusable” are cases where a visitor group agreed to participate but returned an incomplete questionnaire.

At	the	start	of	each	sampling	day,	survey	administrators	were	stationed	at	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trailhead	and	intercepted	the	first	visitor	group	they	observed	returning	to	the	trailhead	at	the	end	

of	their	hike/walk	on	the	trail	(Figure	2‐26).	
243

Figure 2‐26. Survey administration at the Mount Bierstadt Trailhead, summer 2014

The	survey	administrator	asked	each	intercepted	group	if	they	had	previously	participated	in	the	

visitor	survey;	visitor	groups	who	had	not	previously	participated	in	the	survey	were	asked	to	

participate	in	the	survey.	A	randomly	selected	adult	member	(18	years	of	age	or	older	whose	

birthday	was	the	next	in	the	group	to	occur)	of	each	visitor	group	who	agreed	to	participate	in	the	

survey	was	given	a	copy	of	the	survey	instrument	and	asked	to	complete	it	onsite.	Visitor	groups	

who	were	unwilling	or	unable	to	participate	in	the	survey	were	thanked	for	their	consideration.	

After	the	survey	administrator	completed	each	visitor	group	contact,	she	intercepted	the	next	

arriving	visitor	group	and	repeated	the	participant	screening	and	recruitment	process	throughout	

the	sampling	period.	

Survey Nonresponse

To	track	visitor	survey	response	rates,	survey	administrators	recorded	a	survey	log	entry	for	each	

visitor	group	asked	to	participate	in	the	summer	2014	Guanella	Pass	visitor	survey	(Figure	2‐27).	

Information	recorded	on	the	survey	log	for	each	contacted	group	included:	1)	current	time;	2)	

visitor	group	size;	3)	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	Guanella	Pass;	4)	

whether	or	not	the	group	hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt;	5)	whether	the	group	accepted	

or	refused	to	participate	in	the	survey;	6)	whether	the	survey	respondent	was	the	driver	or	a	

passenger	in	his/her	group’s	car(s);	7)	the	survey	ID	number	for	those	groups	who	participated;	8)	

current	weather	conditions;	and	9)	comments	concerning	the	contact,	as	needed	(e.g.,	if	a	group	

previously	participated	or	declined	to	participate	due	to	a	language	barrier).	
244

Figure 2‐27. Summer 2014 Guanella Pass visitor survey log form

After	removing	surveys	that	were	unusable	(i.e.,	had	incomplete	data	and	were	consequently	

removed	from	analysis),	the	overall	response	rate	to	the	visitor	survey	was	74%.	The	survey	log	

data	were	used	to	conduct	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitor	groups	who	participated	

in	the	survey	and	those	that	did	not,	based	on	group	size,	number	of	vehicles	used	to	travel	to	

Guanella	Pass,	vehicle	occupancy,	and	whether	or	not	the	group	hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	

Bierstadt.	

Results	of	independent	samples	t‐tests	of	means	and	chi‐square	tests	suggest	groups	who	

participated	in	the	survey	do	not	differ	significantly	from	those	that	did	not	participate,	in	terms	of	

group	size	(t=‐1.346,	p=0.179);	vehicle	occupancy	(t=‐0.312,	p=0.755);	and	whether	or	not	they	

hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	(χ2=2.673,	p=0.102).	There	was	a	statistically	significant	

difference	between	respondent	visitor	groups	and	nonrespondent	visitor	groups,	in	terms	of	the	

number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	Guanella	Pass	(t=‐2.742,	p=0.006).	However,	

there	was	no	substantive	difference	between	respondents	(mean	=	1	vehicle)	and	nonrespondents	

(mean	=	1	vehicle),	in	terms	of	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	Guanella	Pass.	

In	summary,	nonresponse	bias	tests	found	no	significant	differences	between	respondents	and	

nonrespondents	for	group	size,	vehicle	occupancy,	and	summit	hikes,	and	no	substantive	difference	

for	number	of	vehicles.	Therefore,	it	is	reasonable	to	conclude	the	survey	data	are	representative	of	

the	target	study	population.	
245

Survey Data Analysis

Survey	data	analysis	procedures	used	in	this	study	are	based	on	standard	methods	for	survey	

research	in	parks	and	recreation	settings	(Vaske,	2008)4.	Key	estimates	from	the	data	are	

descriptive	in	nature,	primarily	measures	of	central	tendency	(mean)	and	frequency	distributions.	

In	addition,	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitors’	survey	responses	on	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	were	conducted.	For	questions	with	statistically	significant	differences	in	responses	

between	weekday	and	weekend	respondents	(p‐values	≤	0.05),	results	are	presented	separately	for	

weekday	and	weekend	visitors	(groups	distinguished	with	orange	and	blue	bars	in	figures).	When	

responses	do	not	vary	significantly,	overall	results	(rather	than	separate	weekend	and	weekday	

results)	are	presented	(overall	groups	represented	with	black	bar	in	figures).	

Some	additional	statistical	tests	for	differences	in	survey	responses	by	various	subgroups	were	

performed.	For	example,	responses	to	questions	about	parking	conditions	from	visitors	who	parked	

in	designated	parking	lots	were	compared	to	those	from	visitors	who	parked	along	the	roadside	at	

Guanella	Pass.	Results	are	reported	for	subgroups	when	there	are	statistically	significant	

differences	(groups	distinguished	with	green	and	yellow	bars);	otherwise,	overall	results	are	

presented.	

Results	for	individual	survey	questions	are	presented	graphically,	with	summary	statements	of	

significant	and/or	interesting	findings	reported	above	each	figure.	Question	language,	as	it	

appeared	in	the	questionnaire,	is	included	below	each	figure.	

																																																													

4 Vaske, J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
246

Visitor Survey Results

Trip Description

 The	distribution	of	group	sizes	varied	significantly	between	weekend	day	and	weekday	

visitor	groups	(χ2=8.508,	p=0.037).	However,	the	average	group	size	was	three	people,	

regardless	of	day	of	week	(t=‐1.661,	p=0.097).	

 Solo	hikers	were	more	common	on	weekdays,	while	larger	parties	were	more	common	on	

weekends.	

 Groups	of	two	people	were	the	most	common,	regardless	of	day	of	week.	

 Most	groups	of	five	or	more	people	had	fewer	than	10	members,	whether	they	were	

contacted	on	a	weekday	or	weekend	day.	

 The	largest	group	surveyed	had	22	members	and	was	contacted	on	a	weekend	day.	

Figure 2‐28. Including yourself, how many people are there in your personal group on this trip to

Guanella Pass?

Group Size Percent of Respondents

21%

39%

27%

13%

16%

40%

28%

16%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1  person

2 people

3‐4 people

5 or more

people

Weekday (n=191) Weekend day (n=208)

Average weekday = 2.93 people (±2.5)

χ2 = 8.508; p = 0.037

Average weekend day = 3.35 people (±2.5)

t =  ‐1.661; p = 0.097

0% 25% 50% 75%                        100%  
247

 The	percentage	of	groups	hiking	with	children	under	the	age	of	16	did	not	differ	

significantly	between	weekend	day	and	weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=0.009,	p=0.923).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	less	than	one‐fifth	(18%)	of	visitor	groups	were	hiking	with	

one	or	more	children	under	the	age	of	16.	

Figure 2‐29. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to Guanella

Pass?
248

 The	number	of	children	in	groups	with	children	did	not	differ	significantly	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=4.615,	p=0.202).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	there	was	an	average	of	two	children	in	groups	with	children	

(t=0.179,	p=0.859).	

 Of	the	relatively	few	groups	hiking	with	children	under	the	age	of	16,	the	vast	majority	

(85%)	were	with	only	one	or	two	children.	

 Very	few	groups	with	children	(4%)	had	five	or	more	children.	

Figure 2‐30. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group

today?
249

 With	the	exception	of	overnight	backpacking	(χ2=4.029,	p=0.045),	the	percentage	of	visitor	

groups	who	participated	or	planned	to	participate	in	each	of	several	activities	included	in	

the	questionnaire	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekend	days	and	weekdays.	

 Visitor	groups	who	were	contacted	on	weekend	days	were	more	likely	than	those	contacted	

on	weekdays	to	have	participated	or	planned	to	participate	in	overnight	backpacking	during	

their	trip	to	Guanella	Pass.	

 Nearly	all	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	hiked	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

As	noted,	the	survey	was	administered	at	the	trailhead	for	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Therefore,	

sampling	systematically	excluded	Guanella	Pass	visitor	groups/visitors	who	did	not	walk	at	

least	a	short	distance	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

 Scenic	driving	(21%)	and	picnicking	(14%)	were	the	second	and	third	most	common	

activities	among	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	activities	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Appendix	M.	

Figure 2‐31. Which of the following activities have you done/will you do on this trip to Guanella Pass?
250

 The	primary	activities	of	visitor	groups	contacted	on	weekend	days	did	not	differ	

significantly	from	those	contacted	on	weekdays	(χ2=3.043,	p=0.218).	

 Hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	was	the	primary	activity	for	the	large	majority	of	visitor	

groups	(91%),	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 Very	few	(7%)	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	reported	activities	other	

than	hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	as	their	primary	activity.	Even	fewer	(2%)	

reported	having	no	primary	activity.	

Figure 2‐32. What is your primary activity on this trip to Guanella Pass?

Activity Percent of Respondents

91%

7%

2%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Hiking on Mt.

Bierstadt Trail

Other activities in

the GP area

No primary activity

on this trip to

Guanella Pass

Weekday (n=395)

χ2 = 3.043; p = 0.218

0% 25% 50% 75%                        100%  
251

 The	percentage	of	visitor	groups	who	visited	other	locations	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	did	not	

differ	significantly	between	visitor	groups	contacted	on	weekdays	and	those	contacted	on	

weekend	days.	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	relatively	few	groups	visited	or	planned	to	visit	other	

locations	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	during	their	trip,	with	the	most	common	being	the	hiking	

trails	at	Silver	Dollar	Lake	(7%)	and	Clear	Lake	Campground	(6%).	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	locations	reported	by	respondents	

is	included	in	Appendix	N.	

Figure 2‐33. Which of the following locations on Guanella Pass Road have you visited/will you visit on

this trip to Guanella Pass?
252

Hike to Mount Bierstadt Summit

 Nearly	three‐quarters	(73%)	of	visitor	groups	hiked	all	the	way	to	the	summit	of	Mount	

Bierstadt,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week	(χ2=0.770,	p=0.680).	

Figure 2‐34. Did you hike part or all the way to the summit of Mount Bierstadt today?
253

 The	number	of	hours	hiked	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trial	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	visitor	groups	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups	(χ2=6.550,	p=0.256).	

 Nearly	half	of	all	visitor	groups	hiked	four	to	five	hours	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	On	

average,	visitor	groups	hiked	just	under	five	hours	on	the	trail.	

Figure 2‐35. Approximately how many hours did you hike on the Mount Bierstadt Trail today?
254

 The	number	of	hours	spent	hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	varied	significantly	between	

visitor	groups	who	hiked	to	the	summit	and	those	who	hiked	only	partway	on	the	trail	

(χ2=135.716,	p<0.001).	

 Groups	who	went	to	the	summit	averaged	just	over	five	hours	of	hiking	time,	while	those	

who	hiked	partway	averaged	about	three	and	a	half	hours	(t=‐8.554,	p<0.001).	

 Nearly	half	(44%)	of	visitor	groups	who	hiked	only	partway	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

hiked	for	two	to	three	hours,	while	the	majority	(84%)	of	visitor	groups	who	hiked	to	the	

summit	hiked	for	four	to	seven	hours.	

Figure 2‐36. Approximately how many hours did you hike on the Mount Bierstadt Trail today?

Hours Percent of Respondents

7%

7%

44%

33%

8%

1%

<1%

<1%

8%

53%

31%

8%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Less than 1 hour

1 hour

2‐3 hours

4‐5 hours

6‐7 hours

8 or more hours

Hiked partway (n=85) Hiked to the summit (n=257)

χ2 = 135.716; p < 0.001

t =  ‐‐8.554; p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75%                           100%  

Average part way = 3.56 hours (±1.63)

Average summit = 5.25 hours (±1.51)
255

 Visitors	contacted	on	weekend	days	were	significantly	more	likely	to	feel	crowded	than	

respondents	contacted	on	weekdays	(p<0.001	for	all	tests).	

 More	than	half	(55%)	of	all	visitors	on	weekend	days	felt	crowded	on	the	trail	and	more	

than	one‐third	(36%)	felt	crowded	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	

 Less	than	one‐third	(30%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	did	not	feel	crowded	at	any	point	

during	their	hike.	In	contrast,	two‐thirds	(66%)	of	weekday	visitors	did	not	feel	crowded	at	

any	point	during	their	hike	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

 However,	about	one‐quarter	(26%)	of	weekday	visitors	reported	feeling	crowded	on	the	

trail,	and	almost	one‐fifth	(16%)	of	weekday	visitors	felt	crowded	on	the	summit.	

 The	degree	of	crowding	visitors	experience	on	weekend	days	and	weekdays	is	in	sharp	

contrast	to	the	Wilderness	designation	of	the	area.	

Figure 2‐37. Did you feel crowded on the trail and/or the summit during your hike today?

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	few	visitors	(10%)	felt	like	crowding	increased	the	risk	of	

injuries	to	themselves	or	others	on	the	trail	or	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	(p>0.05	for	

all	tests).	

Figure 2‐38. Did you feel like crowding increased your risk or other people's risk of being injured at any

point during your hike today?
256

 Visitors	contacted	on	weekend	days	were	significantly	more	likely	than	visitors	contacted	

on	weekdays	to	say	that	other	people	on	the	trail	made	them	feel	rushed	or	slowed	them	

down	while	hiking	(χ2=24.455,	p<0.001).

 On	weekend	days,	about	one‐third	(29%)	of	visitors	felt	rushed	or	slowed	down	by	the	

presence	of	other	people	on	the	trail.	Fewer	visitors	(17%)	felt	rushed	or	slowed	down	by	

others	on	weekdays.	

 These	findings	suggest	crowding	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	causes	some	visitors	to	travel	

off‐trail	to	avoid	other	hikers,	which	creates	trampling	impacts	to	surrounding	vegetation	

and	soils.	

Figure 2‐39. Did the presence of other people on the trail make you feel rushed or slow you down at any

point during your hike today?
257

 Respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	for	each	of	several	simulated	photos	of	varying	

numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	if	they	would	feel	crowding	being	on	

the	summit	with	that	number	of	people.	Weekday	visitors	were	generally	slightly	more	

crowding‐sensitive	than	weekend	visitors.	

 Few	(18%	or	fewer)	visitors	thought	they	would	feel	crowded	with	10	or	fewer	other	

people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	

 About	one‐third	(35%	on	weekdays	and	29%	on	weekend	days)	of	visitors	thought	they	

would	feel	crowded	with	13	other	people	on	the	summit	at	one	time.	

 Roughly	half	or	more	(59%	or	more	on	weekdays	and	47%	or	more	on	weekend	days)	of	

visitors	thought	they	would	feel	crowded	with	19	or	more	other	people	on	the	summit.	

Figure 2‐40. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of

Mount Bierstadt with the number of people depicted in the photograph.
258

 Visitors	on	weekend	days	and	weekdays	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	opinions	about	

whether	or	not	visitor	use	should	be	limited	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	regardless	of	the	

reason	for	the	use	limit	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	reason,	substantive	proportions	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	

hikers	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	should	be	limited,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	

the	trail.

 About	one‐quarter	(23%)	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	hikers	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail	should	be	limited	to	protect	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences,	even	if	it	limits	when	

they	can	hike	the	trail.

 Nearly	half	(41%)	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	hikers	should	be	limited	to	protect	

visitors’	safety,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	the	trail.

 About	half	(51%)	of	visitors	believe	the	number	of	hikers	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

should	be	limited	to	reduce	environmental	impacts,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	the	

trail.

Figure 2‐41. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to hike on the Mount Bierstadt

Trail each day should be limited, even if it limits when they can hike on the trail, if it is needed to a)

protect the quality of visitors' experiences; b) protect visitors’ safety; c) to reduce environmental impacts.
259

Travel and Parking

 The	travel	route	of	visitor	groups	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=5.666,	p=0.129).	

 The	vast	majority	(82%)	of	visitor	groups	traveled	to	and	from	Guanella	Pass	via	

Georgetown.	

 Relatively	few	(11%)	visitor	groups	traveled	one‐way	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	(i.e.,	from	

Georgetown	to	Grant,	or	vice	versa)	on	their	trip	to	Guanella	Pass.	

 Less	than	one‐fifth	(17%)	of	Guanella	Pass	visitor	groups	traveled	through	Grant	at	any	

point	during	their	trip	to	Guanella	Pass.	

Figure 2‐42. Which route did you use to travel to Guanella Pass on this trip?

Direction Percent of Respondents

82%

7%

6%

4%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

From Georgetown,

to Georgetown

From Georgetown,

to Grant

From Grant,

to Grant

From Grant,

to Georgetown

Overall (n=388)

χ2 = 5.666; p = 0.129

0% 25% 50% 75%                     100%
260

 Visitor	groups’	arrival	time	at	Guanella	Pass	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	

and	weekend	days	(χ2=6.232,	p=0.513).	

 Nearly	half	(42%)	of	visitor	groups	arrived	at	Guanella	Pass	before	7	AM,	and	nearly	two‐

thirds	(62%)	arrived	by	8	AM.	

Figure 2‐43. At approximately what time did you arrive at Guanella Pass today?
261

 The	vast	majority	(92%)	of	all	visitor	groups	arrived	at	Guanella	Pass	on	the	same	day	they	

took	the	survey,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=1.013,	p=0.314).	

Figure 2‐44. Percentage of visitor groups who arrived at Guanella Pass on the same day or different day

than when they were contacted for the survey.
262

 The	majority	of	all	visitor	groups	(86%)	traveled	to	Guanella	Pass	in	a	single	vehicle,	

regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=0.346,	p=0.841).	

Figure 2‐45. In how many vehicles did you/your personal group travel on this trip to Guanella Pass?
263

 Visitor	groups’	parking	location	at	Guanella	Pass	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=11.904,	p=0.008).	

 Half	(50%)	of	all	weekday	visitor	groups	were	able	to	park	in	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead	

parking	lot,	whereas	only	about	one‐third	(39%)	of	visitor	groups	were	able	to	park	there	

on	weekend	days.	

 However,	about	half	of	all	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	(48%	on	weekdays	

and	52%	on	weekend	days)	parked	along	the	roadside	on	Guanella	Pass	Road.	

 Few	visitor	groups	parked	in	the	Square	Top	Lakes	Trailhead	parking	lot,	regardless	of	the	

day	of	week	(2%	on	weekdays	and	9%	on	weekend	days).	

Figure 2‐46. Where did you park on this trip to Guanella Pass?
264

 Visitors	on	weekend	days	(28%)	were	less	likely	to	agree	than	those	on	weekdays	(43%)	

that	where	they	parked	at	Guanella	Pass	was	“uncongested”	(χ2=11.519,	p=0.021).	In	other	

words,	about	three‐quarters	(72%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	and	more	than	half	(57%)	

on	weekdays	thought	that	where	they	parked	was	congested.	

 Visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	

and	weekend	days	on	any	other	factors	included	in	the	questionnaire.	Visitors	generally	felt	

like	where	they	parked	was	safe	(87%),	convenient	(91%),	easy	to	find	(94%),	and	well‐

marked	(67%).	

 However,	visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	vary	significantly,	depending	

on	where	they	parked	at	Guanella	Pass.	These	findings	are	described	in	detail	below.	

Figure 2‐47. Percentage who agree with each of the descriptions of where they parked at Guanella Pass

on the day they took the survey.
265

 Visitors’	perceptions	of	their	parking	locations	did	vary	significantly,	depending	on	where	

they	parked	at	Guanella	Pass	(p<0.001	for	all	tests).	

 Visitors	who	parked	in	parking	lots	were	significantly	more	likely	to	think	their	parking	

locations	were	safe,	convenient,	easy	to	find,	well‐marked,	and	uncongested.	

 While	very	few	(2%)	visitors	who	parked	in	a	designated	lot	thought	where	they	parked	

was	unsafe,	nearly	one‐quarter	(23%)	of	visitors	who	parked	along	the	roadside	thought	

where	they	parked	was	unsafe.	

 More	than	three‐quarters	(78%)	of	visitors	who	parked	along	the	roadside	thought	where	

they	parked	was	congested.	

Figure 2‐48. Percentage, by parking location, who agree with each of the descriptions of where they

parked at Guanella Pass on the day they took the survey.
266

 Weekday	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	at	Guanella	Pass	differed	significantly	

from	those	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	(χ2=28.052,	p<0.001;	t=‐4.868,	p<0.001).

 Three‐quarters	(75%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	thought	that	parking	congestion	at	

Guanella	Pass	was	moderate	to	extreme.	Very	few	(8%)	weekend	visitors	thought	there	was	

no	parking	congestion	at	all.

 While	weekday	visitors	were	less	likely	than	weekend	visitors	to	report	that	there	was	

parking	congestion	at	Guanella	Pass,	more	than	half	(58%)	thought	that	parking	congestion	

was	moderate	to	severe.

Figure 2‐49. How much parking congestion do you think there was when you parked at Guanella Pass on

this trip?
267

 Visitors	were	asked	if	they	would	be	likely	to	park	at	a	designated	lot	and	take	a	30	minute	

or	15	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	Guanella	Pass,	if	it	was	their	only	option	to	visit	Guanella	

Pass	in	the	future	because	parking	lots	were	full.	Visitors’	responses	to	the	questions	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	for	the	30	minute	(χ2=0.018,	

p=0.892)	or	15	minute	(χ2=3.237,	p=0.070)	shuttle	bus	ride.

 Close	to	two‐thirds	(59%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	probably	choose	not	to	visit	Guanella	

Pass	if	they	had	to	park	at	a	designated	lot	in	town	and	take	a	30	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	

Guanella	Pass.

 A	substantial	majority	(68%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	Guanella	Pass,	

even	if	they	had	to	park	at	a	designated	lot	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	and	take	a	15	minutes	

shuttle	bus	ride	to	GP.

 Responses	to	these	questions	did	not	vary	statistically	or	substantively	based	on	where	

visitors	parked	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey	(i.e.,	in	a	designated	lot	or	

along	the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass).

Figure 2‐50. Percentage who would be likely to visit Guanella Pass on a future trip, even if this was their

only option for visiting because parking lots were full.
268

 Visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	parking	management	actions	at	Guanella	Pass	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 More	than	two‐thirds	(69%)	of	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	at	Guanella	Pass	are	

full,	visitors	should	be	allowed	to	park	wherever	they	can,	including	on	the	roadside.	The	

support	for	this	option	may	be	due,	in	part,	to	the	fact	that	half	of	all	respondents	parked	on	

the	roadside	at	Guanella	Pass	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	for	the	survey.	In	fact,	

virtually	all	of	those	visitors	who	parked	along	the	roadside	(93%)	agreed	that	visitors	

should	continue	to	be	allowed	to	park	along	the	roadside	in	the	future,	when	parking	lots	

are	full.

 At	the	same	time,	half	(50%)	of	visitors	also	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	are	full	at	

Guanella	Pass,	visitors	should	be	directed	to	park	at	a	designated	overflow	lot	on	Guanella	

Pass	Road	and	take	a	30	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	Guanella	Pass.

 Relatively	few	(15%)	visitors	agreed	that	people	should	be	directed	away	from	Guanella	

Pass	to	other	recreation	areas	when	parking	lots	at	Guanella	Pass	are	full.

Figure 2‐51. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking

lots are full at Guanella Pass.
269

Planning Your Trip to Guanella Pass

 The	time	frame	in	which	visitors	planned	their	trips	to	Guanella	Pass	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=4.541,	p=0.338).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	nearly	three‐quarters	(71%)	of	visitors	planned	their	trips	to	

Guanella	Pass	either	the	day	before	they	visited	or	within	a	week	prior	to	visiting,	and	more	

than	one‐third	(36%)	planned	their	visits	within	the	last	24	hours.	

Figure 2‐52. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to Guanella Pass?
270

 Significantly	more	weekend	visitors	(39%)	than	weekday	visitors	(26%)	anticipated	that	it	

would	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	Guanella	Pass	(χ2=7.618,	p=0.006).

 However,	the	majority	of	visitors	on	both	weekend	days	(74%)	and	weekdays	(61%)	did	

not	anticipate	that	it	would	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	Guanella	Pass	when	they	planned	

their	trip.

Figure 2‐53. When you planned this trip to Guanella Pass, did you think about the possibility that it might

be difficult to find parking here?
271

 For	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	find	parking	at	

Guanella	Pass,	a	follow‐up	question	asked	how	that	affected	their	trip	plans.	

 Weekday	visitors	(47%)	were	much	more	likely	than	weekend	day	visitors	(4%)	to	plan	

their	visit	to	Guanella	Pass	for	a	day	of	the	week	that	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded	

(χ2=35.221,	p<0.001).	

 Weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	responses	to	any	of	

the	other	statements	included	in	this	question.	

 Of	note,	half	(50%)	of	all	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	of	parking	congestion,	

visited	at	a	time	of	day	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

Figure 2‐54. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you

planned this trip to Guanella Pass, how did it affect your trip plans?
272

 Visitors	were	asked	how	likely	they	would	be	to	use	each	of	several	sources	of	information	

about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	Guanella	Pass,	if	it	was	available	for	planning	a	

future	trip	to	Guanella	Pass.	Responses	to	the	question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups.

 The	vast	majority	(88%)	of	visitors	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	a	website	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	Guanella	Pass	when	planning	a	future	trip.

 A	smartphone	app	ranked	second	among	the	information	sources,	with	two‐thirds	(67%)	of	

visitors	indicating	they’d	be	likely	to	use	one	to	plan	a	future	trip	to	Guanella	Pass.

 About	one‐third	of	visitors	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	social	media	(35%),	text	updates	

on	a	cellular	phone/smartphone	(36%),	and	a	tourist	information	center	(34%)	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	Guanella	Pass.

 Fewer	visitors	thought	they’d	be	likely	to	use	a	telephone	information	line	(25%	to	28%)	or	

AM	radio	station	(i.e.,	highway	advisory	radio;	15%).

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	information	sources	reported	by	

respondents	is	included	as	an	appendix	item.	

Figure 2‐55. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking

and crowding conditions at Guanella Pass, if it was available for planning a future trip to Guanella Pass.
273

Background Information

 There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	gender	of	visitors	on	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=1.567,	p=0.211).	

 Nearly	two‐thirds	(66%)	of	visitors	were	male;	approximately	one‐third	(34%)	were	

female.	

Figure 2‐56. What is your gender?
274

 On	average,	visitors	contacted	on	weekdays	(mean	=	40	years	of	age)	were	slightly	older	

than	those	contacted	on	weekend	days	(mean	=	36	years	of	age;	t=2.778,	p=0.006).

 Weekday	visitors	(41%)	were	much	more	likely	than	weekend	day	visitors	(26%)	to	be	45	

years	of	age	or	older	(χ2=12.039,	p=0.034).

 About	one‐third	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	(34%)	and	weekdays	(31%)	were	between	25	

and	34	years	of	age,	and	a	majority	(73%	on	weekend	days	and	58%	on	weekdays)	were	

between	18	and	44	years	of	age.

Figure 2‐57. In what year were you born?
275

 Visitors	were	overwhelming	(99%)	residents	of	the	United	States,	regardless	of	the	day	of	

the	week	when	they	visited	GP	(χ2=3.312,	p=0.063).	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	countries	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	as	

an	appendix	item.	

Figure 2‐58. Do you live in the United States?
276

 Visitors’	state	of	residence	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=15.588,	p<0.001).	

 The	vast	majority	(84%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	were	residents	of	Colorado	and	few	

(16%)	were	residents	of	other	states.

 A	majority	(66%)	of	weekday	visitors	were	residents	of	Colorado,	but	a	substantial	

proportion	(34%)	were	from	other	states.

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	states	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Appendix	Q.	

Figure 2‐59. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in?
277

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	Guanella	Pass,	visitors’	city	of	residence	did	not	vary	between	

weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=1.371,	p<0.849).

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	Guanella	Pass,	the	greatest	proportion	(70%)	lives	in	the	

greater	Denver	area.

 The	majority	of	Colorado	respondents	live	on	the	Front	Range.

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	zip	codes	reported	by	respondents	who	are	residents	of	

Colorado	is	included	as	an	appendix	item.	

Figure 2‐60. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in?
278

 The	education	level	of	visitors	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=3.193,	p<0.670).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(82%)	of	visitors	has	earned	a	college,	

business	or	trade	school	degree	or	higher;	this	includes	about	one‐third	(34%)	of	visitors	

who	have	earned	a	master’s,	doctoral,	or	professional	degree.	

Figure 2‐61. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?
279

 Very	few	(5%)	visitors	reported	being	Hispanic	or	Latino,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week	

when	they	visited	Guanella	Pass	(χ2=1.567,	p<0.211).

Figure 2‐62. Are you Hispanic or Latino?
280

 Visitors’	self‐reported	race	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(95%)	of	visitors	reported	their	race	as	

white.	

Figure 2‐63. What is your race?
281

Chapter 3: MOUNT EVANS RECREATION AREA SUMMARY OF DATA

FINDINGS
282

Mount Evans Recreation Area Transportation and Visitor Use,

Summer 2012

During	 summer	 2012,	RSG	and	Colorado	State	University	 (CSU)	 conducted	a	 field	 study	and	 data	

collection	effort	in	MERA.	The	purpose	of	the	study	was	to	collect	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	

during	the	area’s	peak	summer	visitation	period,	from	June	23rd through	September	3rd. The	following	

data	were	collected	in	MERA	during	summer	2012:	

 Vehicle	traffic	volumes	and	bicyclist	counts	

 Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	rates	in	the	designated	lots	and	on	the	nearby	roadside	

at	Mount	Goliath,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit	

 Visitor	use	counts	on	selected	trails	in	MERA	

 GPS‐based	tracking	of	visitor	use	patterns	in	the	study	area	

 People	at	one	time	(PAOT)	counts	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

This	section	of	Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	

summary	of	the	summer	2012	data	collection	effort	in	MERA	and	results.	This	section	is	organized	

into	subsections	that	describe	the	data	collection	methods	and	statistical	results	for	each	of	the	

types	of	data	collected.	

Vehicle Traffic Volumes and Bicyclist

Counts

Data Collection Method

 Vehicle	traffic	data	were	recorded	with	an	

Automatic	Traffic	Recorder	(ATR)	on	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway,	southeast of	the	MERA	

Welcome	Station	(see	Figure	3‐1	and	Figure	

3‐2).	

 The	ATR	recorded inbound	and	outbound	

vehicle	traffic	counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	

per	day	from	May	25th,	2012	through	

September	3rd,	2012.	

 Field	staff	conducted	counts	of	the	number	of	

bicyclists	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	via	

direct	observation	at	the	ATR	location.	The	

counts	of	inbound	and	outbound	bicyclists	

were	conducted	from	7:00	AM	to	3:00	PM	on	

one	weekday	and	one	weekend	day	during	the	summer	2012	season.	

 Due	to	the	high	degree	of	accuracy	and	precision	of	the	ATR’s	used	in	the	study,	it	was	not	

necessary	to	calibrate	the	vehicle	traffic	count	data	with	direct	observation	counts.	

Figure 3‐1. ATR location, MERA summer

2012.
283

Figure 3‐2. Approximate location of ATR, Mount Evans summer 2012.

ATR
284

Analysis and Results

The	daily	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	are	reported	in	Figure	3‐3,	by	date	from	May	25th,	2012	to	

September	3rd,	2012;	the	red	bars	in	the	figure	highlight	days	when	parking	accumulation	and	

turnover	data	were	collected	in	MERA.	

Figure 3‐3. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by date, summer 2012.

The	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volume	data	were	used	to	help	identify	a	“design	day”	for	analysis	and	

planning	that	represents	a	“typically	busy”	day	in	MERA	during	the	summer	visitor	use	season.	In	

particular,	the	inbound	vehicle	traffic	volumes	were	organized	in	descending	order,	from	the	

busiest	day	(September	2,	2012)	to	the	least	busy	day	(June	7,	2012)	of	the	study	period	(Figure	

3‐4).	Potential	design	day	levels	are	depicted	with	horizontal	lines	positioned	in	Figure	3‐4	at	the	

85th,	90th,	and	95th	percentile	days	of	inbound	vehicle	traffic	during	the	study	period.	
285

Figure 3‐4. Daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, in descending order, summer

2012.

Commonly,	the	85th	percentile	day	is	used	for	“conventional”	transportation	planning	and	

engineering.	If	the	85th	percentile	day	were	selected	as	the	design	day,	on	average,	less	than	15%	of	

the	days	during	a	“typical	summer	visitor	use	season”	would	exceed	what	was	planned	for	under	

the	design	day.	The	85th	percentile	day	is	arguably	less	suitable,	however,	for	transportation	

planning	in	parks	and	recreation	areas,	because	visitor	use	tends	to	be	temporally	concentrated.	To	

further	inform	the	selection	of	a	design	day	to	represent	a	typically	busy	summer	visitor	use	day	in	

MERA,	estimates	of	the	percentage	of	summer	season	visitors	that	would	visit	MERA	on	days	when	

visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	exceeded	design	day	levels,	based	on	using	the	85th,	90th,	

95th,	and	99th	percentile	days	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	as	the	design	day	were	calculated	(Table

3‐1).	For	all	four	design	day	levels	considered,	100%	of	the	days	above	the	design	day	level	of	

visitor	use	were	weekend	days	or	holidays.	

Table 3‐1. Estimated percent of MERA summer season visitors that would experience visitor use, traffic,

and parking conditions in excess of design day conditions.

Day Rank Potential Design Day Use Level % of Visitors   Date

2nd Busiest Day 99th Percentile 3,709 2% 9/3/2012

6th Busiest Day 95th Percentile 3,086 10% 7/1/2012

11th Busiest Day 90th Percentile 2,938 19% 7/22/2012

16th Busiest Day 85th Percentile 2,688 27% 8/25/2012
286

Using	standards	developed	in	consultation	with	USFS	and	FHWA	to	assess	the	results	in	Table	3‐1,	

it	was	concluded	that	the	85th	percentile	day	of	vehicle	traffic	volumes	would	result	in	too	large	a	

proportion	of	summer	season	visitors	to	experience	conditions	beyond	those	planned	for	in	the	

feasibility	study	(27%).	It	was	concluded	that	the	90th	percentile	day	of	vehicle	traffic	would	allow	

for	a	more	acceptable	proportion	of	Mount	Evans	summer	season	visitors	(81%)	to	experience	

visitor	use,	traffic,	and	parking	conditions	at	or	below	design	day	levels.	

Thus,	the	11th	busiest	day	of	the	study	period	(July	22nd,	2012)	was	selected	as	the	MERA	Summer	

Visitor	Use	Season	Design	Day	for	analysis	and	planning	in	this	project.	As	described,	this	decision	

was	informed	and	substantiated	by	the	Mount	Evans	vehicle	traffic	volume,	group	size,	and	parking	

data	collected	by	RSG	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season.	The	design	day	is	used	as	a	

reference	point	for	analyzing	most	of	the	transportation	and	visitor	use	data	collected	at	Mount	

Evans	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season.	

Arriving	and	departing	vehicles	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	in	MERA	on	the	design	day	are	

displayed	in	Figure	3‐5.	The	arriving	and	departing	vehicle	traffic	data	in	Figure	3‐5	suggest	visitors	

begin	arriving	in	MERA	during	the	early	morning	hours;	the	number	of	arrivals	grows	sharply	from	

6:00	AM	through	the	morning	hours,	and	reaches	its	peak	around	noon.	The	traffic	data	in	Figure	

3‐5	further	suggest	that	visitors	begin	departing	from	MERA	in	substantive	numbers	beginning	

around	11:00	AM,	and	departures	exceed	arrivals	from	approximately	2:00	PM	through	the	end	of	

the	day.	

Figure 3‐5. Design day vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by hour and direction of travel,

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.
287

The	ATR	used	in	the	study	records	the	vehicle	speed	and	Federal	Highway	Administration	(FHWA)	

class	of	each	vehicle	that	is	detected	by	the	counter.	The	average	speed	observed	on	the	design	day	

was	approximately	21	mph	on	the	section	of	road	where	the	ATR	was	located,	and	the	85th

percentile	speed5	(often	used	for	traffic	safety	studies)	was	26	mph.	Nearly	all	of	the	vehicles	

observed	on	the	design	day	were	classified	as	passenger	vehicles	(92%),	<1%	were	classified	as	

motorcycles,	3%	were	classified	as	heavy	trucks	or	buses,	and	5	%	were	of	unknown	classification,	

under	the	FHWA	Scheme	F	classification.6

Counts	of	the	number	of	bicyclists	entering	and	exiting	MERA	between	the	hours	of	7:00	AM	and	

3:00	PM	were	conducted	at	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	on	one	weekend	day	(Saturday	August	4th,	

2012)	and	one	weekday	(Tuesday	July	24th,	2012)	during	summer	2012	(Figure	3‐6).	A	total	of	15	

bicycles	were	observed	entering	MERA	during	the	weekday	count,	and	57	bicycles	were	observed	

entering	MERA	during	the	weekend	day	count.	The	weekend	count	of	bicyclists	was	conducted	on	a	

day	during	which	MERA	vehicle	traffic	was	similar	to,	but	slightly	higher	than	that	on	the	design	day	

(Figure	3‐6).	This	suggests	the	weekend	count	of	bicyclists	is	representative	of	bicycle	use	on	a	

“typically	busy”	day	during	the	summer	visitor	use	season	at	MERA.	

Figure 3‐6. Bicycle count days relative to daily inbound vehicle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway,

in descending order, summer 2012.

																																																													

5 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Sixth Edition. (2011) American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): Washington, DC.

6 Vehicle Classification Scheme F Report. (2011) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Washington, DC.
288

Arriving	and	departing	bicycles	on	Saturday	August	4th,	2012	are	displayed	in	Figure	3‐7.	As	

depicted	in	Figure	3‐7,	hourly	bicycle	arrivals	reached	a	peak	of	approximately	15	bicycles	during	

the	8:00	AM	hour,	after	which	arrivals	gradually	declined	until	the	12:00	PM	hour,	when	there	was	

a	slight	increase	in	bike	arrivals	from	the	previous	hour.	There	were	very	few	bicycle	arrivals	

between	1:00	PM	and	the	end	of	the	data	collection	period	at	3:00	PM.	

Figure 3‐7. Bicycle traffic volumes on Mount Evans Highway, by hour and direction of travel, Saturday,

August 4th, 2012.

Parking Accumulation & Turnover

Data Collection Method

 A	license	plate	recording	method	(Figure	

2‐72)	was	used	in	the	designated	parking	lots	

and	on	the	nearby	roadside	at	Mount	Goliath,	

Summit	Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit	to	

record:	

o An	hourly	count	of	parked	vehicles,	by	

location	(i.e.,	parking	accumulation)	

o The	amount	of	time	vehicles	were	parked,	

by	parking	location	(i.e.,	parking	turnover)	

 Parking	data	collection	was	conducted	on	13	

weekdays	and	11	weekend	days	between	June	 Figure 3‐8. Parking accumulation &

turnover data collection at MERA.
289

23rd	and	September	3rd,	2012,	from	7:00	AM	to	6:00	PM	for	the	Summit	Lake	and	Summit	

parking	areas,	and	from	7:00	AM	to	3:00	PM	for	the	Mount	Goliath	parking	area.	License	

plates	were	recorded	by	subarea	of	the	designated	lots	and	roadside,	and	by	specific	

parking	space	in	the	designated	lots	(Figure	3‐9,	Figure	3‐10,	and	Figure	3‐11).	

Figure 3‐9. Mount Goliath parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.

Figure 3‐10. Summit Lake parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.
290

Figure 3‐11. Mount Evans Summit parking accumulation and turnover data collection map.

Analysis and Results

Hourly	parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	on	the	roadside	at	Mount	Goliath,	

Summit	Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit	is	displayed	in	Figure	3‐12	through	Figure	3‐19	for	the	

11th	busiest	day	of	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season	(Sunday,	July	22nd,	2012),	which	was	

selected	as	the	“design	day”	for	this	study,	as	described	in	the	preceding	section.	

Figure	3‐12	displays	parking	accumulation	at	Mount	Goliath	on	the	design	day,	by	location	(i.e.,	

designated	lot	versus	nearby	roadside)	and	overall.	As	depicted	in	Figure	3‐12,	parking	demand	

was	below	capacity	for	most	of	the	day	at	Mount	Goliath,	and	at	its	peak	during	the	1:00	PM	hour	

exceeded	capacity	by	just	one	vehicle.	The	results	in	Figure	3‐12	suggest	there	is	adequate	parking	

capacity	at	Mount	Goliath	to	accommodate	demand	during	“typically	busy”	days	in	MERA;	however,	

during	the	3‐hour	period	(11:00	AM	to	2:00	PM)	when	the	parking	lot	was	near	or	beyond	capacity,	

some	visitors	who	bypassed	Mount	Goliath	may	have	wanted	to	stop	there,	but	did	not	because	

there	was	little	or	no	parking	available.
291

Figure 3‐12. Design day parking accumulation at Mount Goliath, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐13	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	at	Mount	Goliath	at	distinct	time	periods	

throughout	the	morning	and	afternoon	of	the	design	day.	The	graphics	in	Figure	3‐13	display	the	

spatial	pattern	by	which	visitors	use	the	designated	parking	lot	and	nearby	roadside	at	Mount	

Goliath,	on	a	“typically	busy”	day	during	the	summer	visitor	use	season	in	MERA.	
292

7:00 AM: Lot: 2 vehicles, 13% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

10:00 AM: Lot: 10 vehicles, 63% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

1:00 PM (PEAK): Lot: 16 vehicles, 100% full

Roadside: 1 vehicle

2:00 PM: Lot: 8 vehicles, 50% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

3:00 PM: Lot: 9 vehicles, 56% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

Figure 3‐13. Design day parking accumulation at Mount Goliath, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐14	displays	parking	accumulation	at	Summit	Lake	on	the	design	day,	by	location	(i.e.,	

designated	lot	versus	nearby	roadside)	and	overall.	On	the	design	day,	parking	accumulation	in	the	

designated	parking	lot	reached	capacity	during	the	10:00	AM	hour,	and	remained	at	or	near	

capacity	until	approximately	4:00	PM.	Parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	lot	reached	its	peak	

Location of parked

vehicles
293

of	48	vehicles	during	the	11:00AM	hour.	Very	few	visitors	parked	on	the	roadside	near	Summit	

Lake	until	the	10:00	AM	hour	when	parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	lot	approached	

capacity.	Parking	accumulation	on	the	roadside	reached	its	peak	of	17	vehicles	during	the	11:00	AM	

hour,	and	then	gradually	declined	through	the	afternoon	hours.	Once	parking	was	available	in	the	

designated	lot	again	in	the	late	afternoon/early	evening	hours,	there	were	no	cars	parked	on	the	

roadside	at	Summit	Lake.	Overall,	parking	accumulation	at	Summit	Lake	on	the	design	day	

increased	steadily	through	the	morning	hours,	reached	its	peak	of	65	vehicles	during	the	11:00	AM	

hour,	and	then	gradually	declined	through	the	afternoon	hours	of	the	day.	

Figure 3‐14. Design day parking accumulation at the Summit Lake parking area, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐15	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	at	Summit	Lake	at	distinct	time	periods	

throughout	the	morning,	afternoon,	and	evening	of	the	design	day.	The	graphics	in	Figure	3‐15	

display	the	spatial	pattern	by	which	visitors	use	the	designated	parking	lot	and	nearby	roadside	at	

Summit	Lake,	on	a	“typically	busy”	day	during	the	summer	visitor	use	season	in	MERA.	
294

7:00 AM: Lot: 12 vehicles, 27% full

Roadside: 4 vehicles

9:00 AM: Lot: 35vehicles, 78% full

Roadside: 9 vehicles

11:00 AM (PEAK): Lot: 48 vehicles, 107% full

Roadside: 17 vehicles

		 	

2:00 PM: Lot: 42 vehicles, 93 % full

Roadside: 7 vehicles

6:00 PM: Lot: 8 vehicles, 18% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

Figure 3‐15. Design day parking accumulation at Summit Lake, Sunday July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐16	displays	parking	accumulation	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	on	the	design	day,	by	

location	(i.e.,	designated	lot	versus	nearby	roadside)	and	overall.	On	the	design	day,	parking	

accumulation	in	the	designated	parking	lot	reached	capacity	during	the	11:00	AM	hour,	and	

exceeded	capacity	through	the	afternoon	hours,	until	approximately	4:00	PM.	Parking	accumulation	

in	the	designated	lot	reached	its	peak	of	45	vehicles	during	the	12:00	PM	hour.	Very	few	visitors	

Location of parked

vehicles
295

parked	on	the	roadside	near	the	Mount	Evans	summit	before	11:00	AM;	however,	once	parking	

accumulation	in	the	designated	lot	reached	capacity,	parking	accumulation	on	the	nearby	roadside	

increased	steadily	through	the	afternoon	hours,	reaching	its	peak	of	45	vehicles	during	the	3:00	PM	

hour.	Parking	accumulation	in	the	designated	lot	and	on	the	nearby	roadside	declined	fairly	sharply	

after	4:00	PM.	Overall,	parking	accumulation	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	on	the	design	day	

increased	fairly	gradually	during	the	early	morning	hours,	then	increased	sharply	during	the	late	

morning.	Parking	accumulation	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit,	overall,	continued	to	increase	

substantially	during	the	afternoon	hours,	reached	its	peak	of	90	vehicles	(more	than	twice	the	

capacity	of	the	designated	parking	lot)	at	approximately	3:00	PM,	and	then	declined	fairly	sharply	

through	the	late	afternoon	and	early	evening	hours	of	the	day.	

Figure 3‐16. Design day parking accumulation at the Mount Evans summit, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐17	is	a	graphical	display	of	parking	accumulation	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	at	distinct	

time	periods	throughout	the	morning,	afternoon,	and	early	evening	of	the	design	day.	The	graphics	

in	Figure	3‐17	display	the	spatial	pattern	by	which	visitors	use	the	designated	lot	and	nearby	

roadside	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit,	on	a	“typically	busy”	day	during	the	summer	visitor	use	

season	in	MERA.	
296

7:00 AM: Lot: 4 vehicles, 11% full

Roadside: 0 vehicles

1:00 PM: Lot: 52 vehicles, 139% full

Roadside: 18 vehicles

3:00 PM (PEAK): Lot: 45 vehicles, 118% full

Roadside: 45 vehicles

	 	

5:00 PM: Lot: 28 vehicles, 74% full

Roadside: 13 vehicles

6:00 PM: Lot: 26 vehicles, 68% full

Roadside: 3 vehicles

Figure 3‐17. Design day parking accumulation at the Mount Evans summit, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Location of parked

vehicles
297

Figure	3‐19	displays	both	parking	

accumulation	at	each	location	within	in	MERA	

and	the	sum	total	of	overall	parking	

accumulation	for	the	design	day.	Parking	

accumulation	increased	steadily	at	all	three	

locations	(Mount	Goliath,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	

Mount	Evans	summit)	during	the	morning	

hours.	Parking	at	Mount	Goliath	remained	

steady	from	late	morning	through	early	

afternoon,	and	then	declined	during	the	

midafternoon	hours.	Parking	accumulation	was	

greatest	at	Summit	Lake	during	the	morning	

hours,	until	it	reached	its	peak	during	the	11:00	

AM	hour,	after	which	parking	accumulation	

gradually	declined	there	through	the	remaining	hours	of	the	day.	Following	the	11:00	AM	hour	

when	parking	accumulation	reached	its	peak	at	Summit	Lake,	parking	accumulation	increased	

sharply	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit,	and	continued	to	increase	to	its	peak	at	3:00	PM.	Overall,	

parking	demand	on	the	design	day	in	MERA	was	well	above	parking	capacity	from	late	morning	

through	late	afternoon/early	evening.	Moreover,	parking	accumulation	appears	to	have	reached	an	

absolute	limit	of	approximately	150	vehicles	between	the	hours	of	12:00	PM	and	4:00	PM;	during	

this	time	period,	it	is	likely	there	were	many	more	cars	moving	slowly	or	stopped	in	traffic	on	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway,	waiting	for	a	place	to	park	(Figure	2‐82).	These	findings	suggest	parking	

shortages	and	traffic	congestion	are	severe	on	“typically	busy”	days	in	MERA.	

Figure 3‐19. Design day parking accumulation in MERA, by location and overall, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure 3‐18. “Typically busy” day at the Mount

Evans Summit parking area.
298

The	license	plate	recording	method	was	also	used	to	record	turnover	rates	for	vehicles	parked	at	

Mount	Goliath,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	Data	were	recorded	every	hour,	

therefore,	parking	turnover	rates	(i.e.,	the	duration	of	time	vehicles	are	parked	in	the	parking	lot)	

are	estimated	in	hourly	bins.	

On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	at	Mount	Goliath	for	approximately	one	hour	(Table	3‐2	and	

Figure	3‐20).	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	average	duration	of	time	vehicles	parked	

at	Mount	Goliath	on	weekends	versus	weekdays.	However,	there	were	differences	in	parking	

duration	at	Mount	Goliath	based	on	the	time	of	day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	9.762,	p	<	0.001).	In	

particular,	visitors	who	arrived	before	noon	(mean	=	1.7	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	

average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	noon	(mean	=	1.1	hours).	

Table 3‐2. Visitor parking duration at Mount Goliath, by location and day of week category, summer

2012.

Mount Goliath

Designated Lot Nearby Roadside

Hours

Parked

Weekday

(n=613)

Weekend

(n=718)

Overall

(n=1,331)

Weekday

(n=14)

Weekend

(n=67)

Overall

(n=81)

1 ‐ <2 84% 81% 82% 79% 75% 75%

2 ‐ <3 7% 10% 8% 14% 21% 20%

3 ‐ <4 4% 5% 5% 7% 0% 1%

4 ‐ <5 3% 2% 3% 0% 3% 2%

5 ‐ <6 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

6 ‐ <7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 ‐ <8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 ‐ <9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 ‐ <10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 ‐ <12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12+ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Average 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3

t‐test t = 0.202     t = ‐0.330   

p‐value p = 0.840     p = 0.743    
299

Figure 3‐20. Visitor parking duration at Mount Goliath, by location and day of week category, summer

2012.

On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	at	Summit	Lake	for	approximately	two	hours	(Table	3‐3	and	

Figure	3‐21).	Visitors	who	parked	in	the	designated	lot	at	Summit	Lake	on	weekends	(mean	=	1.8	

hours)	tended	to	park	for	slightly	longer	periods	of	time	than	those	who	parked	in	the	designated	

lot	on	weekdays	(mean	=	1.6	hours).	Visitors	who	parked	in	the	designated	lot	at	Summit	Lake	

tended	to	park	for	less	time	(mean	=	1.7	hours)	than	those	who	parked	on	the	nearby	roadside	

(mean	=	2.4	hours).	There	were	also	differences	in	parking	duration	based	on	the	time	of	day	

visitors	arrived	(t	=	29.931,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	visitors	who	arrived	before	noon	(mean	=	3.1	

hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	than	those	who	arrived	after	noon	(mean	=	1.2	

hours).	

Table 3‐3. Visitor parking duration at Summit Lake, by location and day of week category, summer 2012.

Summit Lake

Designated Lot Nearby Roadside

Hours

Parked

Weekday

(n=1,361)

Weekend

(n=1,633)

Overall

(n=2,994)

Weekday

(n=116)

Weekend

(n=565)

Overall

(n=681)

1 ‐ <2 77% 72% 74% 63% 58% 59%

2 ‐ <3 7% 8% 8% 8% 6% 7%

3 ‐ <4 5% 4% 4% 9% 9% 9%

4 ‐ <5 5% 5% 5% 11% 10% 10%

5 ‐ <6 3% 5% 4% 3% 7% 7%
300

Summit Lake

Designated Lot Nearby Roadside

Hours

Parked

Weekday

(n=1,361)

Weekend

(n=1,633)

Overall

(n=2,994)

Weekday

(n=116)

Weekend

(n=565)

Overall

(n=681)

6 ‐ <7 1% 3% 2% 1% 4% 4%

7 ‐ <8 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2%

8 ‐ <9 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%

9 ‐ <10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 ‐ <12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12+ 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1%

Average 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4

t‐test t = ‐4.591     t = ‐0.036   

p‐value p < 0.001     p = 0.971    

Figure 3‐21. Visitor parking duration at Summit Lake, by location and day of week category, summer

2012.

On	average,	vehicles	were	parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	for	approximately	one	hour	(Table	

3‐4	and	Figure	3‐22).	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	average	duration	of	time	vehicles	

parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	on	weekends	versus	weekdays.	There	were	differences	in	

parking	duration	based	on	the	time	of	day	visitors	arrived	(t	=	5.306,	p	<	0.001).	In	particular,	
301

visitors	who	arrived	before	noon	(mean	=	1.3	hours)	parked	their	vehicles	for	longer,	on	average,	

than	those	who	arrived	after	noon	(mean	=	1.1	hours).	

Table 3‐4. Visitor parking duration at the Mount Evans summit, by location and day of week category,

summer 2012.

Summit Parking Area

Designated Lot Nearby Roadside

Hours

Parked

Weekday

(n=914)

Weekend

(n=1,087)

Overall

(n=2,001)

Weekday

(n=152)

Weekend

(n=528)

Overall

(n=680)

1 ‐ <2 91% 87% 89% 89% 88% 88%

2 ‐ <3 8% 11% 9% 10% 11% 10%

3 ‐ <4 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

4 ‐ <5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 ‐ <6 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 ‐ <7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 ‐ <8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 ‐ <9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 ‐ <10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 ‐ <11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 ‐ <12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12+ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Average 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1

t‐test t = ‐1.488     t = ‐0.568   

p‐value p = 0.137     p = 0.570    
302

Figure 3‐22. Visitor parking duration at the Mount Evans summit, by location and day of week category,

summer 2012.

Finally,	75%	of	all	license	plates	recorded	as	part	of	the	parking	data	collection	effort	were	

Colorado	license	plates;	this	finding	suggests	the	majority	of	visitors	to	MERA	during	the	summer	

visitor	use	season	are	residents	of	the	state	of	Colorado,	though	some	Colorado	license	plates	that	

were	observed	may	have	been	on	rental	cars	driven	by	out‐of‐state	visitors.	

Visitor Use Counts

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	counts	were	recorded	with	infrared	

trail	counters	(Figure	3‐23)	located	on	selected	

trails	in	MERA.	

 The	infrared	trail	counters	recorded	visitor	use	

counts	in	hourly	bins,	24	hours	per	day	during	

the	summer	peak	season,	from	June	23rd,	2012	

through	September	3rd,	2012.	

 The	locations	of	the	infrared	trail	counters	used	

to	record	visitor	use	data	during	the	study	

period	are	depicted	in	Figure	3‐24.	The	visitor	

use	counting	locations	were	selected	in	

consultation	with	USFS	staff	and	capture	primary	

visitor	use	access	points	from	Mount	Goliath,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	

Figure 3‐23. Trail counter setup,

Chicago Lakes Overlook Trail.
303

 Field	staff	conducted	visitor	use	counts	via	direct	observation	at	each	of	the	infrared	trail	

counter	locations,	for	a	minimum	of	14	hours	at	each	trail	counter	location.	The	direct	

observation	counts	were	used	to	correct	and	adjust	(i.e.,	calibrate)	the	raw	infrared	trail	

counter	data,	as	described	below.	

Figure 3‐24. Approximate locations of infrared trail counters used to record visitor use counts, MERA,

summer 2012.
304

Analysis and Results

Regression	analyses	were	conducted	with	the	direct	observation	counts	of	visitor	use	and	

corresponding	infrared	trail	counter	data	to	estimate	correction	factors	for	the	infrared	trail	

counter	data.	Regression	results	suggest	there	are	strong	statistical	relationships	(R2	values	ranging	

from	0.88	to	0.99)	between	the	direct	observation	counts	and	visitor	use	counts	recorded	by	the	

infrared	trail	counters.	Further,	the	parameter	estimates	for	the	regression	models	were	

statistically	significant	in	all	cases.	These	results	provide	a	high	degree	of	confidence	that	applying	

the	correction	factors	to	calibrate	the	visitor	use	counts	recorded	with	the	infrared	trail	counters	

(i.e.,	multiplying	the	infrared	trail	counter	data	by	the	corresponding	parameter	estimates	from	the	

regression	models)	results	in	very	accurate	estimates	of	visitor	use	on	the	trails	in	MERA.	The	

calibrated	trail	counter	data	were	used	for	analysis	and	results	reported	in	this	memo.	

The	Summit	Trail	was	the	most	popular	of	the	study	trails	in	MERA,	with	an	average	of	476	visitor	

arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	1,018	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days	(Figure	3‐25).	The	

Chicago	Lakes	Overlook	Trail	(Overlook	Trail)	was	also	very	popular,	receiving	an	average	of	237	

visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	561	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days.	Visitors	

were	less	likely	to	use	the	Mount	Evans	Trail	to	get	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit	than	the	Summit	

Trail;	however,	the	trail	received	an	average	of	39	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays	and	118	

visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days.	Visitor	use	was	substantially	lower	on	the	Chicago	Lakes	

and	Pesman	Trails,	with	an	average	of	9	and	15	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekdays,	respectively,	

and	24	and	27	visitor	arrivals	per	day	on	weekend	days,	respectively.	Generally,	trails	in	the	study	

area	received	about	twice	as	much	visitor	use	on	weekend	days	than	on	weekdays.
305

Figure 3‐25. Average weekday and weekend day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and average peak

vehicle accumulation, by location in MERA, summer 2012.

Figure	3‐26	reports	calibrated	visitor	use	counts	for	the	design	day	(Sunday,	July	22nd,	2012),	by	

trailhead	location.	Visitor	use	on	the	design	day	was	distributed	across	the	trailhead	locations	

consistently	with	the	seasonal	averages	reported	in	Figure	3‐25;	however,	as	expected,	the	design	

day	volumes	of	visitor	use	were	higher	than	seasonal	averages	on	all	of	the	trails,	except	for	the	

Chicago	Lakes	and	Pesman	Trails,	where	there	were	particularly	high	levels	of	visitor	use	(relative	

to	visitor	use	on	the	design	day)	on	the	busiest	days.	

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	476	

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Avg.	Weekday	=	54	

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Avg.	Weekday	=	15

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Avg. Weekday = 36

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	15	

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	9	

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	39	

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg.	Weekday	=	237	
306

Figure 3‐26. Design day inbound visitor use, by trailhead, and peak vehicle accumulation, by location in

MERA, Sunday, July 22nd, 2012.

Figure	3‐27	graphs	the	design	day	hourly	visitor	use	(inbound	direction),	by	trailhead	(note,	the	

trail	counter	on	the	Overlook	Trail	malfunctioned	on	the	design	day,	therefore,	average	hourly	

visitor	use	is	reported).	The	temporal	pattern	of	visitor	use	throughout	the	day	is	generally	

consistent	across	the	Summit	Trail	and	Overlook	Trail,	though	the	Summit	Trail	sustains	a	slightly	

longer	peak	of	inbound	visitor	use.	The	Mount	Evans	Trail	has	an	earlier	morning	peak	in	visitor	

use	than	the	Overlook	or	Summit	Trails,	and	has	little	to	no	visitor	use	in	the	afternoon	hours.	

Visitor	use	on	the	Chicago	Lakes	and	Pesman	Trails	is	low	throughout	all	hours	of	the	day.	

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 1,231

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Design Day = 90

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Design Day = 17

Peak Vehicle Accumulation

Design Day = 65

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 24

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 22

Inbound Visitor Use

Design Day = 140

Inbound Visitor Use

Avg. Weekend = 5611
307

Figure 3‐27. Design day hourly inbound use, by trailhead (Sunday, July 22nd, 2012).

Monthly	visitor	use	on	the	study	trails	in	MERA	during	summer	2012	was	highest	in	July	(Table	

3‐5).	Visitor	use	data	were	collected	for	only	the	last	8	days	of	June	and	only	through	the	Labor	Day	

Weekend	in	September;	consequently,	there	aren’t	sufficient	data	to	compare	visitor	use	during	

June	and	September	to	each	other	or	to	July	and	August.

Table 3‐5. Monthly inbound visitor use totals, by trailhead, MERA, summer 2012.1

Summit

Trail

Mount Evans

Trail

Chicago

Lakes Trail

Overlook

Trail

Pesman

Trail

Monthly

Total

June2 6,096 564 157 3,796 320 10,933

July 19,548 1,892 368 10,109 590 32,506

August 18,120 1,760 364 9,395 406 30,044

September3 3,856 431 65 1,615 69 6,036

Total 47,619 4,647 954 24,915 1,384 79,520

1

Missing data due to counter malfunction were replaced with weekday/weekend averages.

2

June data are only for June 22nd – June 30th, 2012.

3

September data are only through September 3rd, 2012.
308

Visitor Use Tracking

Data Collection Method

 Visitor	use	patterns	were	

measured	using	GPS‐based	

tracking	(Figure	3‐28).	GPS	

units	were	administered	to	

visitor	groups	at	the	MERA	

Welcome	Station	at	the	start	of	

their	visit	to	MERA.	Visitors	

were	asked	to	carry	the	GPS	

units	with	them	at	all	times	

while	they	were	visiting	MERA,	

and	to	return	the	GPS	units	at	

the	end	of	their	visits	to	MERA.	

The	field	technicians	attached	

the	GPS	devices	to	visitors’	

backpacks,	jackets,	or	similar	

personal	items	to	ensure	the	

GPS	units	tracked	visitors	not	only	while	they	were	in	their	vehicles,	but	also	when	they	left	

their	vehicles	to	visit	recreation	sites	in	MERA.	Visitors	were	instructed	to	use	a	locked	drop	

box	to	return	their	GPS	units,	if	they	returned	to	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	after	data	

collection	staff	had	left	the	study	area	for	the	day.	

 GPS	units	were	administered	on	11	weekend	days,	and	12	weekdays	from	June	24th,	2012	–	

September	3rd,	2012.	

 On	each	data	collection	day,	GPS	units	were	administered	to	visitors	from	7:00	AM	to	

approximately	1:00	PM,	and	collected	from	visitors	from	7:00	AM	to	approximately	3:00	

PM.	

 Overall,	2,322 visitor	groups	were	contacted	and	2,248	GPS	units	were	administered	to	

visitor	groups	during	the	2012	summer	visitor	use	season	in	MERA,	resulting	in	a	97%	

response	rate	for	the	GPS	tracking	study	(Table	3‐6).	

 Algorithms	were	developed	to	process	the	GPS	tracks	and	eliminate	cases	with	more	than	

10‐minutes	of	missing	data	(primary	causes	of	missing	data	included	poor	satellite	

reception	and/or	equipment	malfunction).	For	cases	with	less	than	10‐minutes	of	missing	

data,	interpolation	was	used	to	estimate	location	coordinates	to	populate	the	data	gaps.	The	

reduced,	“clean”	set	of	GPS	track	data	were	used	to	analyze	and	model	visitor	use	patterns	

in	MERA	during	summer	2012.	

Figure 3‐28. GPS‐based visitor use tracking, MERA,

summer 2012.

GPS
309

Table 3‐6. GPS sampling schedule and response rate, MERA, summer 2012.

Date Weekend Count Refusals Response Rate

6/24/2012 Yes 88 5 95%

6/28/2012 No 93 9 91%

6/30/2012 Yes 83 5 94%

7/4/2012 No 86 2 98%

7/8/2012 Yes 122 3 98%

7/12/2012 No 93 9 91%

7/14/2012 Yes 92 3 97%

7/19/2012 No 91 3 97%

7/20/2012 No 99 7 93%

7/22/2012 Yes 102 1 99%

7/24/2012 No 68 2 97%

7/28/2012 Yes 82 1 99%

8/3/2012 No 130 2 98%

8/4/2012 Yes 101 5 95%

8/9/2012 No 99 1 99%

8/12/2012 Yes 113 2 98%

8/13/2012 No 84 2 98%

8/17/2012 No 102 0 100%

8/19/2012 Yes 98 4 96%

8/25/2012 Yes 88 0 100%

8/29/2012 No 99 1 99%

8/31/2012 No 109 5 96%

9/2/2012 Yes 126 2 98%

Overall    2,248 74 97%

Analysis and Results

Over	three‐quarters	(77%)	of	all	summer	2012	MERA	visitor	groups	were	groups	of	2‐4	people	

(Table	3‐7).	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	group	size	between	visitor	groups	who	visited	

on	weekends	versus	weekdays.	On	average,	visitor	groups	in	MERA	consisted	of	approximately	

three	people.	
310

Table 3‐7. Visitor group size, MERA, summer 2012.

Number of People

per Group

Weekday

(n=1,148)

Weekend

(n=1,086)

Overall

(n=2,234)

1 person 14% 11% 13%

2 people 45% 44% 45%

3‐4 people 31% 33% 32%

5 or more people 9% 11% 10%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 7.321, p = 0.062 n/a

Mean 2.7 2.9 2.8

The	vast	majority	(97%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week,	traveled	to	MERA	during	

summer	2012	in	a	single	vehicle;	very	few	(3%)	traveled	to	MERA	in	two	or	more	vehicles	(Table	

3‐8).	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	number	of	vehicles	per	group	between	visitor	

groups	who	visited	MERA	on	weekends	versus	weekdays.	

Table 3‐8. Number of vehicles per group, MERA, summer 2012.

Number of

Vehicles per Group

Weekday

(n=1,147)

Weekend

(n=1,086)

Overall

(n=2,233)

1 vehicle 97% 97% 97%

2 vehicles 2% 2% 2%

3 vehicles 1% 0% 0%

4 or more vehicles 0% 1% 1%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 2.087; p = 0.555 n/a

Mean 1.0 1.1 1.1

Over	half	(58%)	of	MERA	visitor	groups	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	1	to	2	people	per	vehicle,	

and	about	one‐third	(32%)	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	3	to	4	people	(Table	3‐9);	there	were	no	

significant	differences	in	vehicle	occupancy	between	visitor	groups	who	visited	MERA	on	weekends	

versus	weekdays.	On	average,	MERA	visitor	groups	had	a	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	approximately	3	

people	per	vehicle.

Table 3‐9. Vehicle occupancy rates, MERA, summer 2012.

Number of People

per Group

Weekday

(n=1,140)

Weekend

(n=1,082)

Overall

(n=2,222)

1 person 16% 13% 14%

2 people 45% 43% 44%

3‐4 people 31% 34% 32%

5 or more people 8% 10% 9%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 5.836; p = 0.120 n/a

Mean 2.6 2.7 2.7
311

Overall,	approximately	three‐quarters	(77%)	of	visitor	groups,	regardless	of	day	of	week,	spent	two	

or	more	hours	recreating	in	MERA	during	summer	2012	(Table	3‐10).	One‐quarter	of	MERA	visitor	

groups	spent	4	or	more	hours	in	MERA,	and	about	one‐quarter	(24%)	spent	less	than	two	hours	

visiting	MERA.	On	average,	visitor	groups	spent	just	over	three	hours	in	MERA	during	summer	

2012.	No	visitor	groups	who	carried	a	GPS	unit	stayed	overnight	in	MERA.	

Table 3‐10. Length of stay, MERA, summer 2012.

Travel Time

Weekday

(n=1,148)

Weekend

(n=1,084)

Overall

(n=2,237)

<1 hour 2% 1% 2%

1 hour ‐ <2 hours 24% 20% 22%

2 hours ‐ <3 hours 35% 33% 34%

3 hours ‐ <4 hours 18% 17% 18%

4 or more hours 21% 28% 25%

Chi‐square  χ2 = 15.658; p = 0.004 n/a

Mean (in minutes) 184.2 202.7 193.2

On	average,	visitor	groups	traveled	approximately	27	miles	during	their	visit	to	MERA,	including	

vehicle	travel	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	and	pedestrian	travel	on	trails	in	MERA	(Table 3‐11).	

This	finding	suggests	that	most	visitors	drive	the	length	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	from	the	

MERA	Welcome	Station	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit,	which	is	approximately	14	miles	one‐way,	and	

generally	don’t	venture	far	from	the	parking	lots	in	MERA.	There	were	no	significant	differences	in	

distance	traveled	between	visitor	groups	who	visited	on	weekends	versus	weekdays.	

Table 3‐11. Miles traveled during trip, MERA, summer 2012.

Trip Length

Weekday Weekend Overall

(n=855) (n=730) (n=1,585)

<1 ‐ <10 miles 4% 2% 3%

10 ‐ <15 miles 2% 3% 2%

15 ‐ <20 miles 4% 4% 4%

20 ‐ <25 miles 6% 8% 7%

25 ‐ <30 miles 70% 72% 71%

30 ‐ <35 miles 12% 11% 12%

35+ miles 2% 1% 2%

Chi‐square χ2 = 10.706, p = 0.098 n/a

Mean 27.6 27.2 27.4
312

The	GPS	track	data	were	summarized	graphically	in	Figure	3‐29	using	a	heat	map	format	that	

depicts	the	relative	intensity	of	visitor	use	throughout	the	road	and	trail	network	in	MERA	during	

summer	2012.	Generally,	information	contained	in	visitor	use	heat	maps	like	the	one	in	Figure	3‐29	

can	inform	transportation	planning	by	identifying	locations	within	a	recreation	area	with	high	

visitor	demand	that	might	benefit	form	improved	transportation	services	and	facilities.	Moreover,	

heat	maps	like	this	help	identify	locations	to	which	visitor	use	could	potentially	be	dispersed	(using	

ITS,	trail	improvements,	etc.)	to	alleviate	congestion	in	areas	that	experience	excessive	traffic,	

parking	congestion,	crowding,	and/or	resource	impacts.	

The	“cooler	colors”	(i.e.,	green	shades)	in	the	heat	map	in	Figure	3‐29	represent	sections	of	the	road	

and	trail	network	in	MERA	with	relatively	low	concentrations	of	visitor	use,	and	“hotter	colors”	(i.e.,	

yellow	and	red	shades)	represent	sections	of	the	road	and	trail	network	with	relatively	high	

concentrations	of	visitor	use.	For	example,	the	“hotter	color	tones”	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	

and	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	suggest,	as	expected,	visitor	use	is	intensely	concentrated	in	these	

areas.	The	notable	network	of	“cooler	color	tones”	on	the	Summit	via	Lake	Trail	and	ridges	

surrounding	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	suggests	that	while	overall	use	is	not	intensively	

concentrated	on	these	routes,	the	routes	are	popular	with	at	least	some	visitors.	In	addition,	the	

heat	map	illustrates	the	routes	that	some	visitors	hike	to	connect	the	summits	of	Mount	Evans	and	

Mount	Bierstadt	in	a	single	day.	
Figure 3‐29. Heat map of GPS‐based visitor use tracks, MERA, summer 2012.

Entrance Station

Mount Goliath

Summit Lake Parking

Summit Parking

Mount Evans

Summit Lake
314

People At One Time (PAOT) Counts

Data Collection Method

 The	number	of	people	at	one	

time	(PAOT)	on	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans	was	measured	via	

direct	observation	(Figure	

2‐94).	

 Generally,	PAOT	counts	were	

conducted	from	approximately	

10:00	AM	to	3:00	PM,	although	

severe	weather	conditions	on	

the	Mount	Evans	summit	

frequently	affected	the	

sampling	period.	In	particular,	

the	threat	of	thunderstorms	

frequently	required	field	staff	

to	descend	from	the	summit	

earlier	than	3:00	PM.	

 The	PAOT	counts	were	conducted	on	two	weekdays	and	eight	weekend	days	between	July	

8th	and	September	2nd,	2012.	On	each	sampling	day,	field	staff	recorded	an	“instantaneous	

count”	of	the	total	number	of	people	on	the	Mount	Evans	summit	every	5	minutes,	resulting	

in	62	weekday	and	442	weekend	day	PAOT	observations	(Table	3‐12).	

Table 3‐12. People at one time (PAOT) sampling effort, MERA, summer 2012.

Date Weekend

Number of

observations

7/8/2012 Yes 55

7/14/2012 Yes 58

7/20/2012 No 10

7/22/2012 Yes 28

8/4/2012 Yes 56

8/12/2012 Yes 80

8/17/2012 No 52

8/19/2012 Yes 58

8/25/2012 Yes 54

9/2/2012 Yes 53

Total    504

Figure 3‐30. People at one time (PAOT) on the Mount

Evans summit, summer 2012.
315

Analysis and Results

On	weekdays	during	summer	2012,	there	was	an	average	of	approximately	22	people	on	the	Mount	

Evans	summit	at	one	time;	on	weekend	days	during	summer	2012,	there	was	an	average	of	

approximately	34	people	on	the	summit	at	one	time.	The	maximum	number	of	people	observed	at	

one	time	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	was	approximately	82	people,	on	Saturday	August	4th,	

2012.	Figure	3‐31	displays	the	daily	average	and	daily	maximum	number	of	people	observed	at	one	

time	for	each	PAOT	sampling	day	during	summer	2012.	As	a	point	of	reference,	the	maximum	PAOT	

observed	on	the	design	day	(Sunday,	July	22nd,	2012)	was	61	people;	this	results	in	a	density	of	

people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	approximately	equivalent	to	a	Pedestrian	Level	of	Service	B,	

which	is	considered	a	slight	level	of	crowding	in	an	urban	environment,	such	as	on	a	city	sidewalk.7

Figure 3‐31. Mean and maximum PAOT on the summit of Mount Evans, by sampling day, summer 2012.

Mount Evans Recreation Area Visitor Survey, Summer 2014

During	summer	2014,	RSG	conducted	a	visitor	survey	at	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	(MERA).	The	

purpose	of	the	survey	was	to	collect	information	that	will	help	the	US	Forest	Service	(USFS)	

improve	transportation	conditions,	and	recreation	and	resource	management	at	MERA.	In	

particular,	the	survey	instrument	was	designed	to	collect	the	following	information	from	visitors	to	

Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area:	

																																																													

7 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). (2010) Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C.
316

 Visitors’	perceptions,	experiences,	and	expectations,	with	respect	to	transportation	

conditions	and	services,	recreation	opportunities,	and	visitor	experience	quality	at	MERA	

and	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

 Visitors’	opinions	about	potential	changes	in	operations	to	modify	and	improve	

transportation	services	and	facilities.	

 Transportation‐related	issues	experienced	by	visitors.	

The	summer	2014	MERA	visitor	survey	had	a	particular	focus	on	traffic	congestion	and	parking	

shortages	at	the	study	site	during	the	summer	peak	visitation	period,	and	potential	alternative	

transportation	systems	(ATS)	strategies	to	help	mitigate	and	manage	these	issues.	These	potential	

ATS	strategies	of	focus	in	the	survey	include	shuttle/transit	service	to	MERA;	visitor	information	

and	Intelligent	Transportation	Systems	(ITS)	to	manage	demand	during	peak	periods;	and	on‐the‐

ground	parking	and	traffic	management	to	optimize	the	use	of	existing	parking	and	roadway	

infrastructure.	The	survey	was	also	designed	to	measure	visitors’	perceptions	and	tolerances	for	

crowding	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

This	section	of	Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	reports	a	

summary	of	MERA	survey	results	and	methods.	

Methods

Survey Instrument

The	summer	2014	MERA	visitor	survey	instrument	(Appendix	S,	T)	and	methods	were	developed	

by	RSG,	in	cooperation	with	the	Federal	Highway	Administration	Central	Federal	Lands	Highway	

Division	(CFL),	USFS,	and	US	Department	of	Transportation	Volpe	Center.	Further,	the	survey	

instrument	and	methods	were	reviewed	and	approved	by	the	USFS	Office	of	Regulatory	and	

Management	Services	and	the	Office	of	Management	and	Budget	(OMB).	

The	survey	instrument	is	organized	into	five	sections.	The	first	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	

titled	“Trip	Description,”	includes	questions	concerning	respondents’	group	sizes,	the	presence	or	

absence	of	children	under	the	age	of	16	in	respondents’	groups,	and	locations	visited	and	activities	

engaged	in	during	their	visit	MERA.	

The	second	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Walk/Hike	to	Mount	Evans	Summit”	includes	

questions	for	those	visitors	who	walked/hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	on	the	day	they	were	

contacted	for	the	survey.	The	questions	in	this	section	ask	about	visitors’	perceptions	of	crowding	

on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	and	attitudes	about	potential	management	actions	to	prevent	

crowding,	environmental	impacts,	and	safety	issues.	This	section	includes	a	question	asking	people	

to	evaluate	a	series	of	photo	simulations	depicting	varying	numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans.	The	photo	simulations	are	included	in	Appendix	T.	

The	third	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Travel	and	Parking,”	includes	questions	

concerning	visitors’	routes	of	travel	to	and	from	MERA,	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	visitor	

groups	traveled	there,	visitors’	time	of	arrival,	visitors’	perceptions	of	traffic	congestion	at	the	
317

entrance	station	and	on	the	Mount	Evans	Road,	the	location(s)	and	perceptions	about	where	

visitors	parked	their	vehicle(s),	and	visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	actions	to	manage	parking	

congestion	during	peak	visitation	periods.	

The	fourth	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Planning	Your	Trip	to	MERA,”	includes	

questions	about	when	visitors	decided	to	take	a	trip	to	the	recreation	area,	the	potential	effects	of	

parking	conditions	at	MERA	on	their	trip	planning,	and	the	likelihood	they	would	use	various	

sources	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	MERA,	if	it	was	available	for	

planning	a	future	trip.	

The	fifth	section	of	the	survey	instrument,	titled	“Background	Information,”	includes	questions	

concerning	respondents’	gender,	age,	state	or	country	of	residence,	level	of	formal	education,	

ethnicity,	and	race.	

Survey Sampling and Administration

The	population	to	which	statistical	generalization	is	intended	for	the	summer	2014	MERA	visitor	

survey	is	all	visitor	groups	to	MERA	during	the	summer	2014	peak	visitation	period.	It	should	be	

noted,	for	a	subset	of	questions,	the	study	population	is	visitors	(rather	than	visitor	groups);	for	

example,	questions	asking	about	the	race,	ethnicity,	age,	and	gender	of	respondents	is	intended	to	

be	generalizable	to	visitors,	not	visitor	groups.	In	contrast,	results	for	questions	about	parking	

locations,	recreation	activities,	and	similar	group‐oriented	questions	are	intended	to	be	

generalizable	to	visitor	groups.	Survey	results	are	presented	in	this	technical	memorandum	

according	to	the	target	population	for	each	individual	question.	

The	summer	2014	MERA	visitor	survey	was	administered	to	visitors	as	they	were	exiting	MERA	at	

the	end	of	their	visit	on	four	weekend	days	and	six	weekdays,	during	summer	2014;	the	sampling	

season	was	selected	in	consultation	with	CFL	and	USFS	staff	to	coincide	with	the	peak	summer	

visitation	period	at	MERA	(Table	3‐13).	On	each	sampling	day,	the	visitor	survey	was	administered	

from	10:00	AM	to	6:00	PM	to	coincide	with	the	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	at	MERA.	

Table 3‐13. Summer 2014 MERA visitor survey sampling effort.

Date Day of Week Solicitations Completes Refusals Unusable Response Rate

7/16/2014 Wednesday 32 17 15 0 53%

7/17/2014 Thursday 78 54 24 0 69%

7/19/2014 Saturday 94 60 34 0 64%

7/25/2014 Friday 68 43 25 0 63%

7/27/2014 Sunday 83 52 31 0 63%

7/28/2014 Monday 58 37 21 0 64%
318

Date Day of Week Solicitations Completes Refusals Unusable Response Rate

7/31/2014 Thursday 72 46 26 0 64%

8/2/2014 Saturday 99 67 32 0 68%

8/8/2014 Friday 99 55 44 1 56%

8/10/2014 Sunday 46 27 19 0 59%

Total ‐  729 458 271 1 63%

Note:	“Unusable”	are	cases	where	a	visitor	group	agreed	to	participate	but	returned	an	incomplete	questionnaire.

On	each	sampling	day,	two	survey	administrators	were	stationed	at	a	large	pullout	on	Mount	Evans	

Road	to	intercept	visitors	while	they	were	driving	(Figure	3‐32).	The	survey	administrators	wore	

traffic	safety	vests	and	installed	traffic	cones	and	signs	on	the	roadway	to	help	manage	the	traffic	

intercept	procedures.	

At	the	start	of	each	sampling	day,	one	survey	administrator	used	hand	signals	to	intercept	the	first	

automobile	to	approach	and	direct	the	driver	into	the	pullout.	Once	the	vehicle	was	safely	off	the	

road,	the	survey	administrator	approached	the	automobile	and	requested	the	group’s	participation	

in	the	survey.	At	the	same	time,	a	second	survey	administrator	used	hand	signals	to	intercept	the	

next	automobile	to	approach	and	direct	the	driver	into	the	pullout.	Once	the	vehicle	was	safely	off	

the	road,	the	second	survey	administrator	approached	the	automobile	and	requested	the	group’s	

participation	in	the	survey.	

If	an	intercepted	group	had	not	previously	participated	in	the	survey	and	agreed	to	participate,	a	

randomly	selected	adult	member	(18	years	of	age	or	older	whose	birthday	was	the	next	in	the	

group	to	occur)	of	the	group	was	given	a	copy	of	the	survey	instrument	and	asked	to	complete	it	

onsite.	Visitor	groups	who	were	unwilling	or	unable	to	participate	in	the	survey	were	thanked	for	

their	consideration.	

After	each	visitor	group	contact,	the	survey	administrator	working	with	the	group	directed	them	to	

safely	exit	the	pullout	onto	the	Mount	Evans	Road.	The	survey	administrator	then	returned	to	the	

pullout	entrance	and	intercepted	the	next	approaching	automobile.	The	survey	administrators	

repeated	this	intercept	process	throughout	the	day	
319

Figure 3‐32. Survey administration at MERA, summer 2014

Survey Nonresponse

To	track	visitor	survey	response	rates,	survey	administrators	recorded	a	survey	log	entry	for	each	

visitor	group	asked	to	participate	in	the	summer	2014	MERA	visitor	survey	(Figure	3‐32).	

Information	recorded	on	the	survey	log	for	each	contacted	group	included:	1)	current	time;	2)	

visitor	group	size;	3)	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	MERA;	4)	whether	or	

not	the	group	walked/hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans;	5)	whether	the	group	accepted	or	

refused	to	participate	in	the	survey;	6)	whether	the	survey	respondent	was	the	driver	or	a	

passenger	in	his/her	group’s	car(s);	7)	the	survey	ID	number	for	those	groups	who	participated;	8)	

current	weather	conditions;	and	9)	comments	concerning	the	contact,	as	needed	(e.g.,	if	a	group	

previously	participated	or	declined	to	participate	due	to	a	language	barrier).	
320

Figure 3‐33. Summer 2014 Mount Evans visitor survey log form

After	removing	surveys	that	were	unusable	(i.e.,	had	incomplete	data	and	were	consequently	

removed	from	analysis),	the	overall	response	rate	to	the	visitor	survey	was	63%.	The	survey	log	

data	were	used	to	conduct	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitor	groups	who	participated	

in	the	survey	and	those	that	did	not,	based	on	group	size,	number	of	vehicles	used	to	travel	to	

MERA,	vehicle	occupancy,	and	whether	or	not	the	group	walked/hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	

Evans.	

Results	of	independent	samples	t‐tests	of	means	and	chi‐square	tests	suggest	groups	who	

participated	in	the	survey	do	not	differ	significantly	from	those	that	did	not	participate,	in	terms	of	

group	size	(t=1.896,	p=0.058);	vehicle	occupancy	(t=1.829,	p=0.068);	and	whether	or	not	they	

walked/hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	(χ2=0.095,	p=0.758).	There	was	a	statistically	

significant	difference	between	respondent	visitor	groups	and	nonrespondent	visitor	groups,	in	

terms	of	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	MERA	(t=2.398,	p=0.017).	However,	

there	was	no	substantive	difference	between	respondents	(mean	=	1	vehicle)	and	nonrespondents	

(mean	=	1	vehicle),	in	terms	of	the	number	of	vehicles	in	which	the	group	traveled	to	MERA.	

In	summary,	nonresponse	bias	tests	found	no	significant	differences	between	respondents	and	

nonrespondents	for	group	size,	vehicle	occupancy,	and	summit	walks/hikes,	and	no	substantive	
321

difference	for	number	of	vehicles.	Therefore,	it	is	reasonable	to	conclude	the	survey	data	are	

representative	of	the	target	study	population.	

Survey Data Analysis

Survey	data	analysis	procedures	used	in	this	study	are	based	on	standard	methods	for	survey	

research	in	parks	and	recreation	settings	(Vaske,	2008)8.	Key	estimates	from	the	data	are	

descriptive	in	nature,	primarily	measures	of	central	tendency	(mean)	and	frequency	distributions.	

In	addition,	statistical	tests	for	differences	between	visitors’	survey	responses	on	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	were	conducted.	For	questions	with	statistically	significant	differences	in	responses	

between	weekday	and	weekend	respondents	(p‐values	≤	0.05),	results	are	presented	separately	for	

weekday	and	weekend	visitors	(groups	distinguished	with	orange	and	blue	bars	in	figures).	When	

responses	do	not	vary	significantly,	overall	results	(rather	than	separate	weekend	and	weekday	

results)	are	presented	(overall	groups	represented	with	black	bar	in	figures).	

Results	for	individual	survey	questions	are	presented	graphically,	with	summary	statements	of	

significant	and/or	interesting	findings	reported	above	each	figure.	Question	language,	as	it	

appeared	in	the	questionnaire,	is	included	below	each	figure.	

																																																													

8 Vaske, J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
322

Visitor Survey Results

Trip Description

 The	distribution	of	group	sizes	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekend	day	and	

weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=0.362,	p=0.948).	

 Nearly	half	(41%)	of	all	visitor	groups	were	groups	of	two	people,	and	more	than	three‐

quarters	were	groups	of	two	to	four	people.	

 There	were	few	(11%)	groups	of	5	or	more	people,	and	few	(13%)	visited	alone.	

 The	average	group	size	was	2	people,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week	(t=‐1.001,	p=0.097).	

Figure 3‐34. Including yourself, how many people are there in your personal group on this trip to MERA?
323

 The	percentage	of	groups	hiking	with	children	under	the	age	of	16	did	not	differ	

significantly	between	weekend	day	and	weekday	visitor	groups	(χ2=0.062,	p=0.804).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	about	one‐quarter	(23%)	of	visitor	groups	were	with	a	child	

under	the	age	of	16.	

Figure 3‐35. Are there any children under the age of 16 in your personal group on this trip to MERA?
324

 The	number	of	children	in	groups	with	children	not	differ	significantly	between	weekdays	

and	weekend	days	(χ2=6.987,	p=0.072).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	there	was	an	average	of	one	child	in	groups	with	children	

(t=‐0.617,	p=0.539).	

 Of	the	relatively	few	visitor	groups	with	children	under	the	age	of	16,	the	vast	majority	

(81%)	were	with	only	one	or	two	children.	

 Very	few	groups	with	children	(4%)	had	five	or	more	children.	

Figure 3‐36. For groups with children: how many children under the age of 16 are in your personal group

today?
325

 The	percentage	of	groups	who	visited	each	of	several	locations	listed	in	the	questionnaire	

did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekend	days	and	weekdays	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	day	of	the	week,	the	vast	majority	(82%)	of	visitor	groups	traveled	to	the	

summit	of	Mount	Evans,	and	two‐thirds	(66%)	visited	Summit	Lake.	

 About	half	(44%)	of	visitor	groups	stopped	at	the	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area.	

 Very	few	(2%)	visitor	groups	reported	that	they	didn’t	stop	at	any	of	the	locations	listed	in	

the	questionnaire	(i.e.,	Mount	Evans	summit,	Summit	Lake,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area).	

Figure 3‐37. Which of the following locations in MERA did you visit today?
326

 Visitor	groups’	primary	destination	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=3.106,	p=0.540).	

 Mount	Evans	Summit	was	the	primary	destination	for	the	large	majority	(81%)	of	visitor	

groups,	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 Few	visitor	groups	indicated	that	Summit	Lake	(4%)	or	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area	(5%)	

was	their	primary	destination.	

Figure 3‐38. Which of the following locations was your primary destination in MERA today?
327

 With	the	exception	of	day	hiking	(χ2=9.594,	p=0.002),	the	percentage	of	visitor	groups	who	

participated	in	each	of	several	activities	listed	in	the	questionnaire	did	not	vary	significantly	

between	weekdays	and	weekend	days.	

 Scenic	driving	was	by	far	the	most	popular	activity	(92%),	regardless	of	the	day	of	week.	

 Walking/taking	short	hikes	of	less	than	1	hour	(67%)	and	wildlife	viewing	(62%)	were	the	

second	most	common	activities,	regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week.	

 Visitor	groups	on	weekend	days	were	significantly	more	likely	to	have	gone	for	a	day	hike	of	

greater	than	1	hour	than	those	on	weekdays.	

 It	should	be	noted,	bicyclists	were	not	intercepted	for	the	survey	due	to	logistical	and	safety	

challenges.	As	a	result,	the	survey	results	systematically	under‐represent	cyclists.	

Figure 3‐39. Which of the following activities did you do on this trip to MERA?
328

 The	primary	activity	of	visitor	groups	did	not	differ	significantly	between	weekdays	and	

weekend	days	(χ2=17.542,	p=0.093).	

 Scenic	driving	was	the	primary	activity	of	nearly	two‐thirds	(61%)	of	all	visitor	groups.	

Figure 3‐40. Which of the following is your primary activity on this trip to MERA?
329

Walk/Hike to Mount Evans Summit

 The	percentage	of	visitor	groups	who	hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	did	not	vary	

significantly	between	weekday	and	weekend	day	visitors	(χ2=6.212,	p=0.102).	

 A	little	less	than	half	(46%)	of	all	visitor	groups	hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

 Of	those	visitor	groups	who	hiked	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	the	majority	hiked	from	

the	parking	lot	just	below	the	summit,	rather	than	hiking	from	Summit	Lake	or	another	

location.	

Figure 3‐41. Did you walk/hike to the summit of Mount Evans today?
330

 Visitors	contacted	on	weekend	days	were	significantly	more	likely	to	think	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans	was	crowded	than	those	contacted	on	weekdays	(χ2=18.960,	p<0.001).	

 Nearly	half	(44%)	of	all	visitors	on	weekend	days	thought	the	summit	was	crowded.	

 In	contrast,	the	vast	majority	(83%)	of	weekday	visitors	thought	the	summit	was	not	

crowded.	

Figure 3‐42. Did you think it was crowded on the summit of Mount Evans today?
331

 Despite	the	fact	that	weekend	visitors	were	more	likely	than	weekday	visitors	to	think	the	

summit	of	Mount	Evans	was	crowded,	there	was	no	significant	difference	between	weekday	

and	weekend	visitors’	perceptions	of	risk,	as	a	result	of	crowding,	on	the	summit	of	Mount	

Evans	(χ2=0.015,	p=0.903).	

 A	significant	majority	of	all	visitors	(90%)	felt	like	crowding	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	

did	not	increase	the	risk	of	injuries	to	themselves	or	others.	

Figure 3‐43. Did you feel like crowding on the summit of Mount Evans increased your risk or other

people's risk of being injured at any point while you were there today?
332

 Respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	for	each	of	several	simulated	photos	of	varying	

numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	if	they	would	feel	crowding	being	on	the	

summit	with	that	number	of	people.	Weekday	visitors	were	generally	slightly	more	

crowding‐sensitive	than	weekend	visitors.	

 Few	(19%	or	fewer)	visitors	thought	they	would	feel	crowded	with	10	or	fewer	other	

people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

 About	one‐third	or	more	(43%	on	weekdays	and	29%	on	weekend	days)	of	visitors	thought	

they	would	feel	crowded	with	13	other	people	on	the	summit	at	one	time.	

 Roughly	half	or	more	(70%	or	more	on	weekdays	and	47%	or	more	on	weekend	days)	of	

visitors	thought	they	would	feel	crowded	with	19	or	more	other	people	on	the	summit.	

Figure 3‐44. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of

Mount Evans with the number of people depicted in the photograph.
333

 Visitors	on	weekend	days	and	weekdays	did	not	differ	significantly	in	their	opinions	about	

whether	or	not	the	number	of	people	allowed	to	visit	Mount	Evans	each	day	should	be	

limited,	regardless	of	the	reason	for	the	use	limit	(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	reason,	substantive	proportions	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	

people	allowed	to	visit	Mount	Evans	each	day	should	be	limited,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	

can	hike	the	trail.	

 Just	over	one‐quarter	(28%)	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	people	allowed	to	visit	

Mount	Evans	each	day	should	be	limited	to	protect	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences,	even	

if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	the	trail.	

 About	half	(53%)	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	people	allowed	to	visit	Mount	Evans	

each	day	should	be	limited	to	protect	visitors’	safety,	even	if	it	limits	when	they	can	hike	the	

trail.	

 More	than	half	(58%)	of	all	visitors	believe	the	number	of	people	allowed	to	visit	Mount	

Evans	each	day	should	be	limited	to	reduce	environmental	impacts,	even	if	it	limits	when	

they	can	hike	the	trail.	

Figure 3‐45. Percentage who agree that the number of people allowed to visit Mount Evans each day

should be limited, even if it limits when they can visit, if it is needed to a) protect the quality of visitors'

experiences; b) protect visitors’ safety; c) to reduce environmental impacts.
334

Travel and Parking

 The	travel	routes	of	weekday	visitor	groups	varied	significantly	from	those	of	groups	on	

weekend	days	(χ2=15.855,	p=0.001).	

 	Weekday	visitor	groups	were	more	likely	than	groups	on	weekend	days	to	travel	to	and	

from	MERA	via	Idaho	Springs,	though	this	was,	by	far,	the	most	common	route	for	both	

(73%	of	weekday	visitor	groups	and	58%	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups).	

 Close	to	half	(42%)	of	weekend	day	visitor	groups’	travel	routes	included	traveling	to	

and/or	from	MERA	via	Evergreen,	compared	to	about	one‐quarter	(26%)	of	weekday	visitor	

groups.	

Figure 3‐46. Which routes did you use to travel to and from MERA on this trip?

Direction Percent of Respondents

73%

9%

4%

13%

58%

17%

12%

13%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

From Idaho Spring,

toward Idaho Springs

From Idaho Springs,

toward Evergreen

From Evergreen,

toward Evergreen

From Evergreen,

toward Idaho Springs

Weekday (n=232) Weekend day (n=190)

χ2 = 15.855; p = 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75%                     100%
335

 Visitor	groups’	arrival	times	at	MERA	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=15.752,	p=0.008).	

 Weekday	visitor	groups	were	significantly	more	likely	to	arrive	at	MERA	later	than	

weekend	visitors	(p=0.001).	On	average,	weekday	visitor	groups	arrived	at	11:39	AM,	while	

weekend	visitor	groups	arrived	47	minutes	earlier	at	10:52	AM.	

 The	majority	of	weekend	visitor	groups	arrived	before	11	AM	(59%),	while	the	majority	

(57%)	of	weekday	visitor	groups	arrived	after	11	AM.	

 On	average,	weekday	visitor	groups	arrived	around	11:30	AM	and	weekend	visitor	groups	

arrived	around	11:00	AM.	

Figure 3‐47. At approximately what time did you arrive at MERA today?
336

 All	(100%)	visitor	groups	arrived	at	MERA	on	the	same	day	they	took	the	survey,	regardless	

of	the	day	of	week	(χ2=1.013,	p=0.314).	

Figure 3‐48. Percentage of visitor groups who arrived at MERA on the same day or different day than

when they were contacted for the survey.
337

 Virtually	all	visitor	groups	(96%)	traveled	to	MERA	in	a	single	vehicle,	regardless	of	the	day	

of	week	(χ2=0.302,	p=0.861;	t=0.129,	p=0.897).	

Figure 3‐49. In how many vehicles did you/your personal group travel on this trip to MERA?
338

 The	percentage	of	visitors	who	experienced	traffic	congestion	at	the	MERA	entrance	station	

varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=15.162,	p<0.001).	

 On	weekend	days,	about	one‐quarter	(28%)	of	visitors	experienced	traffic	congestion	at	the	

MERA	entrance	station.	

 The	vast	majority	(87%)	of	visitors	on	weekdays	did	not	experience	traffic	congestion	at	the	

MERA	entrance	station.	

Figure 3‐50. Did you experience traffic congestion at the entrance station to enter MERA on this trip?
339

 The	percentage	of	visitors	who	experienced	traffic	congestion	on	the	Mount	Evans	Road	

varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=8.862,	p=0.003).	

 On	weekend	days,	about	one‐fifth	(22%)	of	visitors	experienced	traffic	congestion	while	

driving	on	Mount	Evans	Road.	

 The	vast	majority	(89%)	of	visitors	on	weekdays	did	not	experience	traffic	congestion	while	

driving	on	Mount	Evans	Road.	

Figure 3‐51. Did you experience traffic congestion while driving on the Mount Evans Road?
340

 The	percentage	of	visitors	who	felt	that	the	number	of	cars	on	the	Mount	Evans	Road	made	

driving	conditions	unsafe	varied	significantly	(χ2=14.370,	p=0.006),	but	not	substantively,	

between	weekdays	(7%)	and	weekend	days	(6%).	

 Nearly	one‐third	(29%)	of	visitors	on	weekends	felt	that	the	number	of	bicycles	on	the	

Mount	Evans	Road	made	driving	conditions	unsafe,	compared	to	just	10%	of	those	on	

weekdays	(χ2=43.956,	p=<0.001).	

 The	vast	majority	(90%)	of	all	visitors	reported	that	they	enjoyed	driving	on	the	Mount	

Evans	Road.	

 Very	few	(10%)	visitors	reported	that	they	would	prefer	to	tour	MERA	by	shuttle	bus	or	

van,	rather	than	drive	on	the	Mount	Evans	road	themselves.	

Figure 3‐52. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about driving on the Mount Evans Road

on the day they took the survey.
341

 Less	than	half	(44%)	of	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	on	weekend	days	

agreed	that	where	they	parked	there	was	uncongested,	compared	to	nearly	three‐quarters	

(74%)	of	those	on	weekdays	(χ2=29.294,	p<0.001).	

 Weekday	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	(91%)	were	more	likely	than	

those	on	weekend	days	(81%)	to	report	that	they	parked	in	a	designated	lot	there	

(χ2=6.740,	p=0.009).	

 However,	40%	of	all	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	agreed	that	where	

they	parked	there	was	not	an	actual	parking	space	(e.g.,	on	road	shoulder).	

 The	vast	majority	of	all	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	thought	where	they	

parked	there	was	safe	(98%)	and	convenient	(96%).	

Figure 3‐53. Of those visitors who parked at the Mount Evans summit, the percentage who agree with

each of the statements about where they parked.
342

 Weekday	visitors	who	parked	at	Summit	Lake	were	more	likely	than	those	on	weekend	

days	to	agree	that	where	they	parked	there	was	safe	(100%	versus	96%);	in	a	designated	

parking	lot	(97%	versus	80%);	convenient	(99%	versus	94%);	and	uncongested	(86%	

versus	49%).	

 About	one‐quarter	(28%)	of	all	visitors	who	parked	at	Summit	Lake	agreed	that	where	they	

parked	there	was	not	an	actual	parking	space	(e.g.,	on	road	shoulder).	

Figure 3‐54. Of those visitors who parked at Summit Lake, the percentage who agree with each of the

statements about where they parked.
343

 The	vast	majority	of	all	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area	agreed	that	

where	they	parked	there	was	safe	(99%),	in	a	designated	parking	lot	(96%),	and	convenient	

(96%).	

 About	one‐quarter	(29%)	of	all	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area	

agreed	that	where	they	parked	was	not	an	actual	parking	space	(e.g.,	on	road	shoulder).	

 Weekday	visitors	who	parked	at	the	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area	were	much	more	likely	

than	those	on	weekend	days	to	agree	that	where	they	parked	was	uncongested	(94%	versus	

58%).	

Figure 3‐55. Of those visitors who parked at the Mount Goliath Natural Area, the percentage who agree

with each of the statements about where they parked.
344

 Weekday	visitors’	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	at	MERA	varied	significantly	from	

those	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	(χ2=87.040,	p<0.001).	

 More	than	two‐thirds	(69%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	thought	that	parking	congestion	at	

MERA	was	moderate	to	extreme	that	day.	

 While	perceptions	of	parking	congestion	were	less	negative,	more	than	one‐quarter	(29%)	

of	weekday	visitors	thought	that	parking	congestion	at	MERA	was	moderate	to	extreme	that	

day.	

 However,	nearly	one‐third	(30%)	of	weekday	visitors	thought	there	was	no	parking	

congestion	at	all	that	day.	

Figure 3‐56. How much parking congestion do you think there is in MERA today?
345

 Half	(50%)	of	weekday	visitors,	compared	to	nearly	two‐thirds	of	visitors	on	weekend	days,	

said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	MERA	even	if	they	had	to	park	near	the	MERA	entrance	

station	and	tour	the	recreation	area	by	shuttle	bus	or	van	(χ2=4.552,	p=0.033).	

 A	majority	(55%)	of	all	visitors	said	they	would	be	likely	to	visit	MERA,	even	if	they	had	to	

park	at	a	designated	lot	outside	of	the	recreation	area,	take	a	15	minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	

the	MERA	entrance	station,	and	tour	the	recreation	area	by	shuttle	bus	or	van.	

 More	than	three‐quarters	(77%)	of	all	visitors	said	they	would	probably	choose	not	to	visit	

MERA	if	they	had	to	park	at	a	designated	lot	outside	of	the	recreation	area,	take	a	one	hour	

shuttle	bus	ride	to	the	MERA	entrance	station,	and	tour	the	recreation	area	by	shuttle	bus	or	

van.	

Figure 3‐57. Percentage who would be likely to visit MERA on a future trip, even if this was their only

option for visiting because parking lots were full.
346

 Visitors’	attitudes	about	potential	parking	management	actions	at	MERA	generally	did	not	

vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days,	with	the	exception	that	visitors	on	

weekend	days	(40%)	were	more	likely	than	those	on	weekdays	(36%)	to	agree	that	when	

parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	should	be	allowed	to	enter	MERA	and	park	wherever	they	can,	

including	on	the	roadside	(χ2=16.990,	p=0.002).	

 Nearly	half	(48%)	of	all	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	should	be	

stopped	at	the	entrance	station	until	parking	spaces	open	up	and	only	then	allowed	to	enter.	

 A	majority	(56%)	of	all	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	should	be	

directed	to	park	at	a	designated	lot	outside	of	MERA,	ride	a	shuttle	bus	for	less	than	15	

minutes,	and	then	tour	MERA	by	shuttle	bus	or	van.	

 Less	than	one‐fifth	(18%)	of	all	visitors	agreed	that	when	parking	lots	are	full,	visitors	

should	be	directed	to	other	recreation	areas	instead	of	visiting	MERA	that	day.	

Figure 3‐58. Percentage who agree with each of the statements about potential actions when parking

lots are full at MERA.
347

Planning Your Trip to MERA

 The	time	frame	in	which	visitors	planned	their	trip	to	MERA	did	not	vary	significantly	

between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=3.577,	p=0.446).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	approximately	half	of	visitors	(53%)	planned	their	trip	to	

MERA	within	24	hours	of	their	visit,	and	three‐quarters	(75%)	planned	their	trip	within	a	

week	prior	to	visiting.	

Figure 3‐59. How long ago did you decide to take this trip to MERA?
348

 The	vast	majority	(89%)	of	all	visitors	did	not	anticipate	that	it	would	be	difficult	to	find	

parking	at	MERA	when	they	planned	their	trip	(χ2=1.167,	p=0.280).	

Figure 3‐60. When you planned this trip to MERA, did you think about the possibility that it might be

difficult to find parking here?
349

For	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	that	it	might	be	difficult	to	 find	parking	at	MERA,	a	

follow‐up	question	asked	how	that	affected	their	trip	plans.	

 Weekday	visitors	who	anticipated	parking	congestion	(43%)	were	much	more	likely	than	

those	on	weekend	days	(0%)	to	plan	their	visit	to	MERA	for	a	day	of	the	week	that	they	

thought	would	be	less	crowded	(χ2=16.211,	p<0.001).	

 Of	note,	nearly	half	(47%)	of	all	visitors	who	thought	about	the	possibility	of	parking	

congestion	visited	at	a	time	of	day	they	thought	would	be	less	crowded.	

 Also	of	note,	more	than	one‐third	of	all	visitors	who	anticipated	parking	congestion	

reported	that	it	did	not	affect	their	trip	plans	for	visiting	MERA.	

Figure 3‐61. If you thought about the possibility that it might be difficult to find parking here when you

planned this trip to MERA, how did it affect your trip plans?
350

 Visitors	were	asked	how	likely	they	would	be	to	use	each	of	several	sources	of	information	

about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	MERA,	if	it	was	available	for	planning	a	future	

trip	to	the	recreation	area.	Responses	to	the	question	did	not	vary	significantly	between	

weekday	and	weekend	day	visitor	groups.	

 The	vast	majority	(83%)	of	visitors	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	a	website	for	

information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	MERA	when	planning	a	future	trip.	

 About	two‐thirds	of	visitors	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	a	tourist	information	center	

(65%)	and	a	smartphone	app	(64%)	for	information	about	parking	and	crowding	at	MERA.	

 About	one‐third	of	visitors	indicated	they’d	be	likely	to	use	social	media	(39%)	and	text	

updates	on	a	cellular	phone/smartphone	(33%)	for	information	about	parking	and	

crowding	at	MERA.	

 Fewer	visitors	thought	they’d	be	likely	to	use	a	telephone	information	line	(25%	to	26%)	or	

AM	radio	station	(i.e.,	highway	advisory	radio;	19%).	

 A	verbatim	list	(including	respondents’	typos)	of	“other”	information	sources	reported	by	

respondents	is	included	in	Appendix	V.	

Figure 3‐62. Percentage who would be likely to use each of the sources for information about parking

and crowding conditions at Mount Evans, if it was available, when planning a future trip to Mount Evans.
351

Background Information

 There	were	no	significant	differences	in	the	gender	of	visitors	on	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=0.005,	p=0.942).	

 Just	over	half	(54%)	of	all	visitors	were	male;	just	under	one‐half	(46%)	were	female.	

Figure 3‐63. What is your gender?
352

 The	age	of	visitors	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=10.424,	p=0.064).	

 The	ages	of	visitors	were	fairly	evenly	distributed,	with	about	one‐fifth	each	between	25	

and	34	years	of	age	(23%),	35	and	44	years	of	age	(20%),	45	and	54	years	of	age	(18%),	and	

55	and	64	years	of	age	(17%).	

 Fewer	visitors	were	between	18	and	24	years	of	age	(8%)	or	65	years	of	age	and	older	

(14%).	

 The	average	age	of	all	visitors	was	45	years	of	age.	

Figure 3‐64. In what year were you born?
353

 The	vast	majority	(97%)	of	all	visitors	were	residents	of	the	United	States	(χ2=3.312,	

p=0.063).	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	countries	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Appendix	W.	

Figure 3‐65. Do you live in the United States?
354

 Visitors’	state	of	residence	varied	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(χ2=27.292,	p<0.001).	

 Nearly	two‐thirds	(63%)	of	visitors	on	weekdays	were	residents	of	states	other	than	

Colorado,	and	only	about	one‐third	(38%)	were	residents	of	Colorado.	

 In	contrast,	about	two‐thirds	(64%)	of	visitors	on	weekend	days	were	residents	of	

Colorado,	and	only	about	one‐third	(36%)	were	residents	of	other	states.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	states	of	residence	reported	by	respondents	is	included	in	

Appendix	X.	

Figure 3‐66. If you live in the United States, what state do you live in?
355

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	MERA,	visitors’	city	of	residence	did	not	vary	significantly	

between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	(χ2=2.690,	p<0.611).	

 Among	Colorado	residents	at	MERA,	more	than	three‐quarters	(79%)	live	in	the	Denver	

metropolitan	area.	

 A	frequency	distribution	of	all	zip	codes	reported	by	respondents	who	are	residents	of	

Colorado	is	included	in	Appendix	Z.	

Figure 3‐67. If you live in Colorado, what town or city do you live in?   
356

 The	education	level	of	visitors	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	

days	(χ2=7.485,	p=0.187).	

 About	three‐quarters	(74%)	of	all	visitors	have	earned	a	college,	business,	or	trade	school	

degree	or	higher;	this	includes	more	than	one‐quarter	(29%)	of	visitors	who	have	earned	a	

master’s,	doctoral,	or	professional	degree.	

Figure 3‐68. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?
357

 Very	few	(5%)	visitors	reported	being	Hispanic	or	Latino	(χ2=1.675,	p=0.196).	

Figure 3‐69. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

 Visitors’	self‐reported	race	did	not	vary	significantly	between	weekdays	and	weekend	days	

(p>0.05	for	all	tests).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	week,	the	vast	majority	(94%)	of	visitors	reported	their	race	as	

white.	

Figure 3‐70. What is your race?
358

Ecological Condition Assessment, Mount Evans Recreation Area and

Guanella Pass, Summer 2012

Utah	State	University	(USU),	in	partnership	with	RSG,	conducted	an	ecological	assessment	of	

resource	conditions	at	MERA	and	GP	to	document	the	current	state	of	resource	conditions	in	the	

select	study	areas	within	both	sites.	Different	assessment	techniques	were	used	at	the	two	

locations,	with	a	rapid	assessment	being	condition	at	MERA,	and	a	full	assessment	being	conducted	

at	GP.	Data	on	the	following	visitor	use	resource	impacts	were	collected	for	the	assessments	during	

summer	2012:	

 Informal	trails	(MERA	and	GP)	

 Informal	spur	trails	(MERA	and	GP)	

 Visitor‐created	sites	(MERA	and	GP)	

 Areas	of	dispersed	visitor	use	(GP	only)	

This	section	of	Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	provides	a	

summary	of	the	summer	2012	ecological	resource	assessment	at	both	sites,	including	a	description	

of	methods	and	statistical	results	for	each	site.	Tabular	results	are	included	in	the	text	in	this	

section,	and	maps	of	evaluated	trail	sections	are	included	in	the	Appendices	(Appendix	Z).	

Resource Assessment Methods

Monitoring	and	assessment	studies	are	commonly	performed	in	the	field	of	recreation	resource	

management	to	help	managers	of	parks	and	protected	areas	avoid	and	mitigate	impacts	caused	by	

visitor	use9,10.	Such	studies	provide	baseline	information	from	which	trends	of	impact	change	can	

be	seen	over	time.	Condition	assessments	can	also	be	used	to	examine	the	effect	of	management	

actions.	A	variety	of	parameters	can	be	studied	in	monitoring	and	assessment	protocols.	Soil	and	

vegetation	parameters	are	commonly	used	to	assess	current	conditions	and	can	be	compared	to	

control	sites	to	determine	the	amount	of	change	due	to	recreation	use11,12.	

Off‐trail	use	often	leads	to	the	occurrence	of	dispersed	visitor‐caused	impacts	such	as	the	formation	

of	informal	trails	and	visitor‐created	sites.	Monitoring	and	assessment	studies	allow	for	the	

examination	of	both	the	severity	and	extent	of	dispersed	impacts.	Soil	and	vegetation	parameters	

such	as	soil	compaction,	vegetation	cover,	percent	of	bare	ground,	and	trail	width	can	be	used	to	

																																																													

9 Monz, C., Marion, J. L., Goonan, K., Manning, R. E., Wimpey, J., & Carr, C. 2010. Assessment and Monitoring of

Recreation Impacts and Resource Conditions on Mountain Summits: Examples From the Northern Forest, USA.

Mountain Research and Development, 30(4), 332‐343. 10 Marion, J.L., Leung, Y., 1997. An assessment of campsite conditions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

USDI National Park Service Research Resources Management Report. 11 Hammitt W.E., Cole D.N., 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and management, second ed. John Wiley, New

York.

12 Cole, D. N., 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. In: Buckeley, R. (Ed.),

Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. CABI, Australia, pp. 41‐60
359

determine	the	severity	of	impacts	resulting	from	visitor	use13.	Geographic	positioning	system	(GPS)	

and	geographic	information	systems	(GIS)	allow	for	an	examination	of	the	extent	of	impacts	

associated	with	visitor	use10,13.	GPS	technology	and	the	use	of	modified	condition	class	ratings,	

which	were	developed	for	campsite	monitoring,	provide	the	means	for	conducting	rapid	

assessments	of	resource	conditions	in	the	field.	

In	this	study	two	different,	distinct	approaches	were	used;	a	rapid	assessment	and	a	full	

assessment.	The	rapid	assessment	approach,	was	employed	at	Mount	Evans,	mapped	trails	as	linear	

features,	while	spurs	(informal	trails	less	than	5	meters	in	length)	and	all	visitor‐created	sites	were	

mapped	as	point	features.	The	full	assessment	approach,	employed	at	Guanella	Pass,	mapped	trails	

as	linear	features,	spurs	as	point	features,	small	and	medium	visitor‐created	sites	as	point	features	

with	associated	measurements,	and	mapped	large	areas	of	dispersed	use	as	polygons.	

Rapid Assessment of Resource Conditions at MERA:	Submeter	accuracy	GPS	units	were	used	to	map	

the	location	and	intensity	of	recreation	resource	impacts	related	to	visitor	use,	as	follows:	

 Locations	examined	included	the	following	in	order	from	highest	to	lowest	priority:	Lincoln	

Lake,	Abyss	Lake	informal	trail	system,	informal	trails	on	the	east	side	of	Mount	Evans,	

Summit	Lake	borrow	pit	area,	Upper	Goliath	area,	Nature	Center	borrow	pit.	

 Informal	Trails	were	recorded	as	linear	features.	A	few	(2‐3)	positions	were	taken	at	the	

start	of	the	trail	to	assure	starting	point	accuracy.	The	trail	was	walked	at	a	normal	hiking	

pace	with	high	accuracy	positions	recorded	at	5s	intervals.	At	the	end	of	the	trail	a	few	(2‐3)	

additional	positions	were	taken	to	assure	end	point	accuracy.	Trail	width	was	estimated	to	

the	nearest	half	meter	via	a	categorical	system	and	the	informal	trail	was	assigned	a	

condition	class	rating	(Table	3‐14).	

 Informal	Spur	Trails,	which	are	informal	trails	5	meters	or	less	in	length,	were	recorded	as	

point	features.	Approximately	15	points	were	recorded	at	the	location	where	the	spur	

meets	the	designated	trail.	The	approximately	width	of	the	spur	trail	was	recorded	as	well	

as	an	informal	trail	condition	class	rating	(Table	3‐14).	

 Visitor‐created	sites	(locations	of	continuous	disturbance	from	10‐50	m2)	were	located	and	

recorded	as	point	features.	The	center	of	the	visitor‐created	site	was	recorded	by	collecting	

25	to	30	points.	A	condition	class	rating	was	assigned	to	the	site	(Table	3‐15).	All	site	

characteristics	were	determined	using	ocular	estimations.	

Full Assessment at GP:	High	accuracy	GPS	units	were	used	to	map	the	location	and	intensity	of	

recreation	resource	impacts	related	to	visitor	use,	as	follows:

 Locations	examined	included	the	following	in	order	from	highest	to	lowest	priority:	visitor‐

related	impacts	along	the	designated	trail	to	Mount	Bierstadt	and	the	designated	trail	to	

Square	Top	Lakes.	

																																																													

13 Leung, Y., Newburger, T., Jones, M., Kuhn, B., Woiderski, B., 2010. Developing a monitoring protocol for visitor‐

created informal trails in Yosemite National Park, USA. Environmental Management, 47, 93‐106.
360

 Informal	Trails	were	recorded	as	linear	features.	A	few	(2‐3)	positions	were	taken	at	the	

start	of	the	trail	to	assure	starting	point	accuracy.	The	trail	was	walked	at	a	normal	hiking	

pace	with	high	accuracy	positions	recorded	at	5s	intervals.	At	the	end	of	the	trail	a	few	(2‐3)	

additional	positions	were	taken	to	assure	end	point	accuracy.	Trail	width	was	estimated	to	

the	nearest	half	meter	via	a	categorical	system	and	the	informal	trail	was	assigned	a	

condition	class	rating	(Table	3‐14).	

 Informal	Spur	Trails,	which	are	informal	trails	5	meters	or	less	in	length,	were	recorded	as	

point	features.	Approximately	15	points	were	recorded	at	the	location	where	the	spur	

meets	the	designated	trail.	The	approximate	width	of	the	spur	trail	was	recorded	as	well	as	

an	informal	trail	condition	class	rating	(Table	3‐14).	

 Visitor‐created	sites	were	located	and	recorded	as	point	features.	The	center	of	the	visitor‐

created	site	was	recorded	by	collecting	25	to	30	points.	A	size	category	was	chosen	for	the	

site	(small,	medium,	or	large	dispersed	area).	A	condition	class	rating	was	assigned	to	the	

site	(Table	3‐15).	All	site	characteristics	were	determined	using	ocular	estimations.	

 Areas	of	dispersed	visitor	use	were	recorded	as	polygon	features.	The	area	was	scouted	to	

identify	natural	boundaries	and	the	boundaries	of	the	visitor	use.	The	perimeter	of	the	

polygon	was	recorded	by	walking	at	a	normal	hiking	pace	following	the	boundaries	of	the	

area	of	dispersed	visitor	use.	Upon	returning	to	the	starting	point	marked	by	a	flag,	a	few	(2‐

3)	points	were	recorded	at	the	end	of	the	polygon.	A	condition	class	rating	was	assigned	to	

the	site	(Table	3‐15).	All	site	characteristics	were	determined	using	ocular	estimations.	

In	the	field,	data	collection	with	the	highest	level	of	QA/QC	possible	was	maintained.	GPS	positional	

error	was	limited	to	a	maximum	of	1‐2	meters	for	point	and	linear	(trail)	features.	In	most	cases	

horizontal	position	accuracy	was	submeter.	Trimble	resource	grade	Geo	XT	receivers	configured	for	

SBAS	correction	were	utilized	and	data	was	postprocessed	using	Trimble	Pathfinder	Office	software	

for	additional	correction.	

All	data	transfer	was	accomplished	via	standard	GPS/GIS	techniques	and	analysis	and	data	

summaries	conducted	in	both	the	GIS	environment	(ArcGIS	v.10.1)	and	via	SPSS	statistical	software.	

Visitor	use	related	resource	impacts	were	reviewed	for	positional	accuracy	and	mapped	with	base	

layers	provided	by	the	USFS	to	USU.	Summary	statistics	for	the	extent	and	level	of	the	resource	

impacts	are	provided.	

Summary of Findings

 Considerable	informal	(social)	trail	formation	was	found	in	the	Guanella	Pass	study	area	at	

both	Mount	Bierstadt	and	Square	Top	Lakes.	Numerous	segments	were	found,	although	the	

average	length	and	total	aggregate	length	were	not	considerable	(Table	3‐16).	Alternatively,	

very	little	informal	trail	formation	was	observed	at	Mount	Evans,	with	the	exception	of	one	

informal	trail/route.	

 Few	visitor	sites	were	found	in	both	study	areas.	Sites	were	moderately	to	highly	impacted,	

however	(Table 3‐17).	
361

 Several	areas	of	diffuse	resource	impact	were	found	in	the	Mount	Bierstadt	area	of	

moderate	impact	(condition	class	3	and	39%	vegetation	cover	loss).	Total	aggregate	

impacted	area	was	considerable	(521	m2;	Table	3‐18).	

 Several	“areas	of	interest”	were	documented	in	terms	of	location	and	extent	across	both	

study	areas	(Table	3‐19)These	locations	were	documented	on	an	opportunistic	basis	and	

generally	represent	areas	adjacent	to	visitor	access	points,	such	as	locations	of	unattended	

parking.	

 A	significant	informal	trail/route	was	documented	in	the	vicinity	of	Summit	Lake	to	the	

parking	area	near	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	(Table 3‐20).	

 All	the	visitor‐created	resource	impacts	as	discussed	above	have	been	documented	and	

mapped	as	to	the	location	and	spatial	extent	as	illustrated	in	the	maps	provided	in	Appendix	

Z.	
362

Table 3‐14. Unofficial Trail Condition Class Definitions

Condition Class Definition

Class 1 Trail distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal disturbance of

organic litter

Class 2 Trail obvious; vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized in primary use

areas

Class 3 Vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverized within the center of the

tread, some bare soil exposed

Class 4 Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover and organic litter within the

tread, bare soil widespread

Class 5 Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed roots and rocks and/or gullying

Table 3‐15. Visitor‐created Sites and Areas of Dispersed Use Condition Class Definitions

Condition Class Vegetation Damage O Horizon

Loss

Mineral Soil

Exposure

Erosion

1 Very slight <1% None None None

2 Slight <10% Surface scuffing‐

some loss evident

Slight <10% None

3 Moderate 10‐50% Moderate loss

evident‐ 10‐50%

Moderate 10‐50% Slight

4 Considerable 51‐

90%

Considerable 51‐

90%

Considerable 51‐

90%

Some

5 Total Loss of cover

>90%

Total Loss of OM Most of site >90% Considerable
363

Table 3‐16. Characteristics of informal trails and visitor routes throughout the ARNF study area (CC =

condition class rating).

Analysis Area

Number

of

Segments

Total

Length

(km)

Mean

CC

Mean

Length (m)

Number of

Spur

Segments*

Length of

Designated or

Informal Trail (km)

GP Study Area:            

Square Top Lakes 54 2.9 3 54 17 3.5

Mount Bierstadt 181 3.6 2 20 82 5.9

MERA Study Area:            

Lincoln Lake Bouldering

Trail 2 0.7 2 0.4 0 0.7

Mount Evans Summit

Shortcut/Route 1 1 4 N/A 17 N/A

Abyss Lake Route 1 0.5 4 N/A 0 N/A

*Spur is any informal trail <5m in length

Table 3‐17. Characteristics of visitor‐created sites throughout entire study area in ARNF (CC = condition

class rating).

Analysis Area

Number of

Sites

Total Area

(m2)

Mean

CC

Mean Area

(m2)

Mean Veg Loss

(%)

GP Study Area:         

Square Top Lakes 1 N/A* 4 N/A* 82

Mount Bierstadt 3 23 2 8 35

MERA Study Area:         

Lincoln Lake Bouldering   2 N/A* 2 N/A* 48

Mount Evans Summit

Shortcut/Route 1 N/A* 1 N/A* 82

*visitor‐created site areas were not measured during rapid assessment at MERA area

Table 3‐18. Characteristics of areas of dispersed visitor use found throughout the GP study area (CC =

condition class rating).

Analysis Area Number of Sites Total Area (m2) Mean CC Mean Area (m2) Mean Veg Loss (%)

Mount Bierstadt 6 521 3 87 39
364

Table 3‐19. Areas of polygons of interest to ARNF managers.

Polygon

Area

(m2)

MERA Area:   

Abyss Lake Parking Area 45

Mount Evans Summit Pull‐off 68

Summit Lake Borrow Pit 425

Area of Dispersed use at Upper Goliath Trailhead 163

Nature Center Borrow Pit 139

Lincoln Lake Unattended Parking North 31

Lincoln Lake Unattended Parking South 14

Mount Bierstadt (GP):   

Unattended Parking East 128

Unattended Parking West 197

Table 3‐20. Summary of visitor route from Summit Lake to the summit of Mount Evans

Mount Evans Summit Shortcut/Route

Total Length

(km) Mean CC

Mean Length

(m)

Cut through tundra 0.7 4 0.3

Cut across rock 0.3 4 0.1
365

Examples of Observed Ecological Resource Impacts

Figure 3‐71. Vegetation and soil disturbance as a consequence of unattended parking to access Lincoln

Lake bouldering area in the Mount Evans study area.
366

Figure 3‐72. Alpine vegetation and soil loss in a backcountry location in the Mount Bierstadt study area
367

Figure 3‐73. Informal trail formation in proximity to designated parking area at Mount Bierstadt

Trailhead.
368

Chapter 4:NEED IDENTIFICATION BY SITE
369

Introduction

Transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	needs	were	identified	at	BLRA,	GP,	

and	MERA	through	public	input,	review	of	previous	studies	and	planning	documents,	and	onsite	

data	collection	and	analysis.	Table	4‐1	provides	a	summary	of	the	identified	needs,	which	are	

described	in	more	detail	in	this	chapter.	The	identified	needs	for	each	study	site	begin	with	a	

summary	of	relevant	data	findings	from	the	2012	and	2013	data	collection	efforts,	followed	by	a	

detailed	description	of	each	site	needs.	In	some	cases,	figures	and	photos	from	previous	chapters	

are	included	in	descriptions	of	need	justification	for	ease	of	use	of	this	chapter.	Refer	to	the	

following	chapters	and	sections	for	detailed	descriptions	of	the	data	findings	that	influenced	need	

identification:	

 Chapter	1:	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Summary	of	Data	Findings	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Winter	2011‐2012	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2013	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

o Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Alternative	Trail	Alignment	Analysis,	Summer	2012	

 Chapter	2:	Guanella	Pass	Summary	of	Data	Findings	

o Guanella	Pass	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2012	

o Guanella	Pass	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

 Chapter	3:	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Summary	of	Data	Findings

o Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Transportation	and	Visitor	Use,	Summer	2012	

o Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	Visitor	Survey,	Summer	2014	

o Ecological	Condition	Assessment,	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	and	Guanella	Pass,	

Summer	2012	
Table 4‐1. Transportation, recreation, and resource management‐related needs, by site.

Common toAll Sites

Site‐specific:BLRA

Site‐specific:GP

Site‐spMERA

 Peak‐period parking shortages.

 Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot is

distant from most visitors’

destinations.

 Unendorsed roadside parking,

causing resource impacts and

visitor safety risks.

 Une

caus

visit

 Lack of advanced trip‐planning

and traveler information.

 Small trailhead parking lots limit

convenient access to the Indian

Peaks Wilderness, but may help

prevent unacceptable crowding.

 Extreme crowding on the

summit of Mount Bierstadtduring peak periods.

 Traf

on t

and 

 Traffic congestion at entrance

stations and/or on roads during

peak periods.

 Parking management staff

required to prevent unendorsed

parking.

 Off‐trail trampling of vegetation

and soils in the Mount Evans

Wilderness.

 Conf

mot

 Intensive Wilderness use and

crowding during peak periods.

 Traffic congestion at the

Courtesy Station when parking

lots are full.

 Recreation‐related traffic

congestion in Georgetown,

Colorado.

 Extr

sum

peak 

 Confusion among visitors who

park in the Brainard Lake Day

Use Parking Lot about how to get

to their destinations.

 Traf

entr

peri

 Lack of safe, enjoyable

pedestrian connections among

parking lots and visitor

destinations.

 Stee

detedrive

 High visitor use and

corresponding potential for

crowding and adverse resource

impacts in the Indian Peaks

Wilderness.
371

Brainard Lake Recreation

Area

Introduction

Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	is	an	

approximately	3,143	acre	land	unit	on	

the	Boulder	Ranger	District	of	the	ARNF,	

bordered	by	the	town	of	Ward	to	the	east	

and	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW)	

to	the	west.	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	

Area	is	located	within	a	one	to	two	hour	

drive	from	much	of	the	Boulder‐Denver	

metropolitan	area	and	northern	Front	Range	cities,	including	Longmont,	Loveland,	Greeley,	and	

Fort	Collins.	

Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	is	the	most	heavily	visited	year‐round	recreation	site	in	the	Boulder	

Ranger	District	and	one	of	the	most	popular	recreation	sites	in	the	ARNF.	While	visitor	use	is	

highest	during	the	summer,	a	significant	amount	of	recreational	use	occurs	in	the	winter.	Popular	

summer	activities	in	BLRA	include	hiking,	picnicking,	camping,	fishing,	mountain	biking,	viewing	

scenery,	and	connecting	with	nature;	during	the	winter,	snowshoeing	and	cross‐country	skiing	are	

the	most	popular	activities.	

Brainard	Lake	Road,	which	provides	access	from	Highway	72	to	BLRA,	is	owned	and	maintained	by	

Boulder	County	from	its	intersection	with	Highway	72	to	the	summer	entrance	gate	location	

(referred	to	hereafter	as	the	“Courtesy	Station”;	Figure	4‐2).	Beyond	the	summer	entrance	gate	

location,	Brainard	Lake	Road	is	owned	by	the	USFS,	but	maintained	by	Boulder	County	through	an	

agreement	between	with	USFS.	

There	are	a	number	of	developed	recreation	facilities	at	BLRA	that	are	accessible	to	visitors	during	

the	summer,	including	a	Courtesy	Station	where	visitors	are	greeted	and	provided	information	

about	the	area,	picnic	sites,	parking	lots,	restroom	facilities,	information	kiosks,	and	a	boat	launch	

(Figure	4‐2).	In	addition,	there	is	a	47‐site	campground	at	BLRA	that	accommodates	tents,	campers,	

trailers,	and	RV’s	up	to	45	feet	in	length.	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	also	has	a	number	of	

trailheads,	some	of	which	provide	direct	access	to	the	IPW.	

There	are	two	trailhead	parking	lots	at	BLRA	that	provide	direct	access	to	the	IPW	during	the	

summer;	one	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead,	and	the	other	at	the	Long	Lake	Trailhead	(Figure	4‐2).	

The	trailhead	parking	lots	have	capacities	of	approximately	30	(Long	Lake	Trailhead)	to	50	

(Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead)	automobiles,	and	both	fill	early	in	the	morning	during	the	popular	

summer	hiking	season.	The	Niwot	Mountain	Lot	is	a	relatively	short	distance	east	of	the	Long	Lake	

and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	and	also	fills	relatively	early	in	the	morning	during	the	

summer	hiking	season	for	access	to	the	IPW.	

Figure 4‐1. Long Lake, Brainard Lake Recreation Area.
372

Directly	next	to	Brainard	Lake,	the	USFS	recently	built	(summer	2012)	a	parking	lot	of	roughly	200	

spaces	that	is	open	to	visitors	during	the	summer;	the	lot	is	primarily	intended	for	day	use	visitors	

at	Brainard	Lake,	and	is	located	there	to	help	shift	some	use	away	from	the	IPW	(Figure	4‐2).	There	

is	another	recently	constructed	parking	lot	located	just	before	the	Courtesy	Station	on	Brainard	

Lake	Road,	approximately	two	miles	east	of	Brainard	Lake	and	three	miles	east	of	the	IPW	

trailheads.	The	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	has	parking	capacity	for	approximately	150	

automobiles,	and	is	open	to	BLRA	visitors	year‐round.	While	a	parking	fee	of	$10	per	vehicle	for	a	

three‐day	pass	is	collected	from	BLRA	visitors	during	the	summer	months,	those	visitors	who	park	

in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	do	not	have	to	pay	the	parking	fee	to	enter	BLRA.	There	are	

no	parking	fees	collected	from	visitors	during	the	winter.	

Figure 4‐2. Brainard Lake Recreation Area, summer facilities.

During	winter	months,	Brainard	Lake	Road	is	plowed	from	Ward,	Colorado,	to	the	BLRA	Courtesy	

Station.	While	the	entrance	gate	at	the	Courtesy	Station	remains	closed	throughout	the	winter,	

visitors	can	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	use	the	bathrooms	and	warming	hut	located	

there,	and	access	the	BLRA	trail	network.	

Visitor	use	and	transportation‐related	data	collected	at	BLRA	during	winter	2012	suggest	BLRA	is	

popular	in	the	winter	for	snowshoeing,	cross‐country	and	backcountry	skiing,	and	even	hiking.	

However,	the	area	generally	does	not	experience	traffic	or	parking	congestion	issues	during	the	
373

winter	months.	For	example,	results	of	the	winter	2012	study	at	BLRA	suggest	that	even	on	

“typically	busy”	weekend	days	during	the	winter,	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	only	fills	to	

about	half	of	its	capacity	(Figure	4‐3).	Correspondingly,	no	lines	of	traffic	waiting	for	a	parking	

space	were	observed	during	the	winter	2012	study,	and	visitors	were	very	rarely	observed	parking	

on	the	roadside,	rather	than	in	designated	parking	spaces	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

The	findings	from	the	winter	2012	study	at	BLRA	suggest	there	aren’t	significant	transportation‐

related	issues	at	BLRA	during	the	winter	months	for	which	alternative	transportation	solutions	are	

required.	In	contrast,	results	of	a	transportation	and	visitor	use	study	conducted	at	BLRA	during	

summer	2013	suggest	there	are	a	number	of	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐

related	issues	at	BLRA	for	which	alternative	transportation	solutions	are	needed,	as	described	

below.	

Figure 4‐3. Gateway Trailhead parking accumulation, winter 2012.

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity

During	peak	periods	of	the	summer	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA,	parking	shortages	occur	at	several	

of	the	parking	lots	and	are	particularly	severe	at	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	

Lots.	For	example,	results	of	the	summer	2013	study	at	BLRA	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	

summer	days,	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	fill	to	capacity	between	the	

hours	of	7:00	AM	and	8:00	AM,	and	remain	full	throughout	the	day	(Figure	4‐4).	Onsite	

observations	during	the	summer	2013	study	suggest	this	circumstance	is	a	source	of	frustration	for	

many	BLRA	visitors,	as	a	large	proportion	of	them	visit	BLRA	specifically	to	day	hike	in	the	IPW	and	

would	prefer	to	park	at	or	near	the	IPW	trailheads.	
374

Figure 4‐4. IPW trailhead parking accumulation, summer 2013.

The	2013	study	results	further	suggest	that	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Lot	fills	to	capacity	on	

typically	busy	summer	days	by	11:00	AM	(Figure	4‐5).	Onsite	observations	during	the	summer	

2013	study	suggest	many	of	the	visitors	who	park	in	the	Day	Use	Lot	are	frustrated	by	the	fact	that	

their	intended	destination	is	one	of	the	IPW	trailheads,	yet	they	have	to	park	a	mile	away	from	the	

trailheads	and	walk	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	to	get	to	the	trailheads.	In	addition,	as	parking	in	the	

Day	Use	Lot	approaches	capacity,	traffic	congestion	occurs	in	the	lot,	and	visitors	park	their	

personal	vehicles	in	parking	spaces	that	are	designated	for	large	vehicles	(e.g.,	RV’s).	

Figure 4‐5. Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2013.
375

When	parking	in	the	Day	Use	Lot	reaches	the	capacity	of	the	parking	lot,	visitors	are	stopped	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	and	not	allowed	to	enter	BLRA	until	other	visitors	leave	and	parking	spaces	

become	available.	Thus,	during	busy	periods,	lines	of	traffic	form	at	the	Courtesy	Station	with	

visitors	waiting	to	enter	BLRA.	

While	the	2013	study	results	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	summer	days	parking	shortages	are	

severe	at	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	and	occur	at	the	Brainard	Lake	

Day	Use	Lot,	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	remains	mostly	empty	throughout	the	entire	day	

(Figure	4‐6).	The	2013	study	results	suggest	few	visitors	choose	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot,	even	though	they	can	avoid	paying	the	parking	fee	to	enter	BLRA	by	doing	so.	These	

findings	suggest	that,	in	total,	there	is	sufficient	parking	capacity	at	BLRA	to	meet	demand,	but	that	

there	is	a	substantial	shortage	of	parking	where	visitors	would	like	to	park	and	an	abundance	of	

parking	located	where	visitors	do	not	choose	to	park	voluntarily.	

Figure 4‐6. Brainard Lake overall parking accumulation, summer 2013.

The	parking	circumstances	noted	imply	that	additional	parking	is	needed	at	the	locations	where	

visitors	want	to	park,	and/or	improved	access	(e.g.,	via	shuttle	service)	is	needed	from	the	locations	

where	parking	supply	is	adequate	to	popular	destinations	(i.e.,	the	IPW	trailheads).	Previous	

studies	have	assessed	the	feasibility	of	using	shuttle	or	transit	service	to	address	this	need.	

However,	the	USFS	recognizes	that	improving	access	to	the	IPW	trailheads	would	not	be	suitable,	if	

it	results	in	unacceptable	crowding	and/or	resource	impacts.	Thus,	strategies	to	improve	access	to	

the	IPW	trailheads	need	to	be	evaluated	in	terms	of	their	potential	impacts	on	Wilderness	resource	

values	in	the	IPW.	Moreover,	previous	transit	feasibility	studies	at	BLRA	were	conducted	prior	to	

reconfiguration	of	parking	lots	and	parking	management	there;	thus,	traffic,	parking,	and	visitor	use	

patterns	have	changed	since	the	previous	studies.	
376

Parking Management

Currently,	the	USFS	has	a	contract	with	a	

concessionaire	to	manage	traffic	and	parking	at	

BLRA	during	the	peak	summer	visitor	use	

season	(approximately	Memorial	Day	Weekend	

through	Labor	Day	Weekend;	Figure	4‐7).	The	

parking	management	team	at	BLRA	operates	

daily	from	7:00	AM	to	approximately	2:00	PM,	

with	one	staff	member	stationed	at	each	of	the	

two	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	(i.e.,	the	Long	

Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots).	

The	IPW	trailhead	parking	lot	monitors	use	

two‐way	radios	to	inform	a	third	member	of	the	

parking	management	team	and	the	staff	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	when	the	trailhead	parking	

lots	are	full,	and	when	parking	spaces	become	

available	again	after	the	lots	are	full.	The	third	member	of	the	parking	management	team	is	

positioned	at	various	locations	in	BLRA	throughout	the	day,	depending	on	where	parking	is	

available.	This	“roving”	member	of	the	parking	management	team	is	responsible	for	directing	

visitors	to	available	parking	spaces	and	blocking	the	roadway	to	prevent	visitors	from	driving	to	the	

IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	when	they	are	full.	Staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	inform	arriving	visitors	

of	their	parking	options,	based	on	the	information	they	receive	via	radio	from	the	three	members	of	

the	parking	management	team.	As	noted,	when	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	and	the	Brainard	

Lake	Day	Use	Lot	are	full,	staff	members	at	the	Courtesy	Station	stop	visitors	from	entering	BLRA	

until	other	visitors	leave	and	parking	spaces	become	available.	Courtesy	Station	staff	also	inform	

visitors	of	the	option	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Lot,	instead	of	waiting	at	the	Courtesy	

Station	for	other	visitors	to	leave	BLRA.	Observations	during	the	summer	2013	study	at	BLRA	

suggest	that	the	parking	management	team	is	needed	to	enforce	parking	lot	limits,	prohibit	

roadside	parking,	and	control	the	flow	of	visitors	into	and	at	BLRA.	For	example,	it	was	observed	

during	the	summer	2013	study	at	BLRA	that	when	the	“roving”	member	of	the	parking	

management	team	was	not	present	(e.g.,	after	the	shift	ended	or	when	the	staff	member	had	to	

attend	to	another	duty),	visitors	would	drive	past	“parking	lot	full”	signs	to	the	full	IPW	trailhead	

parking	lots	and	circulate	or	wait	for	a	parking	space	to	empty.	Thus,	it	is	expected	that	without	the	

parking	management	team	at	BLRA,	there	would	be	impacts	to	public	safety,	forest	resources,	and	

the	scenery	of	the	area	due	to	parking	in	undesignated	areas	and	traffic	circling	through	full	parking	

lots	searching	for	places	to	park.	

Roadside Parking

Until	recently,	visitors	were	allowed	to	park	on	the	shoulder	of	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	access	

road	to	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots.	This	roadside	parking	caused	

resource	impacts,	increased	the	risk	of	pedestrian‐motor	vehicle	crashes,	and	degraded	the	scenic	

quality	of	the	area.	Recently,	the	USFS	instituted	a	policy	to	prohibit	roadside	parking	at	BLRA	to	

Figure 4‐7. Brainard Lake parking management team,

summer 2013.
377

address	the	safety,	resource	management,	and	visitor	experience‐related	issues	noted.	The	onsite	

parking	management	team	described	above	effectively	controls	the	flow	of	traffic	in	BLRA	to	

available	parking	spaces,	and	is	instrumental	in	implementing	the	USFS’s	policy	to	eliminate	

roadside	parking	in	BLRA.	Additionally,	the	USFS	has	installed	barriers	and	signs	to	prevent	

roadside	parking	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	access	road	to	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	where	it	once	occurred	in	large	numbers.	It	is	likely	that	without	the	

parking	management	team,	barriers,	and	signs	in	place	at	BLRA,	roadside	parking	would	become	a	

significant	issue	again.	It	should	be	noted	that	while	roadside	parking	has	been	effectively	

eliminated	as	a	form	of	overflow	parking	at	BLRA,	roadside	parking	does	occur	sporadically	

throughout	the	day	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	when	moose	are	sighted	along	the	south	side	of	

Brainard	Lake.	When	these	“moose	jams”	occur,	visitors	will	often	stop	their	vehicles	on	the	side	of	

the	road,	impacting	forest	resources,	or	in	the	middle	of	the	road,	causing	traffic	conflicts.	Thus,	

measures	are	needed	to	manage	this	wildlife‐viewing	behavior.	

Wayfinding and Pedestrian

Connections

As	noted,	when	the	Long	Lake	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots	are	

full,	visitors	are	directed	to	park	in	the	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Lot.	Observations	

during	the	summer	2013	study	period	at	

BLRA	suggest	that	it	is	common	for	

visitors	who	enter	the	Day	Use	Parking	

Lot	to	be	confused	about	where	to	park	

in	the	lot	and	where	their	destinations	

are,	once	they	have	parked	(Figure	4‐8).	

For	example,	many	of	the	visitors	who	

park	in	the	Day	Use	Lot	intend	to	hike	in	the	IPW,	yet	it	is	common	for	visitors	parked	in	the	Day	

Use	Lot	to	be	confused	about	where	the	IPW	trailheads	are	located	in	relation	to	the	lot	and	what	

route	they	should	take	to	access	the	IPW	trailheads.	Furthermore,	the	lot	is	located	approximately	

one	mile	from	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead,	and	visitors	must	walk	along	the	recently	

closed	portion	of	the	Brainard	Lake	Road	or	along	the	open	portion	of	the	road	on	the	south	side	of	

Brainard	Lake.	The	confusion	visitors	experience	trying	to	find	the	correct	route	to	the	IPW	

trailheads,	coupled	with	the	fact	that	they	must	walk	on	the	road	to	reach	the	trailheads,	causes	

visitors	to	be	frustrated.	Moreover,	the	fact	that	visitors	must	walk	on	roads	with	moving	traffic,	

whether	it	be	on	the	open	portion	of	Brainard	Lake	Road	or	the	access	road	to	the	Long	Lake	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailheads,	exposes	visitors	to	the	risk	of	pedestrian‐motor	vehicle	crashes.	

Wayfinding	and	access	issues	are	even	more	pronounced	for	those	visitors	who	choose	to	park	in	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	when	the	other	lots	at	BLRA	are	full.	Specifically,	visitors	who	

park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	are	often	confused	about	recreation	activities	originating	

from	the	lot	and/or	how	to	access	Brainard	Lake.	And,	in	the	case	of	visitors	who	park	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	intend	to	hike	in	the	IPW,	these	visitors	must	walk	

Figure 4‐8. Brainard Lake Day Use parking lot, summer

2013.
378

approximately	three	miles	to	the	IPW	trailheads,	either	on	forested	trails	that	are	confusing	for	

visitors	to	use	as	a	form	of	“transportation”	to	the	IPW	trailheads	or	along	a	section	of	Brainard	

Lake	Road	with	substantial	vehicle	traffic.	Together,	these	circumstances	suggest	there	aren’t	

sufficient	pedestrian	connections	to	provide	visitors	with	safe,	enjoyable,	and	easy‐to‐use	access	

among	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Lot,	Brainard	Lake,	and	the	Long	

Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailheads.	Similarly,	improvements	to	wayfinding	and	directional	signage	

are	needed.	

Wilderness Use and Visitor

Crowding

The	popularity	of	BLRA	is	

attributable,	in	part,	to	the	fact	

that	it	provides	visitors	with	

direct	access	to	the	IPW.	For	

example,	the	IPW	can	be	accessed	

within	one‐quarter	mile	of	the	

Long	Lake	Trailhead,	and	within	

one‐half	mile	of	the	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead	(Figure	4‐9).	

Correspondingly,	observations	

during	the	summer	2013	study	at	

BLRA	suggest	a	large	proportion	of	BLRA	visitors	are	destined	for	hikes	in	the	IPW.	More	

specifically,	trail	use	count	data	collected	during	the	summer	2013	study	suggest	that	on	typically	

busy	summer	days	at	BLRA,	nearly	800	visitors	start	hikes	from	the	Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailheads	per	day,	and	close	to	200	visitors	start	hikes	at	the	Niwot	Cut‐Off	Trailhead.	Thus,	while	

the	USFS	is	legally	mandated	by	the	Wilderness	Act	of	1964	to	manage	the	IPW	for,	among	other	

things,	opportunities	for	visitors	to	experience	solitude,	there	is	relatively	intensive	visitor	use	in	

the	IPW	originating	from	BLRA	during	the	summer	season.	That	being	said,	recent	changes	to	

parking	policies	and	corresponding	onsite	parking	management	are	intended	to	help	reduce	visitor	

use	pressure	on	the	IPW.	In	particular,	and	as	noted,	parking	is	now	limited	to	the	capacity	of	the	

relatively	small	parking	lots	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads,	and	once	these	lots	are	

full,	visitors	must	park	one	mile	or	more	away	from	the	trailheads.	Despite	this,	and	as	noted,	

observations	during	the	summer	2013	study	suggest	a	large	proportion	of	BLRA	visitors	are	

destined	for	the	IPW	and	will	walk	on	roads,	even	with	moving	traffic,	to	reach	the	Long	Lake	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailheads.	Thus,	additional	measures	may	be	needed	to	manage	visitor	use	levels	in	

the	IPW	according	to	Wilderness	management	objectives,	including	resource	protection,	solitude,	

and	challenge.	

Figure 4‐9. Mitchell Lake Trail, Indian Peaks Wilderness.
379

Traffic Congestion at the

Entrance to BLRA

When	the	parking	lots	at	the	IPW	

trailheads	and	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	

Parking	Lot	are	full,	staff	members	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	stop	visitors	from	

entering	BLRA	until	other	visitors	leave	

and	parking	spaces	become	available.	

Consequently,	during	busy	periods,	lines	

of	traffic	form	at	the	entrance	to	BLRA	

while	visitors	wait	for	parking	spaces	to	

become	available	(Figure	4‐10).	For	

example,	results	of	the	summer	2013	

study	at	BLRA	suggest	that,	starting	

around	11:00	AM	on	typically	busy	

summer	days,	visitors	must	be	stopped	at	the	entrance	to	BLRA	and	wait	for	a	period	of	time	

(typically	about	10	to	15	minutes)	before	parking	spaces	become	available	again;	this	occurs	for	a	

period	of	about	an	hour.	On	very	busy	days	during	the	2013	study	period,	the	line	of	traffic	at	the	

entrance	to	BLRA	reached	from	the	Courtesy	Station	to	beyond	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

entrance,	causing	traffic	safety	hazards	resulting	from	oncoming	vehicles	approaching	BLRA	not	

being	able	to	anticipate	traffic	is	stopped	in	the	roadway	ahead	of	them.	These	circumstances	not	

only	increase	the	risk	of	vehicle	crashes,	but	are	very	frustrating	to	visitors.	Additionally,	while	

visitors	waiting	in	line	at	the	Courtesy	Station	are	informed	of	the	option	to	park	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	few	choose	to	do	so,	because	the	lot	is	located	a	relatively	long	distance	from	

most	visitors’	destinations.	Moreover,	some	visitors	are	unable	to	get	from	the	line	of	traffic	to	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	even	if	they	would	prefer	to	park	there	than	wait	in	line	at	the	

Courtesy	Station.	

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for BLRA Visitors

Results	of	previous	visitor	surveys	conducted	by	the	USFS	suggest	visitors	to	BLRA	receive	

information	about	the	recreation	area	primarily	through	friends	and	family	or	through	the	USFS	

website1.	The	information	available	to	BLRA	visitors	is	generally	limited	to	driving	directions	to	

BLRA	and	opportunities	for	recreation	activities	at	BLRA;	correspondingly,	visitors	have	reported	

in	previous	visitor	surveys	that	they	are	only	marginally	satisfied	with	the	information.	

Importantly,	there	is	little	or	no	information	available	to	help	BLRA	visitors	make	trip‐planning	

decisions	based	on	parking,	traffic,	and	visitor	use	conditions	they	are	likely	to	experience	at	

different	times	of	day,	days	of	week,	and	seasons.	Information	is	needed	about	the	best	times	to	

visit	BLRA	to	avoid	parking	shortages,	traffic	congestion,	and	visitor	crowding.	This	information	

needs	to	be	distributed	through	multiple	outlets	(e.g.,	websites,	smartphone	apps,	regional	visitor	

																																																													

1 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Interpretive Strategy (2005).

Figure 4‐10. Brainard Lake Courtesy Station queue,

summer 2013.
380

centers,	roadside	signs,	etc.)	to	ensure	the	information	is	delivered	as	far	in	advance	of	visitors’	

trips	to	or	arrival	at	BLRA	as	possible.	This	information	is	needed	to	help	ensure	that	those	who	are	

particularly	sensitive	to	congestion	and	crowding	issues	can	make	informed	decisions	about	when	

to	visit	BLRA	during	off‐peak	times,	and	to	more	generally	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	

peak	periods.	Similarly,	advanced	traveler	information	is	needed	to	inform	people	as	early	in	their	

trip	as	possible	when	parking	lots	are	full	at	BLRA	and	their	options.	
381

Guanella Pass

Introduction

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	a	National	Forest	Scenic	

Byway	located	approximately	40	miles	west	of	

the	Denver	Metropolitan	area.	The	Scenic	Byway	

is	24	miles	in	length,	passes	through	the	ARNF	

and	Pike	National	Forest	(PNF),	and	connects	

Georgetown,	Colorado,	to	Grant,	Colorado,	via	

the	11,669’	Guanella	Pass.	The	section	of	

Guanella	Pass	Road	from	Georgetown,	Colorado,	

to	the	Park	County	line	is	owned	and	maintained	

by	Clear	Creek	County;	from	the	Park	County	

line	to	Grant,	Colorado,	the	road	is	owned	and	

maintained	by	Park	County	(Figure	4‐12).	

The	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway	provides	

outstanding	opportunities	for	scenic	driving,	

and	year‐round	access	to	backcountry	

recreational	opportunities.	During	the	summer	

months,	recreational	use	is	particularly	

concentrated	at	Guanella	Pass	(GP).	There	are	

two	main	parking	areas	at	GP,	including	the	

Lower	Lot	with	just	under	50	parking	spaces,	

and	the	Upper	Lot	with	just	under	60	spaces	

(Figure	4‐12).	The	parking	lots	at	GP	provide	

trailhead	access	to	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	

to	the	east	and	the	Square	Top	Mountain	area	to	

the	west.	Guanella	Pass	is	particularly	popular	

for	its	relatively	easy	hiking	access	to	the	

summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	one	of	Colorado’s	

14,000+	foot	peaks	(i.e.,	14’ers),	which	is	located	

within	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

According	to	Denver	Regional	Council	of	

Government’s	(DRCOG)	2030	Mountains	and	

Plains	Transportation	Plan,	between	1980	and	

2005,	the	population	of	GP’s	neighboring	

communities	(Clear	Creek	and	Gilpin	Counties)	

Figure 4‐11. Mount Bierstadt Trail, Guanella

Pass.

Figure 4‐12. Guanella Pass facilities.
382

increased	50%	from	9,745	to	16,410	residents;	the	population	is	projected	to	increase	another	70%	

by	2030.	This	population	trend,	coupled	with	the	burgeoning	Colorado	Front	Range	population	

more	generally,	suggests	that	intensive	visitor	use	at	GP	will	continue	to	occur	and	is	likely	to	

increase.	The	challenges	of	intensive	summer	visitation	at	GP	are	exacerbated	by	the	fact	that	the	

vast	majority	(~85%)	of	visitor	use	at	GP	is	concentrated	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	during	

the	early‐morning	to	early‐afternoon	hours	of	the	day.	Consequently,	there	are	a	number	of	

transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	issues	at	GP,	which	are	described	

below.	

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity

During	peak	periods	of	the	summer	visitor	use	season,	parking	shortages	at	GP	are	severe.	For	

example,	results	of	a	transportation	and	visitor	use	study	conducted	at	GP	during	summer	2012	

suggest	that	on	typically	busy	summer	days,	the	Lower	Lot	fills	beyond	its	capacity	by	6:00	AM	and	

remains	filled	beyond	its	capacity	(e.g.,	with	cars	parked	in	unendorsed	areas	within	the	lot)	

through	the	early	afternoon	(Figure	4‐13).	Similarly,	the	summer	2012	study	results	suggest	the	

Upper	Lot	fills	to	its	capacity	by	9:00	AM	and	remains	full	until	early	afternoon	(Figure	4‐14).	

Consequently,	many	visitors	experience	confusion	and	frustration	when	they	arrive	at	GP	to	find	all	

of	the	designated	parking	spaces	are	full,	and	have	no	choice	but	to	park	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	

the	roadside,	as	described	below,	or	leave.	

Figure 4‐13. Guanella Pass Lower Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2012.
383

Figure 4‐14. Guanella Pass Upper Parking Lot parking accumulation, summer 2012.

Roadside Parking

Results	of	the	summer	2012	study	suggest	

that,	by	early	morning	on	typically	busy	

summer	days	at	GP,	the	designated	parking	

lots	fill	with	vehicles	beyond	their	capacities.	

Correspondingly,	the	number	of	cars	parked	in	

unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	at	GP	

increases	sharply	through	the	morning	hours	

(Figure	4‐15).	Overall	parking	demand	at	GP	

reaches	its	peak	in	the	late	morning,	at	which	

time	there	are	nearly	twice	as	many	cars	

parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	

at	GP	(approximately	230	vehicles)	than	in	the	

designated	parking	lots	(approximately	125	

vehicles;	Figure	4‐16).	Visitors	who	park	along	

the	roadside	must	walk	in	moving	traffic	on	

Guanella	Pass	Road	from	their	parking	spaces	

to	the	trailheads	at	GP,	and	are	consequently	

exposed	to	risks	of	pedestrian‐motor	vehicle	crashes.	

Vehicles	parked	along	the	roadside	at	GP	also	greatly	impact	the	scenic	quality	of	visitors’	auto	

touring	and	hiking	experiences.	Additionally,	roadside	parking	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	Guanella	

Pass	Road	causes	undue	impacts	to	natural	resources.	In	particular,	results	of	a	resource	condition	

assessment	conducted	at	GP	during	summer	2012	suggest	there	are	over	3,500	square	feet	of	

Figure 4‐15. Guanella Pass roadside parking, summer 2012.
384

trampled	soils	and	vegetation	along	the	roadside,	largely	due	to	impacts	from	unendorsed	roadside	

parking.	

Figure 4‐16. Guanella Pass overall parking accumulation, summer 2012.

Wilderness Use and Visitor Use

Crowding

As	noted,	the	vast	majority	of	visitors	to	GP	hike	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	to	the	summit	of	

Mount	Bierstadt.	Correspondingly,	visitor	use	at	

GP	is	heavily	concentrated	in	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness,	through	which	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail	travels.	For	example,	results	of	the	summer	

2012	study	at	GP	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	

summer	days	at	GP,	more	than	800	people	hike	

on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	per	day.	Moreover,	

most	visitors	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

during	the	morning	hours	to	avoid	being	on	the	

mountain	summit	during	afternoon	

thunderstorms.	Consequently,	intensive	visitor	

densities	and	crowding	occur	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	(Figure	

4‐17).	For	example,	the	2012	study	results	suggest	that	during	peak	hours	of	typically	busy	summer	

days,	there	are	as	many	as	130	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	at	one	time.	This	results	in	

a	density	of	people	on	the	mountain	summit	that	is	characterized	in	capacity	planning	guidelines	

(i.e.,	the	Transportation	Research	Board’s	Highway	Capacity	Manual)	as	moderately	crowded	for	an	

urban	environment,	such	as	a	city	sidewalk.	Thus,	while	the	USFS	is	legally	mandated	by	the	

Wilderness	Act	of	1964	to	manage	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	for,	among	other	things,	

opportunities	for	visitors	to	experience	solitude,	there	is	intensive	visitor	use	and	crowding	on	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.	Consequently,	measures	are	needed	to	manage	visitor	use	levels	

Figure 4‐17. Summit of Mount Bierstadt,

summer 2012.
385

at	Guanella	Pass	according	to	Wilderness	management	objectives	and	corresponding	user	

capacities,	for	example,	by	instituting	a	day	use	permit	system	for	access	to	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail.	

Recreation‐Related Traffic Impacts in Georgetown, Colorado

Vehicle	traffic	volumes	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	are	relatively	high,	particularly	during	the	summer	

months,	and	are	concentrated	on	the	Georgetown	side	of	GP.	For	example,	results	of	a	1995	traffic	

study	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	suggest	that	during	the	summer,	an	average	of	650	vehicles	per	day	

travel	on	the	section	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	located	just	south	of	Georgetown.	Further,	results	of	

traffic	counts	conducted	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	as	part	of	the	summer	2012	study	suggest	that	

nearly	two‐thirds	(65%)	of	the	vehicles	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	travel	to	GP.	This	suggests	that	a	

substantial	proportion	of	the	traffic	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	is	recreation‐related	travel,	and	in	

particular,	attributable	to	people	destined	for	hiking	trips	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

Consequently,	the	town	of	Georgetown,	Colorado,	experiences	relatively	intensive	recreation‐

related	traffic	volumes	through	its	small,	historic	downtown.	Moreover,	the	1995	traffic	study	on	

Guanella	Pass	Road	included	projections	that	traffic	volumes	would	be	approximately	50%	to	80%	

higher	in	2025	than	they	were	in	1995.	Correspondingly,	recreation‐related	traffic	impacts	to	the	

roads	and	character	of	Georgetown,	Colorado,	are	anticipated	to	become	more	pronounced	over	the	

next	decade.	Thus,	alternative	transportation	solutions	for	access	to	GP	and	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trailhead	may	be	warranted	to	help	reduce	the	number	of	vehicles	traveling	through	the	

downtown	streets	of	Georgetown,	en	route	to	GP.	

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for GP Visitors

Results	of	previous	visitor	surveys	conducted	by	the	USFS	suggest	visitors	to	GP	receive	

information	about	the	recreation	area	primarily	through	friends	and	family	or	through	the	USFS	

website2.	The	information	available	to	GP	visitors	is	generally	limited	to	driving	directions	to	GP	

and	opportunities	for	recreation	activities	at	GP;	correspondingly,	visitors	have	reported	in	

previous	visitor	surveys	that	they	are	only	marginally	satisfied	with	the	information.	Importantly,	

there	is	little	or	no	information	available	to	help	GP	visitors	make	trip‐planning	decisions	based	on	

parking,	traffic,	and	visitor	use	conditions	they	are	likely	to	experience	at	different	times	of	day,	

days	of	week,	and	seasons.	Information	is	needed	about	the	best	times	to	visit	GP	to	avoid	parking	

shortages,	traffic	congestion,	and	visitor	crowding.	This	information	needs	to	be	distributed	

through	multiple	outlets	(e.g.,	websites,	smartphone	apps,	regional	visitor	centers,	roadside	signs,	

etc.)	to	ensure	the	information	is	delivered	as	far	in	advance	of	visitors	trip	to	or	arrival	at	GP	as	

possible.	This	information	is	needed	to	help	ensure	that	those	who	are	particularly	sensitive	to	

congestion	and	crowding	issues	can	make	informed	decisions	about	when	to	visit	GP	during	off‐

peak	times,	and	to	more	generally	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	peak	periods.	Similarly,	

advanced	traveler	information	is	needed	to	inform	people	as	early	in	their	trip	as	possible	when	

parking	lots	are	full	at	GP	and	about	their	alternative	parking	and	recreation	options.	

																																																													

2 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Interpretive Strategy (2005).
386

Mount Evans Recreation Area

Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area	(MERA)	is	

located	approximately	70	miles	

southwest	of	the	Denver	Metropolitan	

area,	and	28	miles	southwest	of	Idaho	

Springs,	Colorado.	Primary	access	to	

MERA	is	from	I‐70	via	the	Idaho	Springs	

exit	and	Colorado	Highway	103	to	the	

intersection	of	Colorado	Highway	

5/Mount	Evans	Highway.	The	MERA	

Welcome	Station	is	situated	at	the	base	of	

the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	which	travels	

from	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	14	

miles	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	

Mount	Evans	Highway	is	a	state	highway,	

and	the	Colorado	Department	of	

Transportation	(CDOT),	who	has	a	right	of	way	from	the	USFS	for	the	road,	is	responsible	for	

maintaining	the	road.	The	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	14,264	feet	in	elevation,	making	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway	the	highest‐elevation	paved	road	in	North	America.	The	entire	route	from	Idaho	

Springs	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	designated	as	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	and	Historic	Byway.	

The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	within	both	the	ARNF	and	PNF,	and	is	bordered	on	either	side	by	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness	Area	(Figure	4‐19).	The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	open	seasonally,	roughly	

between	Memorial	Day	and	the	first	weekend	in	October,	depending	on	weather	and	road	

conditions,	although	the	road	beyond	Summit	Lake	is	closed	on	the	Tuesday	after	Labor	Day.	Visitor	

use	in	MERA	is	concentrated	within	three	main	recreation	areas	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	

including:	1)	Mount	Goliath	Research	Natural	Area;	2)	Summit	Lake	Park,	National	Natural	

Landmark;	and	3)	Mount	Evans	summit	area.	The	Mount	Goliath	Research	Natural	Area	has	a	16‐

space	paved	parking	lot;	Summit	Lake	Park	has	a	45‐space	dirt	parking	area;	and	the	Mount	Evans	

summit	area	has	just	under	40	paved	parking	spaces.	

Figure 4‐18. Mount Evans Recreation Area.
387

Figure 4‐19. Mount Evans Recreation Area facilities.

Visitation	to	MERA	has	been	relatively	steady,	or	slightly	increasing	since	the	early	2000s,	and	

presently	averages	around	120,000	visitors	per	year.	As	noted,	visitor	use	at	MERA	occurs	within	a	

relatively	short	use	season	(approximately	a	4‐month	period),	and	tends	to	be	heavily	concentrated	

along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	itself,	and	at	the	Summit	Lake	Park	and	Mount	Evans	summit	

areas.	Intensive	and	narrowly	concentrated	visitation	at	MERA	is	the	cause	of	a	number	of	

transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	issues,	which	are	described	below.	

Parking Demand Exceeds Capacity

During	peak	periods	of	the	visitor	use	season	at	MERA,	parking	shortages	at	Summit	Lake	Park	

(Figure	4‐20)	and	the	Mount	Evans	Summit	(Figure	4‐21)	area	are	severe.	At	Mount	Goliath,	the	

parking	lot	reaches,	but	does	not	exceed	capacity.	For	example,	results	of	the	transportation	and	
388

visitor	use	study	conducted	at	MERA	during	summer	2012	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	summer	

days,	parking	demand	substantially	exceeds	parking	capacity	at	MERA	from	late	morning	through	

late	afternoon/early	evening	with	numerous	vehicles	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	along	the	

roadside	(Figure	4‐22).	The	study	results	further	suggest	that	during	the	peak	hours	on	typically	

busy	summer	days,	the	number	of	parked	cars	at	MERA	reaches	an	“absolute	limit”	(i.e.,	not	even	

room	for	unendorsed	roadside	parking)	of	over	50%	above	parking	capacity;	this	implies	that	

during	the	peak	hours	of	summer	days	at	MERA	there	is	complete	gridlock	on	upper	sections	of	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway,	with	many	cars	moving	slowly	or	stopped	in	traffic	on	the	road,	waiting	for	

a	place	to	park.	These	circumstances	cause	visitor	frustration	and	traffic	safety	issues	on	the	steep,	

narrow	roadway.	

Figure 4‐20. Summit Lake parking accumulation, summer 2012.

Figure 4‐21. Summit area parking accumulation, summer 2012.
389

Figure 4‐22. Mount Evans overall parking accumulation, summer 2012.

Roadside Parking

As	noted,	on	typically	busy	

summer	days	at	MERA,	the	

designated	parking	lots	at	

Summit	Lake	Park	and	the	Mount	

Evans	summit	area	fill	to	

capacity	by	mid‐	to	late	morning,	

and	remain	full	until	early	to	late	

afternoon.	When	the	designated	

lots	are	full	at	these	locations,	

visitors	park	in	nearby	

undesignated	locations	along	the	

roadside	(Figure	4‐24).	For	

example,	results	of	the	summer	

2012	study	at	MERA	suggest	that	during	the	peak	hours	of	typically	busy	summer	days	at	the	

Mount	Evans	summit	area,	there	are	as	many	or	more	cars	parked	in	undesignated	roadside	

locations	as	in	designated	spaces	in	the	parking	lot.	Visitors	who	park	along	the	roadside	must	walk	

relatively	long	distances	at	high	altitude	in	or	near	moving	traffic	on	the	narrow,	winding	road,	

which	exposes	them	to	risks	of	pedestrian‐vehicle	crashes.	Vehicles	parked	along	the	roadside	at	

Summit	Lake	Park	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit	area	also	greatly	impact	the	quality	of	visitors’	

scenic	driving	and	hiking	experiences.	Additionally,	roadside	parking	in	undesignated	spaces	causes	

undue	impacts	to	natural	resources	and	impairs	proper	drainage	along	the	highway.	In	particular,	

results	of	the	resource	condition	assessment	conducted	at	MERA	during	summer	2012	suggest	

Figure 4‐23. Mount Evans summit, summer 2012.
390

there	are	nearly	1,700	square	feet	of	trampled	soils	and	vegetation	at	MERA	attributable	to	impacts	

from	unendorsed	parking.	These	issues	are	exacerbated	by	the	fact	that	some	visitors	park	along	or	

in	the	roadway	to	view	and	photograph	wildlife.	Thus,	alternative	transportation	strategies	are	

needed	to	minimize	or	eliminate	roadside	parking	at	MERA.	

Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Traffic Conflicts on the Mount Evans Highway

Results	of	the	summer	2012	study	at	

MERA	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	

summer	days,	more	than	50	cyclists	

climb	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	to	

the	summit.	Climbing	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway	to	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans	is	popular	with	cyclists,	

despite	the	fact	that	the	narrow,	

winding	roadway	has	virtually	no	

shoulder	and	very	poor	sight	lines	

(Figure	4‐25).	Vehicles	must	cross	the	

center	line	into	oncoming	traffic	to	

pass	bicycles,	and	when	headed	

downhill,	bicyclists	are	often	in	the	

center	of	the	lane.	These	

circumstances	expose	cyclists	and	

motorists	to	significant	traffic	safety	

hazards.	

Wilderness Use and Visitor Use Crowding

While	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	itself	

is	not	located	within	congressionally	

designated	Wilderness,	it	is	

surrounded	on	both	sides	by	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

Correspondingly,	most	of	the	trails	in	

MERA	are	located	in	congressionally	

designated	Wilderness.	For	example,	

the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	which	is	

only	a	quarter‐mile	from	a	designated	

parking	lot,	is	located	within	the	

boundaries	of	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness.	Consequently,	high	

visitor	densities	and	crowding	occur	

on	the	Mount	Evans	summit	and	at	

other	popular	destinations	in	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness	(Figure	4‐26).	For	example,	results	of	the	summer	2012	study	at	MERA	

Figure 4‐24. Bicycle and vehicle traffic on Mount Evans

Highway, summer 2012.

Figure 4‐25. Mount Evans summit, summer 2012.
391

suggest	that	during	peak	hours	of	typically	busy	summer	days,	there	are	as	many	as	60	people	on	

the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	at	one	time.	This	results	in	a	density	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	

Evans	that	is	characterized	in	capacity	planning	guidelines	(i.e.,	the	Transportation	Research	

Board’s	Highway	Capacity	Manual)	as	slightly	crowded	for	an	urban	environment,	such	as	a	city	

sidewalk.	Thus,	while	the	USFS	is	legally	mandated	by	the	Wilderness	Act	of	1964	to	manage	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness	for,	among	other	things,	opportunities	for	visitors	to	experience	solitude,	

there	is	relatively	intensive	visitor	use	and	crowding	at	popular	Wilderness	destinations	in	MERA.	

Consequently,	measures	are	needed	to	manage	visitor	use	levels	at	MERA	according	to	Wilderness	

management	objectives	and	corresponding	user	capacities,	for	example,	by	limiting	access	to	the	

extent	of	designated	parking	capacities	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	area	and/or	other	trailheads	

along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	

Traffic Congestion at the Entrance to MERA

Results	of	the	summer	2012	study	

conducted	at	MERA	suggest	that,	on	

typically	busy	summer	days,	more	than	

1,000	vehicles	enter	MERA	per	day.	In	

addition,	the	study	results	suggest	during	

the	peak	hour	of	busy	summer	days,	more	

than	150	vehicles	pass	through	the	

Welcome	Station;	this	equates	to	close	to	

three	vehicles	passing	through	the	

Welcome	Station	per	minute	during	busy	

periods.	Correspondingly,	long	lines	of	

traffic	form	at	the	Welcome	Station	on	

typically	busy	summer	days,	and	during	

particularly	busy	periods,	traffic	backs	up	

onto	Colorado	Highway	103	(Figure	4‐27).	

Traffic	congestion	at	the	Welcome	Station	

causes	visitor	frustration	at	the	onset	of	

visitors’	experiences	at	MERA,	and	when	traffic	backs	up	onto	Highway	103,	it	creates	traffic	safety	

hazards	for	MERA	visitors	and	other	highway	travelers.	

Figure 4‐26. Mount Evans Welcome Station queue,

summer 2012.
392

Deteriorating Roadway Conditions and Driver Safety on the Mount Evans

Highway

The	Colorado	Department	of	

Transportation	(CDOT)	maintains	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway,	including	plowing	

the	roadway	in	late	spring/early	summer	

to	open	MERA	for	the	recreational	visitor	

use	season.	The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	

in	deteriorating	condition	due	to	its	

exposure	to	harsh	climatic	conditions;	for	

example,	sections	of	the	roadbed	are	

situated	on	perma‐frost	and	consequently	

have	substantial	and	ongoing	frost‐heave	

damage	(Figure	4‐28).	Similarly,	road	

shoulders	have	sloughed	off	along	sections	

of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	and	the	steep	

terrain	makes	repairs	and	reinforcement	

to	these	sections	of	road	infeasible.	

Correspondingly,	CDOT	has	expressed	ongoing	concerns	about	the	costs	and	feasibility	of	

maintaining	the	roadway	for	recreational	vehicle	access	in	the	long	term.	Moreover,	the	

deteriorating	condition	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	coupled	with	outstanding	scenic	views	from	

the	roadway	are	sources	of	concern	among	visitors,	CDOT,	and	the	USFS	about	visitors’	safety	while	

driving	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

Advanced Trip Planning and Traveler Information for MERA Visitors

Results	of	previous	visitor	surveys	conducted	by	the	USFS	suggest	visitors	to	MERA	receive	

information	about	the	recreation	area	primarily	through	friends	and	family	or	through	the	USFS	

website3.	The	information	available	to	MERA	visitors	is	generally	limited	to	driving	directions	to	

MERA	and	opportunities	for	recreation	activities	at	MERA;	correspondingly,	visitors	have	reported	

in	previous	visitor	surveys	that	they	are	only	marginally	satisfied	with	the	information.	

Importantly,	there	is	little	or	no	information	available	to	help	MERA	visitors	make	trip‐planning	

decisions	based	on	parking,	traffic,	and	visitor	use	conditions	they	are	likely	to	experience	at	

different	times	of	day,	days	of	week,	and	seasons.	Information	is	needed	about	the	best	times	to	

visit	MERA	to	avoid	parking	shortages,	traffic	congestion,	and	visitor	crowding.	This	information	

needs	to	be	distributed	through	multiple	outlets	(e.g.,	websites,	smartphone	apps,	regional	visitor	

centers,	roadside	signs,	etc.)	to	ensure	the	information	is	delivered	as	far	in	advance	of	visitors	trip	

to	or	arrival	at	MERA	as	possible.	This	information	is	needed	to	help	ensure	that	those	who	are	

particularly	sensitive	to	congestion	and	crowding	issues	can	make	informed	decisions	about	when	

to	visit	MERA	during	off‐peak	times,	and	to	more	generally	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	

peak	periods.	Similarly,	advanced	traveler	information	is	needed	to	inform	people	as	early	in	their	

trip	as	possible	when	parking	lots	are	full	at	MERA	and	about	their	alternative	parking	and	

recreation	options.	

																																																													

3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Interpretive Strategy (2005).

Figure 4‐27. Mount Evans Highway road damage,

summer 2012.
393

Chapter 5:ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS BY SITE
394

Introduction

Chapter 5: Alternative Components by Site	presents	descriptions	of	identified	potential	alternative	

transportation	and	visitor	use	management	components	to	provide	the	USFS	with	the	tools	needed	

to	address	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	needs	at	BLRA,	GP,	and	

MERA.	Within	the	section	for	each	site,	alternative	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	

components	are	organized	into	transit	and	nontransit	components.	While	each	component	is	

presented	as	a	“stand	alone”	option	presently,	individual	components	were	ultimately	bundled	to	

maximize	their	efficiency	and	effectiveness	in	final	recommendations.	

Alternative	components	are	presented	for	each	site,	organized	into	transit‐related	components	and	

non‐transit‐related	components.	Alternative	components	for	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	are	

presented	first,	followed	by	components	for	Guanella	Pass	and	Mount	Evans	Recreation	Area.	
395

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Alternative Components

Potential Transit Components

It	is	anticipated	the	following	transit	service	components	could	help	reduce	peak‐period	parking	

demand	and	shortages	in	BLRA,	improve	visitor	access	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	

the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads,	and	manage	visitor	access	to	the	IPW	according	to	

crowding‐related	capacities.	

Shuttle Service from Nederland, Colorado, to the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	the	Regional	Transportation	District	(RTD)	park‐and‐ride	lot	

in	Nederland,	Colorado,	and	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	BLRA,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	

at	designated	lodging	establishments	(e.g.,	hotels)	and	in	Ward,	Colorado.	Existing	facilities	would	

be	used	for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	at	the	RTD	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Nederland,	

Colorado,	and	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	and	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	

designated	at	en	route	shuttle	stops,	as	needed.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	

holidays	from	mid‐June	through	Labor	Day,	and	be	coordinated	with	shuttle	service	between	

Boulder,	Colorado,	and	Nederland,	Colorado.	Shuttle	service	would	be	operated	according	to	

ridership	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW.	

Shuttle Service Within BLRA

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	

Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	

Lot	and	Red	Rock	Lake.	Existing	facilities	would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	in	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	and	loading/unloading	

areas	would	be	designated	in	the	trailhead	parking	lots	and	at	Red	Rock	Lake.	Shuttle	service	would	

operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	mid‐June	through	Labor	Day.	Shuttle	service	would	be	

operated	according	to	ridership	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW.	

Potential Non‐transit Components

Site Design Improvements

Potential	site	design	improvements	include	those	that	alter	parking	capacities	in	BLRA	to	

simultaneously	maximize	public	access	and	protect	Wilderness	resource	values	in	the	IPW.	

Improved	bicycle	and/or	pedestrian	connections	could	provide	visitors	with	safe,	enjoyable,	and	

easy‐to‐use	access	among	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	

Brainard	Lake,	and	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads.	In	addition,	trail	system	

improvements	could	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	IPW	to	areas	east	of	Brainard	Lake,	

which	is	consistent	with	management	objectives	for	BLRA	(see	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation

Area Summary of Data and Findings	for	discussion	of	proposed	trail	alignments).	Thus,	the	following	

components	will	be	evaluated	in	this	study	to	assess	the	potential	of	each	to	improve	

transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management	in	BLRA.	
396

Hiking, bicycling, and pedestrian access

 Accessible loop trail around Brainard Lake:	A	universally	accessible	nature	trail	would	

be	constructed	around	Brainard	Lake,	providing	access	for	pedestrians,	bicyclists,	and	

visitors	with	mobility	impairments.	The	trail	would	enhance	recreational	opportunities	in	

BLRA	and	potentially	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	IPW.	

 Loop trail connecting the Sourdough and Little Raven Trails: New	trail	alignments	

would	be	developed	to	connect	the	Sourdough	and	Little	Raven	Trails.	The	new	trail	

alignments	would	create	opportunities	for	loop	hikes	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot	and	potentially	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	IPW.

 Trail connecting the Little Raven Trail to Left Hand Park Reservoir: A	new	trail	

alignment	would	be	developed	to	connect	the	Little	Raven	Trail	to	Left	Hand	Park	

Reservoir.	The	new	trail	alignment	would	provide	off‐road	pedestrian	and	bicycle	access	to	

Left	Hand	Park	Reservoir	and	potentially	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	IPW.

 Bicycle and pedestrian path from the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Brainard

Lake via the Waldrop Trail: A	new	bicycle	and	pedestrian	path	would	be	developed	from	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	Brainard	Lake.	The	path	would	follow	the	existing	

alignment	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	Waldrop	Trail	and	continue	along	

the	existing	Waldrop	Trail	alignment	until	it	begins	to	head	north.	A	new	trail	alignment	

would	be	developed	from	where	the	Waldrop	Trail	begins	to	head	north	to	the	Pawnee	

Campground	and	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot.	The	bicycle	and	pedestrian	path	

would	provide	off‐road	pedestrian	and	bicycle	access	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot	to	Brainard	Lake.

 Trail connecting Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot to IPW trailheads: A	new	trail	

alignment	would	be	developed	to	provide	pedestrian	access	from	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	

Use	Parking	Lot	to	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads.	The	new	trail	alignment	

would	follow	the	pedestrian‐only	section	of	Brainard	Lake	Road	on	the	north	side	of	

Brainard	Lake	to	the	Mitchell	Creek	Picnic	Area.	From	the	Mitchell	Creek	Picnic	Area,	the	

new	trail	alignment	would	follow	the	most	reasonable	course	to	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	

Lake	Trailheads,	based	on	consideration	of	slopes,	soils,	distance,	and	road	crossings.

Parking areas

 Expand the size of parking lots at the IPW trailheads: New	parking	spaces	would	be	

added	to	the	existing	paved	parking	lots	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	and/or	Long	Lake	Trailheads	

to	increase	parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	shortages	that	occur	during	peak	

periods	of	visitor	use.	Parking	lots	would	be	sized	according	to	parking	demand	and	

crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW.	

 Reduce the size of parking lots at the IPW trailheads: The	size	of	the	existing	parking	

lots	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	and/or	Long	Lake	Trailheads,	and	the	number	of	designated	

parking	spaces	there,	would	be	reduced	to	manage	visitor	access	according	to	crowding‐

related	capacities	for	the	IPW.
397

 Expand the size of the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot: New	parking	spaces	would	

be	added	to	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	to	increase	parking	capacity	and	help	

address	parking	shortages	that	occur	during	peak	periods	of	visitor	use.	The	parking	lot	

would	be	sized	according	to	parking	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW.

 Reduce the size of the Brainard Lake Day Use Parking Lot: The	size	of	the	existing	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	and	the	number	of	designated	parking	spaces	there,	

would	be	reduced	to	manage	visitor	access	according	to	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	

IPW.

 Reconfigure and re‐stripe existing parking facilities to optimize parking efficiency at

the IPW trailheads: Parking	areas	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailheads	would	be	

reconfigured	and	re‐striped	to	maximize	efficient	use	of	the	existing	paved	footprint.	This	

would	potentially	improve	traffic	circulation	in	the	trailhead	parking	lots	and	help	address	

parking	shortages	that	occur	during	peak	periods	of	visitor	use.	Parking	lots	would	be	

configured	according	to	parking	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW.

ITS and Visitor Information

Intelligent	Transportation	System	(ITS)	technologies	are	commonly	employed	in	public	lands	

recreation	areas	to	convey	real‐time	and	historical	travel,	parking,	and	weather	information.	The	

following	ITS	and	visitor	information	components	could	be	used	to	provide	information	about	the	

best	times	to	visit	BLRA	to	avoid	parking	shortages,	traffic	congestion,	and	visitor	crowding,	which	

would	potentially	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	peak	periods.	Similarly,	the	below	ITS	and	

visitor	information	components	could	be	used	to	inform	people	as	early	in	their	trip	as	possible	

when	parking	lots	are	full	at	BLRA	and	of	their	options.	In	addition,	visitor	information	components	

could	be	used	to	improve	wayfinding	in	BLRA	and	reduce	visitor	confusion.	

 Variable Message Signs (VMS): Variable	message	signs	would	be	placed	in	approved	

highway	locations	en	route	to	BLRA	(e.g.,	I‐70,	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway).	Messages	displayed	

on	the	VMS	could	be	used	to	inform	visitors	of	parking	and	visitor	use	conditions	at	BLRA	

and	potentially	persuade	some	people	to	visit	BLRA	during	off‐peak	periods.	This	

component	could	be	coupled	with	one	or	more	transit	components	to	display	information	

about	shuttle	service	and	park‐and‐ride	options.	Similarly,	this	component	could	be	used	in	

conjunction	with	a	permit	system	and	quota	to	inform	people	about	their	options	for	

accessing	BLRA	and	the	IPW.

 Highway Advisory Radio (HAR): It	would	be	possible	to	use	VMS	units	with	integrated	

Highway	Advisory	Radio	(HAR)	systems	that	travelers	could	listen	to	on	an	AM	frequency.	

The	HAR	systems	would	allow	for	more	detailed	information	to	be	conveyed	than	the	VMS	

would	alone.	In	this	case,	the	VMS	would	display	a	message	instructing	visitors	to	“tune	in”	

to	a	specific	AM	station	for	BLRA	information.

 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, and Apps: Website	information	and	smart	phone	

apps	would	be	targeted	at	reaching	visitors	before	they	begin	their	trip	to	BLRA.	Messages	

and	related	content	would	be	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	information	about	the	
398

advantages	of	visiting	BLRA	during	off‐peak	periods	and	to	set	expectations	about	peak	

period	conditions.	In	addition,	links	to	websites	and	information	about	other	outdoor	

recreation	and	tourist	destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	BLRA	would	be	provided	to	inform	

visitors	of	options	to	consider	as	alternatives	to	visiting	BLRA	during	peak	periods.	

 Improved Onsite Wayfinding:	Improved	wayfinding	signage	at	key	locations	in	BLRA	

would	help	reduce	visitor	confusion	about	how	to	get	to	and	from	parking	lots	and/or	

shuttle	stops	to	their	destinations	in	BLRA.	

Parking Management

Implementation	of	the	following	parking	management	components	would	help	address	impacts	to	

public	safety,	forest	resources,	the	scenery	of	the	area,	and	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences	due	

to	parking	in	undesignated	areas	and	traffic	circling	through	full	parking	lots	searching	for	places	to	

park.	

 Dedicated traffic and parking management team: A	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	

management	team	would	continue	to	be	deployed	at	BLRA	during	the	peak	summer	visitor	

use	season	(mid‐June	through	Labor	Day).	The	team	would	operate	daily	during	the	peak	

summer	season	from	early	morning	to	midafternoon,	with	one	staff	member	stationed	at	

each	of	the	two	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	(i.e.,	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailhead	

Parking	Lots).	The	IPW	trailhead	parking	lot	monitors	would	use	two‐way	radios	to	inform	

a	third	member	of	the	parking	management	team	and	the	staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	when	

the	trailhead	parking	lots	are	full,	and	when	parking	spaces	become	available	again	after	the	

lots	are	full.	The	third	member	of	the	parking	management	team	would	be	positioned	at	

various	locations	in	BLRA	throughout	the	day,	depending	on	where	parking	is	available.	

This	“roving”	member	of	the	parking	management	team	would	be	responsible	for	directing	

visitors	to	available	parking	spaces	and	blocking	the	roadway	to	prevent	visitors	from	

driving	to	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	when	they	are	full.	Staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	

would	inform	arriving	visitors	of	their	parking	options,	based	on	the	information	they	

receive	via	radio	from	the	three	members	of	the	parking	management	team	and	parking	

management	policies.

 Traffic queuing at Courtesy Station when parking lots are full: When	the	IPW	trailhead	

parking	lots	and	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	are	full,	staff	members	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	BLRA.	Visitors	would	be	given	the	option	

to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	or	wait	in	their	vehicles	at	the	Courtesy	

Station	until	other	visitors	leave	and	parking	spaces	become	available	in	BLRA.

 Mandatory parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when other lots are full: When	

the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	and	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	are	full,	staff	

members	at	the	Courtesy	Station	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	BLRA.	Visitors	would	be	

required	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	would	not	be	allowed	to	wait	in	

their	vehicles	at	the	Courtesy	Station	for	parking	spaces	to	become	available	in	BLRA.	

Visitors	would	be	allowed	to	enter	BLRA	again,	after	the	peak	hours	of	the	day	when	a	

substantive	number	of	parking	spaces	are	available	in	BLRA.
399

 Mandatory parking in offsite lot when all BLRA lots are full: When	all	parking	lots	at	

BLRA	are	full,	including	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	staff	members	at	the	Courtesy	

Station	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	BLRA.	Visitors	would	be	required	to	park	in	an	

offsite	lot	(e.g.,	in	Nederland,	Colorado)	for	access	to	BLRA.	This	option	would	be	combined	

with	transit	service	from	the	offsite	parking	lot	to	BLRA.

 Paid parking: Visitors	who	wish	to	park	in	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	and/or	the	

Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	would	be	required	to	pay	a	parking	fee	that	would	be	in	

addition	to	the	amenity	fee	to	enter	BLRA.	Visitors	would	be	required	to	pay	the	fee	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	or	an	automated	machine	at	the	parking	lots	and	display	a	parking	permit	

in	their	vehicles.

 Signs and/or barriers to prevent unendorsed roadside parking: Existing	barriers	and	

signs	would	be	retained	to	prevent	roadside	parking	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	access	

road	to	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trailhead	Parking	Lots,	where	it	once	occurred	in	

large	numbers.	In	addition,	roadside	barriers	would	be	installed	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	

south	of	Brainard	Lake	to	prevent	roadside	parking	from	occurring	when	moose	are	sighted	

in	the	area.

 Designated parking for wildlife viewing: Designated	parking	would	be	developed	on	

Brainard	Lake	Road	south	of	Brainard	Lake	to	provide	a	place	for	visitors	to	park	and	view	

wildlife	when	moose	are	sighted	in	the	area.

Visitor Use Management

Visitor	use	management	strategies	would	help	to	shift	visitor	use	away	from	the	most	congested	

locations,	days,	and	times	of	day	at	BLRA.	The	following	visitor	use	management	strategies	range	

from	those	that	attempt	to	persuade	visitors	to	change	their	behaviors	to	those	that	require	visitors	

to	change	their	behavior.	

 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak periods: To	encourage	visitation	during	

off‐peak	periods,	the	BLRA	amenity	fee	would	be	increased	during	peak	seasons,	days,	

and/or	hours	of	the	day,	and/or	reduced	during	off‐peak	periods.	Increased	peak‐period	

fees	would	generate	additional	revenue	and	serve	as	a	potentially	effective	way	to	dis‐

incentivize	visitation	during	peak	periods.	However,	fee	increases	may	be	unpopular	with	

the	public	and	potentially	raises	issues	of	equitable	access	to	BLRA.	In	either	case,	the	

effectiveness	and	acceptability	of	a	variable	amenity	fee	structure	would	require	that	it	be	

clearly	explained	so	that	visitors	are	aware	of	and	understand	their	options.

 Day use permit system and quota for Indian Peaks Wilderness trailheads: A	permit	

system	and	quota	would	be	implemented	to	limit	the	number	of	day	use	visitors	allowed	to	

hike	in	the	IPW	per	day.	Under	such	a	system,	visitors	would	be	required	to	obtain	and	

display	a	permit	for	a	specific	date	and	time	period	during	which	they	would	be	allowed	to	

hike	in	the	IPW.	An	online	permit	system	could	be	used	to	allow	visitors	to	obtain	their	

permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	to	BLRA,	or	permits	could	be	obtained	at	one	or	more	

locations	in	BLRA	(e.g.,	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	Courtesy	Station)	when	visitors	
400

arrive.	The	number	and	distribution	of	day	use	hiking	permits	would	be	based	on	crowding‐

related	capacities	for	the	IPW	and	operational	capacity	of	BLRA	(i.e.,	parking	capacities,	

shuttle	service	capacities	if	applicable,	etc.).

 Temporary closures when parking lots are full: During	particularly	busy	periods	at	

BLRA	visitors	would	be	directed	to	other	recreation	and	tourism	destinations	in	the	area,	

rather	than	being	allowed	to	visit	BLRA.

Guanella Pass Alternative Components

Potential Transit Components

It	is	anticipated	the	hiker	shuttle	service	components	described	below	could	help	reduce	peak‐

period	parking	demand	and	shortages	at	GP,	and	manage	visitor	access	to	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

and	summit	according	to	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	The	transit‐

based	interpretive	tour	components	described	in	this	subsection	could	help	shift	some	use	away	

from	GP	to	less	crowded	and	congested	attractions	along	the	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway.	

Hiker Shuttle Service from Georgetown, Colorado, to GP

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	and	

GP,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	the	Clear	Lake	and	Guanella	Pass	Campgrounds,	and	the	Silver	

Dollar	parking	area.	Existing	facilities	would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	at	the	

designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	to	the	extent	possible,	and	

loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	en	route	shuttle	stops	and	GP.	Shuttle	service	

would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	Hours	

of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use/hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	

and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	managing	surges	in	ridership	demand	at	GP	in	the	

event	of	thunderstorms.	More	generally,	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	according	to	ridership	

demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

Hiker Shuttle Service from Guanella Pass Road to GP

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	on	Guanella	Pass	Road,	and	

GP,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	key	visitor	destinations	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	(e.g.,	the	Clear	

Lake	and	Guanella	Pass	Campgrounds	and	the	Silver	Dollar	parking	area,	if	en	route).	

Loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	the	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot,	en	route	shuttle	

stops,	and	GP.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	

weekend	through	Labor	Day.	Hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	

use/hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	managing	

surges	in	ridership	demand	at	GP	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	More	generally,	shuttle	service	

would	be	operated	according	to	ridership	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	

Evans	Wilderness.	

Interpretive Tour from Georgetown, Colorado, Via Van or Shuttle Bus on Guanella Pass Road

A	shuttle	bus	would	operate	along	Guanella	Pass	Road	at	regular	intervals	on	weekends	and	

holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	tour	would	include	interpretation	
401

about	the	natural	and	cultural	resources	of	the	forest	and	surrounding	areas,	delivered	by	the	bus	

driver	or	via	a	recording.	The	tour	would	originate	at	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	

Colorado,	and	it	would	include	several	stops	along	Guanella	Pass	Road,	including	Silverdale	day	use	

area,	Clear	Lake,	Upper	Cabin	Creek	Reservoir	Trailhead,	Silver	Dollar	Lake,	and	the	Guanella	Pass	

parking	lot.	New	facilities	or	designations	for	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	developed	at	all	

stops,	and	each	stop	would	include	an	opportunity	for	passengers	to	unload	and	briefly	explore	the	

area.	Tour	frequency	and	hours	of	operation	would	be	based	upon	demand.	The	tour	would	operate	

as	a	round‐trip	service,	with	potential	for	a	hop‐on/hop‐off	service	if	there	is	sufficient	demand.	

This	service	could	be	operated	by	a	concessionaire,	with	a	tour	fee	charged	to	passengers.	

Interpretive Tour from Denver, Colorado, Via Van or Shuttle Bus on Guanella Pass Road

A	shuttle	bus	would	operate	along	Guanella	Pass	Road	at	regular	intervals	on	weekends	and	

holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	tour	would	include	interpretation	

about	the	natural	and	cultural	resources	of	the	forest	and	surrounding	areas,	delivered	by	the	bus	

driver	or	via	a	recording.	The	tour	would	originate	at	a	central	location	in	Denver,	Colorado,	that	is	

accessible	by	transit	and	also	provides	parking.	The	tour	would	include	several	stops	along	

Guanella	Pass	Road,	including	Silverdale	day	use	area,	Clear	Lake,	Upper	Cabin	Creek	Reservoir	

trailhead,	Silver	Dollar	Lake,	and	the	Guanella	Pass	parking	lot.	New	facilities	or	designations	for	

loading/unloading	areas	would	be	developed	at	all	stops,	and	each	stop	would	include	an	

opportunity	for	passengers	to	unload	and	briefly	explore	the	area.	The	tour	would	operate	as	a	

round‐trip	service,	with	one	trip	per	day	on	weekends	and	holidays.	Due	to	the	length	of	the	tour,	

there	would	not	be	potential	for	hop‐on/hop‐off	service.	This	service	could	be	operated	by	a	

concessionaire,	with	a	tour	fee	charged	to	passengers.	

Potential Non‐transit Components

Site Design Improvements

Potential	site	design	improvements	include	those	that	alter	the	parking	capacity	at	GP	to	

simultaneously	maximize	public	access	and	protect	Wilderness	resource	values	in	the	adjacent	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness,	as	follows.	

Parking areas

 Expand the size of parking lots at GP: New	parking	spaces	would	be	added	to	the	existing	

paved	parking	lots	at	GP	to	increase	parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	shortages	

that	occur	during	peak	periods	of	visitor	use.	Parking	lots	would	be	sized	according	to	

parking	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

 Reduce the size of parking lots at GP: The	size	of	the	existing	parking	lots	and	number	of	

designated	parking	spaces	at	GP	would	be	reduced	to	manage	visitor	access	according	to	

crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

 Widen road shoulders for designated roadside parking at GP: Guanella	Pass	Road	

would	be	widened	at	GP	and	striping	would	be	used	to	designate	roadside	parking	spaces	to	

increase	parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	shortages	that	occur	during	peak	

periods	of	visitor	use.	The	number	of	roadside	parking	spaces	would	be	designated	
402

according	to	parking	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness.

ITS and Visitor Information

As	noted,	ITS	technologies	are	commonly	employed	in	public	lands	recreation	areas	to	convey	real‐

time	and	historical	travel,	parking,	and	weather	information.	The	following	ITS	and	visitor	

information	components	could	be	used	to	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	peak	periods	at	GP.	

 Variable Message Signs (VMS): Variable	message	signs	would	be	placed	in	approved	

highway	locations	en	route	to	GP	(e.g.,	I‐70,	Guanella	Pass	Road	near	Georgetown,	Colorado,	

and	Grant,	Colorado).	Messages	displayed	on	the	VMS	could	be	used	to	inform	visitors	of	

parking	and	visitor	use	conditions	at	GP	and	potentially	persuade	some	people	to	visit	GP	

during	off‐peak	periods.	This	component	could	be	coupled	with	one	or	more	transit	

components	to	display	information	about	shuttle	service	and	park‐and‐ride	options.	

Similarly,	this	component	could	be	used	in	conjunction	with	a	permit	system	and	quota	to	

inform	people	about	their	options	for	accessing	GP	and	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.

 Highway Advisory Radio (HAR): It	would	be	possible	to	use	VMS	units	with	integrated	

Highway	Advisory	Radio	(HAR)	systems	that	travelers	could	listen	to	on	an	AM	frequency.	

The	HAR	systems	would	allow	for	more	detailed	information	to	be	conveyed	than	the	VMS	

would	alone.	In	this	case,	the	VMS	would	display	a	message	instructing	visitors	to	“tune	in”	

to	a	specific	AM	station	for	GP	information.

 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, and Apps: Website	information	and	smart	phone	

apps	would	be	targeted	at	reaching	visitors	before	they	begin	their	trip	to	GP.	Messages	and	

related	content	would	be	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	information	about	the	

advantages	of	visiting	GP	during	off‐peak	periods	and	to	set	expectations	about	peak	period	

conditions.	In	addition,	links	to	websites	and	information	about	other	outdoor	recreation	

and	tourist	destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	GP	would	be	provided	to	inform	visitors	of	options	

to	consider	as	alternatives	to	visiting	GP	during	peak	periods.

Parking Management

Implementation	of	the	following	parking	management	components	would	help	address	impacts	to	

public	safety,	forest	resources,	the	scenery	of	the	area,	and	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences	due	

to	parking	in	undesignated	areas	and	traffic	circling	through	full	parking	lots	searching	for	places	to	

park.	

 Dedicated traffic and parking management team: A	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	

management	team	would	be	deployed	at	GP	on	weekend	days	during	the	peak	summer	

visitor	use	season	(approximately	Memorial	Day	Weekend	through	Labor	Day).	The	parking	

management	team	would	operate	from	early	morning	to	midafternoon,	with	two	or	three	

staff	members	stationed	near	the	parking	lot	entrances	at	GP	on	Guanella	Pass	Road.	The	

parking	management	team	staff	would	be	responsible	for	directing	visitors	to	available	

parking	spaces	in	the	designated	parking	lots	and	directing	traffic	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	

when	the	parking	lots	are	full.	If	roadside	parking	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	is	prohibited,	the	
403

parking	management	team	staff	would	be	responsible	for	enforcing	this	parking	policy	by	

directing	visitors	to	other	destinations,	and	informing	them	of	options	to	return	during	less	

congested	times	and/or	days.

 Mandatory parking in offsite lot when all GP lots are full: When	all	parking	lots	at	GP	

are	full,	visitors	would	be	required	to	park	in	an	offsite	lot	(e.g.,	in	Georgetown,	Colorado)	

for	access	to	GP.	This	option	would	be	combined	with	transit	service	from	the	offsite	

parking	lot	to	GP.	In	addition,	it	is	likely	this	option	would	require	a	dedicated	traffic	and	

parking	management	team	at	GP	to	enforce	this	parking	policy.

 Paid parking at GP: Visitors	who	wish	to	park	in	the	GP	parking	lots	would	be	required	to	

pay	a	parking	fee	using	an	automated	machine	at	the	parking	lots	and	display	a	parking	

permit	in	their	vehicles.

 Signs and/or barriers to prevent unendorsed roadside parking: Roadside	barriers	

and/or	signs	would	be	installed	on	both	sides	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	at	GP	to	prevent	

roadside	parking	from	occurring	when	the	parking	lots	at	GP	are	full.	It	is	likely	this	option	

would	require	a	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	team	at	GP	to	enforce	this	

parking	policy.

Visitor Use Management

Visitor	use	management	strategies	would	help	to	shift	visitor	use	away	from	the	most	congested	

days	and/or	times	of	day	at	GP	and	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	The	following	visitor	use	

management	strategies	range	from	those	that	attempt	to	persuade	visitors	to	change	their	

behaviors	to	those	that	require	visitors	to	change	their	behavior.	

 Amenity fee for visitor access during peak periods: To	encourage	visitation	during	off‐

peak	periods,	an	amenity	fee	would	be	charged	for	visitor	access	at	GP	during	peak	seasons,	

days,	and/or	hours	of	the	day.	Peak‐period	fees	would	generate	additional	revenue	and	

serve	as	a	potentially	effective	way	to	dis‐incentivize	visitation	during	peak	periods.	

However,	fee	increases	may	be	unpopular	with	the	public	and	potentially	raises	issues	of	

equitable	access	to	GP.	In	either	case,	the	effectiveness	and	acceptability	of	an	amenity	fee	at	

GP	would	require	that	it	be	clearly	explained	so	that	visitors	are	aware	of	and	understand	

their	options.

 Day use permit system and quota for Mount Bierstadt Trail/Mount Evans Wilderness:

A	permit	system	and	quota	would	be	implemented	to	limit	the	number	of	day	use	visitors	

allowed	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	per	day.	Under	such	a	system,	visitors	would	be	

required	to	obtain	and	display	a	permit	for	a	specific	date	and	time	period	during	which	

they	would	be	allowed	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	An	online	permit	system	could	be	

used	to	allow	visitors	to	obtain	their	permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	to	GP,	or	permits	could	

be	obtained	at	the	GP	parking	lot	when	visitors	arrive	there.	The	number	and	distribution	of	

day	use	hiking	permits	would	be	based	on	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail/Mount	Evans	Wilderness	and	operational	capacity	of	GP	(i.e.,	parking	

capacities,	shuttle	service	capacities	if	applicable,	etc.).	
404

Mount Evans Recreation Area Alternative Components

Potential Transit Components

It	is	anticipated	the	shuttle	service	components	described	below	could	help	reduce	peak‐period	

parking	demand	and	shortages	at	MERA,	and	manage	visitor	access	to	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	

according	to	crowding‐related	capacities.	The	transit‐based	interpretive	tour	components	

described	in	this	subsection	could	help	shift	some	use	away	from	peak	periods	to	less	crowded	and	

congested	times	of	day	and/or	days	of	the	week.	Tour	vans	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	would	

also	provide	an	opportunity	for	visitors	to	travel	the	route	without	the	challenges	or	potential	

safety	risks	of	driving	their	own	vehicles	on	the	narrow,	winding	roads.	This	may	be	a	particularly	

important	option	if	road	conditions	deteriorate	and	maintenance/repairs	become	financially	

and/or	operationally	infeasible.	

Shuttle Service from Idaho Springs, Colorado, to MERA

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	

and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	Lake,	Echo	Lake	Campground,	

Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	Summit	Lake.	A	transfer	from	full‐size	shuttle	buses	to	smaller	

buses	or	vans	would	occur	in	the	vicinity	of	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	for	travel	on	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway	between	the	Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	Existing	facilities	

would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	at	the	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Idaho	

Springs,	Colorado,	to	the	extent	possible;	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	en	route	

shuttle	stops	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans;	and	a	vehicle	transfer	area	would	be	designated	in	

the	vicinity	of	the	Welcome	Station.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	

Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	Hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hours	

of	visitor	use	at	MERA,	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	managing	surges	in	ridership	

demand	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	More	generally,	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	

according	to	ridership	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

Shuttle Service from Echo Lake to MERA

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	at	Echo	Lake,	and	the	summit	

of	Mount	Evans,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	Lake	Campground,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	

and	Summit	Lake.	Loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	Echo	Lake,	en	route	shuttle	

stops,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	

from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	Hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	

hours	of	visitor	use	at	MERA,	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	managing	surges	in	

ridership	demand	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	More	generally,	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	

according	to	ridership	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

Shuttle Service from a New Offsite Lot to MERA

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	newly	constructed	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	the	vicinity	of	

MERA,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	Lake	Campground,	

Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	Summit	Lake.	A	park‐and‐ride	lot	would	be	constructed	in	the	

vicinity	of	MERA,	and	include	a	designated	loading/unloading	area	for	shuttle	service.	In	addition,	

loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	en	route	shuttle	stops	and	the	summit	of	Mount	
405

Evans.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	

through	Labor	Day.	Hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	at	MERA,	

and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	managing	surges	in	ridership	demand	in	the	event	of	

thunderstorms.	More	generally,	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	according	to	ridership	demand	

and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

Interpretive Tour from Idaho Springs, Colorado, Via Van or Shuttle Bus to MERA

A	shuttle	bus	would	operate	along	Mount	Evans	Highway	at	regular	intervals	on	weekends	and	

holidays	(or	daily	if	there	is	sufficient	demand)from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	

The	tour	would	include	interpretation	about	the	forest,	history	of	the	area,	scenic	vistas,	and	

recreational	opportunities,	delivered	by	the	bus	driver	or	via	a	recording.	The	tour	would	originate	

at	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	and	it	would	include	several	stops,	

including	Echo	Lake,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

New	facilities	or	designations	for	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	developed	at	all	stops,	and	

each	stop	would	include	an	opportunity	for	passengers	to	unload	and	briefly	explore	the	area.	Tour	

frequency	and	hours	of	operation	would	be	based	upon	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	

for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	The	tour	would	operate	as	a	round‐trip	service,	with	potential	for	

a	hop‐on/hop‐off	service	if	there	is	sufficient	demand.	This	service	could	be	operated	by	a	

concessionaire,	with	a	tour	fee	charged	to	passengers.	

Interpretive Tour from Denver, Colorado, Via Van or Shuttle Bus to MERA

A	shuttle	bus	would	operate	along	Mount	Evans	Road	at	regular	intervals	on	weekends	and	

holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	tour	would	include	interpretation	

about	the	forest,	history	of	the	area,	scenic	vistas,	and	recreational	opportunities,	delivered	by	the	

bus	driver	or	via	a	recording.	The	tour	would	originate	at	a	central	location	in	Denver	that	is	

accessible	by	transit	and	also	provides	parking.	The	tour	would	include	several	stops,	including	

Echo	Lake,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	New	

facilities	or	designations	for	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	developed	at	all	stops,	and	each	stop	

would	include	an	opportunity	for	passengers	to	unload	and	briefly	explore	the	area.	The	tour	would	

operate	as	a	round‐trip	service,	with	one	trip	per	day	on	weekends	and	holidays.	Due	to	the	length	

of	the	tour,	there	would	not	be	potential	for	hop‐on/hop‐off	service.	This	service	could	be	operated	

by	a	concessionaire,	with	a	tour	fee	charged	to	passengers.	

Potential Non‐transit Components

Site Design Improvements

Potential	site	design	improvements	include	those	that	alter	the	parking	capacity	in	MERA	to	

simultaneously	maximize	public	access	and	protect	Wilderness	resource	values	in	the	adjacent	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	In	addition,	site	design	improvements	include	those	to	the	roadway	to	

help	reduce	conflicts	between	bicycles	and	motor	vehicles.	Thus,	the	following	components	will	be	

evaluated	in	this	study	to	assess	the	potential	of	each	to	improve	transportation,	recreation,	and	

resource	management	in	MERA.
406

Parking areas

 Expand the size of parking lots in MERA: New	parking	spaces	would	be	added	to	the	

existing	parking	lots	at	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and/or	summit	of	Mount	

Evans	to	increase	parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	shortages	that	occur	during	

peak	periods	of	visitor	use.	Parking	lots	would	be	sized	according	to	parking	demand	and	

crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

 Reduce the size of parking lots in MERA: The	size	of	the	existing	parking	lots	and	number	

of	designated	parking	spaces	at	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and/or	summit	

of	Mount	Evans	would	be	reduced	to	manage	visitor	access	according	to	crowding‐related	

capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

 Widen road shoulders for designated roadside parking in MERA: Mount	Evans	

Highway	would	be	widened	at	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and/or	summit	of	

Mount	Evans,	and	striping	would	be	used	to	designate	roadside	parking	spaces	to	increase	

parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	shortages	that	occur	during	peak	periods	of	

visitor	use.	The	number	of	roadside	parking	spaces	would	be	designated	according	to	

parking	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.

Bicycle access

 Pullouts: Paved	pullouts	would	be	constructed	at	key	locations	along	the	Mount	Evans	

Highway	between	the	Welcome	Station	and	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	pullouts	would	be	

sized	for	bicycles	and	provide	opportunities	for	cyclists	to	pull	off	of	the	road	to	allow	motor	

vehicle	traffic	to	pass.	The	number	and	location	of	pullouts	would	be	based	on	safety	

considerations,	landscape	suitability,	and	financial	and	operational	feasibility.	

 Striping to designate bike lane:	Mount	Evans	Highway	would	be	widened	between	the	

Welcome	Station	and	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	and	striping	would	be	used	to	designate	a	

bicycle	lane.	The	bicycle	lane	would	help	to	reduce	conflicts	between	bicycles	and	motor	

vehicles,	and	corresponding	safety	risks.

ITS and Visitor Information

As	noted,	ITS	technologies	are	commonly	employed	in	public	lands	recreation	areas	to	convey	real‐

time	and	historical	travel,	parking,	and	weather	information.	The	following	ITS	and	visitor	

information	components	could	be	used	to	help	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	peak	periods	and	

locations	in	MERA.	

 Variable Message Signs (VMS): Variable	message	signs	would	be	placed	in	approved	

highway	locations	en	route	to	MERA	(e.g.,	I‐70,	Rte.	103	near	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	and	

Evergreen,	Colorado).	Messages	displayed	on	the	VMS	could	be	used	to	inform	visitors	of	

parking	and	visitor	use	conditions	in	MERA	and	potentially	persuade	some	people	to	visit	

MERA	during	off‐peak	periods.	This	component	could	be	coupled	with	one	or	more	transit	

components	to	display	information	about	shuttle	service	and	park‐and‐ride	options.	
407

Similarly,	this	component	could	be	used	in	conjunction	with	a	permit	system	and	quota	to	

inform	people	about	their	options	for	accessing	MERA.

 Highway Advisory Radio (HAR): It	would	be	possible	to	use	VMS	units	with	integrated	

Highway	Advisory	Radio	(HAR)	systems	that	travelers	could	listen	to	on	an	AM	frequency.	

The	HAR	systems	would	allow	for	more	detailed	information	to	be	conveyed	than	the	VMS	

would	alone.	In	this	case,	the	VMS	would	display	a	message	instructing	visitors	to	“tune	in”	

to	a	specific	AM	station	for	MERA	information.

 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, and Apps: Website	information	and	smart	phone	

apps	would	be	targeted	at	reaching	visitors	before	they	begin	their	trip	to	MERA.	Messages	

and	related	content	would	be	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	information	about	the	

advantages	of	visiting	MERA	during	off‐peak	periods	and	to	set	expectations	about	peak	

period	conditions.	In	addition,	links	to	websites	and	information	about	other	outdoor	

recreation	and	tourist	destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	MERA	would	be	provided	to	inform	

visitors	of	options	to	consider	as	alternatives	to	visiting	MERA	during	peak	periods.	

Parking Management

Implementation	of	the	following	parking	management	components	would	help	address	impacts	to	

public	safety,	forest	resources,	the	scenery	of	the	area,	and	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences	due	

to	parking	in	undesignated	areas	and	traffic	circling	through	full	parking	lots	searching	for	places	to	

park.	

 Dedicated traffic and parking management team: A	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	

management	team	would	be	deployed	in	MERA	on	weekend	days	during	the	peak	summer	

visitor	use	season	(approximately	Memorial	Day	Weekend	through	Labor	Day).	The	parking	

management	team’s	hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	in	

MERA,	with	one	staff	member	stationed	at	each	of	the	designated	parking	lots	(i.e.,	at	Mount	

Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans).	The	parking	lot	

monitors	would	use	two‐way	radios	to	inform	a	fourth	member	of	the	parking	management	

team	and	the	staff	at	the	Welcome	Station	when	the	parking	lots	are	full,	and	when	parking	

spaces	become	available	again	after	the	lots	are	full.	The	fourth	member	of	the	parking	

management	team	would	be	positioned	at	various	locations	in	MERA	throughout	the	day,	

depending	on	where	parking	is	available.	This	“roving”	member	of	the	parking	management	

team	would	be	responsible	for	directing	visitors	to	available	parking	spaces	and	blocking	

the	roadway	to	prevent	visitors	from	driving	to	visitor	destinations	where	parking	lots	are	

full.	Staff	at	the	Welcome	Station	would	inform	arriving	visitors	of	their	parking	options,	

based	on	the	information	they	receive	via	radio	from	the	four	members	of	the	parking	

management	team	and	parking	management	policies.

 Traffic queuing at Welcome Station when parking lots are full: When	parking	lots	in	

MERA	are	full,	staff	members	at	the	Welcome	Station	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	

MERA.	Visitors	would	be	required	to	wait	in	their	vehicles	at	the	Welcome	Station	until	

other	visitors	leave	and	parking	spaces	become	available	in	MERA.
408

 Mandatory parking in offsite lot when lots in MERA are full: When	parking	lots	in	MERA	

are	full,	staff	members	at	the	Welcome	Station	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	MERA.	

Visitors	would	be	required	to	park	in	an	offsite	lot	(e.g.,	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado	or	at	

Echo	Lake)	for	access	to	MERA.	This	option	would	be	combined	with	transit	service	from	

the	offsite	parking	lot	to	MERA.

 Parking reservation fee: Visitors	who	wish	to	park	in	MERA	during	peak	periods	would	be	

required	to	make	an	advanced	parking	reservation	and	pay	a	parking	fee.

 Signs and/or barriers to prevent unendorsed roadside parking: Roadside	barriers	

and/or	signs	would	be	installed	on	Mount	Evans	Highway	at	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	

Summit	Lake,	and/or	summit	of	Mount	Evans	to	prevent	roadside	parking	from	occurring	

when	the	parking	lots	are	full.	It	is	likely	this	option	would	require	a	dedicated	traffic	and	

parking	management	team	in	MERA	to	enforce	this	parking	policy.

Traffic Management

The	following	traffic	management	strategies	would	help	minimize	traffic	congestion	at	the	Welcome	

Station	and/or	on	Mount	Evans	Highway,	potentially	reduce	parking	shortages,	and	improve	visitor	

safety	in	MERA.	

 Extend express lane at the Welcome Station: The	Mount	Evans	Highway	would	be	

widened	between	Route	103	and	the	Welcome	Station,	and	the	express	lane	would	be	

extended	to	help	reduce	peak‐period	traffic	congestion	there.	The	express	lane	would	be	

used	for	annual	pass	holders,	employees,	and	emergency	vehicles.	In	addition,	if	one	or	

more	transit	components	are	implemented,	the	express	lane	would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	

access.

 Queue bypass lane at the Welcome Station: A	queue	bypass	lane	would	be	constructed	at	

the	Welcome	Station	for	administrative	and	emergency	vehicle	access	to	MERA	without	

delays	due	to	traffic	congestion	during	peak	periods.	The	queue	bypass	lane	could	be	

controlled	with	a	gate	that	is	activated	with	a	swipe‐card	administered	to	eligible	

employees	and	emergency	vehicle	operators. In	addition,	if	one	or	more	transit	components	

are	implemented,	the	queue	bypass	lane	would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	access.

 Stacked kiosks at the Welcome Station: An	additional	kiosk	would	be	added	to	each	lane	

at	the	Welcome	Station	to	increase	capacity	and	reduce	traffic	congestion	that	occurs	there	

during	peak	periods.	

 Traffic lane closures: Selected	sections	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	between	the	Welcome	

Station	and	summit	of	Mount	Evans	would	be	temporarily	or	permanently	closed	to	vehicle	

traffic.	The	traffic	lane	closures	would	occur	in	locations	where	continued	roadway	

maintenance	and	repairs	are	financially	and/or	operationally	infeasible.	Traffic	signals	

would	be	installed	at	each	closure	location	to	manage	the	flow	of	traffic	through	the	one‐

way	sections	of	the	road.
409

 Designate Mount Evans Highway as a toll road: The	Mount	Evans	Highway	between	the	

Welcome	Station	and	summit	of	Mount	Evans	would	be	designated	as	a	toll	road,	and	

visitors	would	be	required	to	pay	a	toll	to	travel	on	the	road.	The	toll	could	be	charged	for	

bicycle	and	motor	vehicle	access,	restricted	to	just	motor	vehicles,	or	vary	depending	on	

mode	of	travel.	The	toll	program	would	be	implemented	by	Colorado	Department	of	

Transportation	(CDOT),	and	could	be	administered	by	the	US	Forest	Service	or	via	a	

contractor.

 Carpool/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) program: An	offsite	park‐and‐ride	lot	would	be	

designated	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	Echo	Lake,	or	another	location	in	the	vicinity	of	

MERA,	from	which	visitors	could	carpool	to	MERA.	To	encourage	carpooling	from	the	park‐

and‐ride	lot,	a	reduced	amenity	fee	would	be	charged	for	visitors	who	travel	to	MERA	in	

high	occupancy	vehicles	(e.g.,	3	or	more	passengers	per	vehicle).

Visitor Use Management

Visitor	use	management	strategies	would	help	to	shift	visitor	use	away	from	the	most	congested	

days	and/or	times	of	day	in	MERA.	The	following	visitor	use	management	strategies	range	from	

those	that	attempt	to	persuade	visitors	to	change	their	behaviors	to	those	that	require	visitors	to	

change	their	behavior.	

 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak periods: To	encourage	visitation	during	

off‐peak	periods,	amenity	fees	for	MERA	would	be	increased	during	peak	seasons,	days,	

and/or	hours	of	the	day,	and/or	reduced	during	off‐peak	periods.	Increased	peak‐period	

fees	would	generate	additional	revenue	and	serve	as	a	potentially	effective	way	to	dis‐

incentivize	visitation	during	peak	periods.	However,	fee	increases	may	be	unpopular	with	

the	public	and	potentially	raises	issues	of	equitable	access	to	MERA.	In	either	case,	the	

effectiveness	and	acceptability	of	a	variable	amenity	fee	structure	would	require	that	it	be	

clearly	explained	so	that	visitors	are	aware	of	and	understand	their	options.

 Day use permit system for MERA: A	permit	system	and	quota	would	be	implemented	to	

limit	the	number	of	day	use	visitors	in	MERA	per	day.	Under	such	a	system,	visitors	would	

be	required	to	obtain	and	display	a	permit	for	a	specific	date	and	time	period	during	which	

they	would	be	allowed	to	enter	MERA.	An	online	permit	system	could	be	used	to	allow	

visitors	to	obtain	their	permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	to	MERA,	or	permits	could	be	

obtained	at	the	Welcome	Station	when	visitors	arrive.	The	number	and	distribution	of	day	

use	permits	would	be	based	on	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	

and	operational	capacity	of	MERA	(i.e.,	parking	capacities,	shuttle	service	capacities	if	

applicable,	etc.).

 Designated dates and/or times for bicycle access: Specific	days	of	the	week	and/or	times	

of	day	would	be	designated	for	bicycle	access	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	between	the	

Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	Cyclists	would	be	allowed	access	only	

during	these	designated	periods;	motor	vehicle	access	could	be	limited	or	prohibited	during	

periods	of	designated	bicycle	access	to	reduce	conflicts	between	bicycles	and	motor	

vehicles.	
410

Visitor Access in the Event of Long‐term Road Closure

As	noted	in	Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site,	CDOT	has	expressed	ongoing	concerns	about	the	

costs	and	feasibility	of	maintaining	Mount	Evans	Highway	for	recreational	vehicle	access	in	the	long	

term.	Correspondingly,	the	following	components	are	included	in	this	study	as	options	for	

providing	access	to	MERA,	in	the	event	of	a	long‐term	road	closure	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	

between	the	Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.

 Cog railroad to the Mount Evans summit: A	cog	rail	would	be	constructed	to	provide	

access	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	railroad	would	operate	in	place	of	an	auto	road	to	

the	summit.	The	railroad	could	be	open	year‐round	or	during	the	summer	only,	depending	

upon	demand	and	a	financially	feasible	business	model.	Service	frequency	and	hours	of	

operation	would	be	based	upon	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	Mount	

Evans	Wilderness.	This	service	could	be	run	by	a	concession	and	charge	passengers	a	fee.	

 Aerial tram to the Mount Evans summit: An	aerial	tram	would	be	constructed	to	provide	

access	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	aerial	tram	would	operate	in	place	of	an	auto	

road	to	the	summit.	The	tram	could	be	open	year‐round	or	during	the	summer	only,	

depending	upon	demand	and	a	financially	feasible	business	model.	Service	frequency	and	

hours	of	operation	would	be	based	upon	demand	and	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	This	service	could	be	run	by	a	concession	and	charge	passengers	a	

fee.

 Hiking access only to MERA and Mount Evans summit: One	or	more	trail	routes	would	

be	developed	to	provide	visitors	with	hiking	access	to	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	

Lake,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	hiking	routes	would	provide	visitor	access	to	

MERA	in	place	of	an	auto	road	to	the	summit.	The	trails	could	be	open	year‐round	or	during	

the	summer	only,	depending	upon	demand,	visitor	safety,	and	financial	and	operational	

feasibility.	
411

Chapter 6:ARNF INTEGRATED USER CAPACITY AND TRANSIT DEMAND

ANALYSIS, BY SITE
412

Introduction

Integrated	user	capacity	and	transit	demand	analyses	were	conducted	for	each	of	the	three	study	

sites	with	the	purpose	of	1)	establishing	maximum	levels	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	

without	exceeding	user	capacities,	and	2)	developing	alternative	transportation	solutions	according	

to	those	user	capacity	parameters.	User	capacities	were	operationalized	differently	at	each	site,	

with	capacity	considerations	and	goals	driven	by	site‐specific	factors	including	guidance	from	

existing	management	plans,	Wilderness	designations,	and	findings	from	this	study.	Table	6‐1	

provides	a	summary	of	the	integrated	user	capacity	and	transit	demand	analysis,	by	site.	The	

remainder	of	this	chapter	provides	detailed	information	about	the	user	capacity	considerations	and	

integrated	user	capacity	and	transit	demand	analyses	for	each	site.	
Table 6‐1. Summary of Capacity Analyses by Site

BLRA GP 

Basis for User Capacity Analysis  2005 BLRA Management Plan:

Manage user capacity according

to availability of designated

parking

 Overflow parking on roadside and

visitor use impacts in Wilderness

 Popu

relat

tour

 Rela

and 

Design Day Visitation4 737 vehicles / 1,843 visitors 963 vehicles / 2,408 visitors 1,0

Estimated User Capacity 943 vehicles / 2,357 visitors

Mount Bierstadt Trail: 400 hikers

Physical Parking: 553 vehicles /

1,383 visitors

6

User Capacities Exceeded? No Yes 

Visitor Use Management and

Transit‐related Strategies to

Management User Capacity

 Onsite parking management

team

 Overflow parking in Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot, instead of

queuing at Courtesy Station

 Shuttle service between

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

and BLRA Day Use Lot

 Wilderness use permit system and

quota, including onsite

enforcement

 Offsite overflow parking and

shuttle service for Wilderness use

permit holders and other GP

visitors

 Day 

syste

 Offs

shut

4 Reported design day vehicles are based on actual vehicle counts on the design day. Reported design day visitors were calculated usi

occupancy rate calculated from reports of group size collected during field data collection in 2013.
414

BLRA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses

BLRA User Capacity Considerations

In	the	2005	BLRA	Management	Plan5,	the	USFS	established	a	theoretical	user	capacity	for	BLRA.	

Among	other	associated	factors,	the	plan	states	the	following:	

“Given	the	direction	of	the	Forest	Plan,	the	Assessment	of	Existing	Recreation	Sites	and	

Opportunities,	and	the	specific	information	provided	in	the	Assessment	of	Capacity	document	

for	BLRA,	the	following	recommendations	for	user	capacity	and	distribution	are	proposed	to	

meet	the	objectives:	

 Assess	and	manage	capacity	according	to	location,	distribution,	season,	and	daily	use	

patterns	of	available	parking	spaces.	

 Restrict	all	parking	to	designated	parking	spaces	in	the	entire	BLRA	(p.33‐34).”	

Therefore,	user	capacity	for	BLRA	was	operationalized	in	this	study	as	the	maximum	number	of	

visitors	that	can	be	accommodated,	per	day,	without	exceeding	designated	parking	capacities	at	

BLRA,	including	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

Data	collected	during	the	winter	2012	and	summer	2013	data	collection	efforts	were	used	to	

evaluate	parking	demand	and	user	capacity	at	BLRA6.	Specifically,	vehicle	traffic	counts	from	

Automated	Traffic	Recorders	(ATRs)	and	parking	accumulation	and	turnover	rates	were	collected	

during	two	data	collection	periods	1)	during	winter	2011	–	2012	to	understand	winter	recreational	

use	and	demand	at	BLRA,	and	2)	during	summer	2013	to	understand	peak	recreational	use	and	

demand	at	BLRA.	These	data	were	used	to	estimate	user	capacity	at	BLRA	according	to	the	

availability	of	designated	parking,	which	is	the	definition	of	BLRA	user	capacity	set	forth	by	the	

USFS.	

BLRA Winter Season User Capacity Analysis

During	the	winter	2011‐2012	data	collection	period,	parking	accumulation	and	turnover	data	were	

collected	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(located	just	outside	the	BLRA	Courtesy	Station).	

The	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	serves	as	the	only	designated	parking	area	open	in	the	winter	

months	for	visitors	to	BLRA.	An	hourly	count	of	parked	vehicles	and	the	amount	of	time	vehicles	

were	parked	were	recorded	on	weekdays	and	weekend	days	from	January	to	April	2012	by	parking	

lot	location.	A	design	day7,	selected	to	represent	“typically	busy”	winter	days,	was	identified	to	

																																																													

5 USDA Forest Service Boulder Ranger District, Rocky Mountain Region, Roosevelt National Forest. (2005). Brainard

Lake Recreation Area Management Plan. Available:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5228436.pdf 6 BLRA data collection methods and results are reported in detail in Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Summary of Data Findings. 7 The “design day” is selected to represent a typically busy winter recreation day at BLRA. See Chapter 1: Brainard

Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings for a detailed description of design day selection for the BLRA

winter recreation season traffic and parking analyses.
415

evaluate	hourly	and	daily	parking	demand	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	during	the	winter	

season.	Parking	data	results	suggest	that	peak	parking	accumulation	on	typically	busy	winter	days	

reaches	just	over	60%	of	the	capacity	of	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(Figure	6‐1).	These	data	

suggest	that	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	is	large	enough	to	accommodate	visitor	demand	for	

parking	during	the	winter	visitor	use	season	at	BLRA,	and	therefore,	user	capacity	as	defined	in	the	

2005	BLRA	Management	Plan	is	not	exceeded	during	the	winter	visitor	use	season.	

Correspondingly,	no	further	capacity	analyses	or	transportation	demand	analyses	were	conducted	

for	winter	use	at	BLRA.	

Figure 6‐1. Design day parking accumulation at the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Saturday, January

28, 2012.

BLRA Summer Season User Capacity Analysis

User	capacity	analysis	for	BLRA	summer	season	was	centered	on	estimating	whether	or	not	hourly	

and/or	daily	parking	demand	on	typically	busy	summer	days	exceeds	BLRA’s	designated	parking	

capacity.	Inbound	and	outbound	vehicle	traffic	data	from	two	Automated	Traffic	Recorders	(ATRs;	

Figure	6‐2)	were	used	to	estimate	the	following	parameters:	

 The	total	hourly	number	of	vehicles	that	arrive	at	BLRA	(ATR1).

 Of	the	total	hourly	number	of	vehicles	that	arrive,	the	number	of	vehicles	that	are	able	to	

park	“inside”	BLRA	(i.e.,	in	designated	parking	areas	reached	after	passing	through	the	

Courtesy	Station;	ATR2).	

 The	number	of	vehicles	that	cannot	park	inside	BLRA	because	parking	lots	inside	BLRA	are	

full	(i.e.,	“unmet	parking	demand”	for	parking	inside	BLRA).	
416

The	user	capacity	determination	is	based	on	whether	the	number	of	vehicles	that	travel	to	BLRA	

and	can	not	park	“inside”	BLRA	can	be	accommodated	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	or	

whether	that	number	exceeds	the	designated	capacity	of	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	using	

the	following	sequence	of	calculations.	

Figure 6‐2. Approximate locations of ATRs on Brainard Lake Road, summer 2013.

1. Equation	1	was	used	to	estimate	hourly	parking	demand	for	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot	(Table	6‐2),	assuming	that	all	visitors	unable	to	park	“inside”	BLRA	would	be	required	to	

park	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(rather	than	wait	in	line	at	the	Courtesy	Station).	

Equation 1: GPLDEMAND = PHA + (ATR1IN – ATR2IN) ‐ (ATR1OUT – ATR2OUT)

Where:

GPLDEMAND = Total hourly parking demand in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot (GPL)

PHA = Previous hour’s parking accumulation in the GPL (assumed to be 0 at midnight)

ATR1IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR1 (outside Courtesy Station)

ATR2IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR2 (inside Courtesy Station)

ATR1OUT = Hourly outbound vehicle traffic at ATR1 (outside Courtesy Station)

ATR2OUT = Hourly outbound vehicle traffic at ATR2 (inside Courtesy Station)
417

Table 6‐2. Estimated Hourly Parking Demand in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot on typically busy Peak

Season Summer Days (Assuming all BLRA Overflow Parking is Directed There)

Hour

Hourly Parking Demand

(GPLDEMAND)

12:00 AM 1

1:00 AM 1

2:00 AM 1

3:00 AM 1

4:00 AM 2

5:00 AM 2

6:00 AM 8

7:00 AM 8

8:00 AM 25

9:00 AM 29

10:00 AM 36

11:00 AM 51

12:00 PM 36

1:00 PM 40

2:00 PM 22

3:00 PM 16

4:00 PM 0

5:00 PM 0

6:00 PM 0

7:00 PM 0

8:00 PM 0

9:00 PM 0

10:00 PM 0

11:00 PM 0

2. Equation	2	was	used	to	compare	estimates	from	Equation	1	of	hourly	parking	demand	for	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(GPLDEMAND)	to	the	designated	parking	capacity	of	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	

Equation 2:   If (GPLDEMAND > GPLCAPACITY), User Capacity Exceeded. Else, Not Exceeded.

Where:

GPLDEMAND = Total hourly parking demand in the GPL

GPLCAPACITY = Designated parking capacity of the GPL (139 parking spaces)

Results	of	the	user	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	parking	demand	on	typically	busy	peak	season	

days	does	not	exceed	the	designated	parking	capacity	at	BLRA.	In	other	words,	BLRA	user	capacity	

as	defined	by	the	USFS	in	the	2005	BLRA	Management	Plan	is	not	exceeded	on	typically	busy	

summer	days.	

However,	to	make	full	use	of	the	designated	parking	capacity	at	BLRA,	and	in	particular	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	visitors	must	be	directed	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot,	and	need	safe	and	convenient	access	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	their	

recreation	destinations	in	BLRA.	Transit	demand	analyses	were	conducted	for	two	transit	scenarios	
418

that	would	provide	circulator	shuttle	service	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	

BLRA	Day	Use	Lot,	while	at	the	same	time	not	resulting	in	levels	of	visitation	that	exceed	BLRA’s	

user	capacity.	It	should	be	noted,	that	the	proposed	circulator	shuttle	service	would	only	run	

between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot,	and	not	to	the	IPW	

trailheads	so	as	not	to	inadvertently	“over‐deliver”	visitors	to	those	trailheads	and	cause	visitor	

crowding	in	the	IPW.	

BLRA Transit Demand Analysis with User Capacity Management

Transit Demand: Circulator Shuttle from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to BLRA Day Use Lot

Ridership	demand	on	typically	busy	summer	days	for	circulator	shuttle	service	from	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	was	calculated	using	the	following	sequence	of	

equations:	

3. Equation	3	was	used	to	estimate	the	hourly	unmet	demand	for	parking	“inside”	BLRA	Table	

6‐3).	

Equation 3: UPDIN = (ATR1IN – ATR2IN) ‐ GPLV

Where:

UPDIN = Hourly unmet parking demand (vehicles) for parking areas “inside” BLRA

ATR1IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR1 (outside Courtesy Station)

ATR2IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR2 (inside Courtesy Station)

GPLV = Observed hourly inbound vehicle traffic that voluntarily parks at GPL
419

Table 6‐3. Estimated Hourly Unmet Parking Demand “Inside” BLRA on typically busy Peak Season

Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Unmet Parking Demand

(UPDIN)

12:00 AM 1

1:00 AM 0

2:00 AM 0

3:00 AM 0

4:00 AM 1

5:00 AM 0

6:00 AM 6

7:00 AM 0

8:00 AM 15

9:00 AM 1

10:00 AM 11

11:00 AM 26

12:00 PM 11

1:00 PM 23

2:00 PM 0

3:00 PM 5

4:00 PM 0

5:00 PM 2

6:00 PM 0

7:00 PM 0

8:00 PM 0

9:00 PM 1

10:00 PM 0

11:00 PM 1

Total 103

4. Equation	4	was	used	to	convert	the	hourly	unmet	demand	for	parking	“inside”	BLRA	from	

vehicles	to	visitors	using	the	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	for	BLRA	(Table	6‐4).	

Equation 4: UDVISITORS = UPDIN * VehOccup

Where:

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet parking demand (visitors) for parking “inside” BLRA

UPDIN = Hourly unmet parking demand (vehicles) for parking areas “inside” BLRA

VehOccup = Vehicle occupancy rate, as observed in summer 2013
420

Table 6‐4. Estimated Hourly Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and Visitors) “Inside” BLRA on typically

busy Peak Season Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Vehicles

(UPDIN)

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Visitors

(UPDVISITORS)

12:00 AM 1 3

1:00 AM 0 0

2:00 AM 0 0

3:00 AM 0 0

4:00 AM 1 3

5:00 AM 0 0

6:00 AM 6 15

7:00 AM 0 0

8:00 AM 15 38

9:00 AM 1 1

10:00 AM 11 27

11:00 AM 26 65

12:00 PM 11 27

1:00 PM 23 58

2:00 PM 0 0

3:00 PM 5 13

4:00 PM 0 0

5:00 PM 2 5

6:00 PM 0 0

7:00 PM 0 0

8:00 PM 0 0

9:00 PM 1 3

10:00 PM 0 0

11:00 PM 1 3

Total 103 257

5. Results	from	the	2014	BLRA	visitor	survey	suggest	76%	of	BLRA	visitors	would	be	likely	to	

visit	BLRA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	

and	take	a	10‐minute	shuttle	bus	ride	to	the	recreation	destination.	This	percentage	was	

applied	in	Equation	5	to	the	hourly	visitor	demand	for	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	as	a	scale	factor	to	determine	the	estimated	ridership	demand	for	shuttle	

service	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	BLRA	(Table	6‐5).	

Equation 5: RidershipGPL = PercentRIDE * UDVISITORS

Where:

RidershipGPL = Hourly ridership demand for shuttle service between Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot and BLRA Day Use Lot

PercentRIDE = Proportion of visitors who would opt to use the shuttle service

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet parking demand (visitors) for parking “inside” BLRA
421

Results	from	Equation	5	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	summer	days,	approximately	195	visitors	

who	could	not	otherwise	park	“inside”	BLRA	would	opt	to	use	shuttle	service	from	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	(Table	6‐5).	

Ridership Demand: Shuttle Service from Nederland, Colorado, to Gateway Trailhead Parking

Lot

Ridership	demand	on	typically	busy	summer	days	for	shuttle	service	from	Nederland,	Colorado,	to	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	run	in	conjunction	with	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	

BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	circulator	shuttle,	was	calculated	using	the	following	sequence	of	equations:	

6. Equation	6	was	used	to	estimate	the	hourly	number	of	inbound	BLRA	visitors.	

Equation 6: ATR1IN_VISITORS = ATR1IN * VehOccup

Where:

ATR1IN_VISITORS = Hourly number of inbound BLRA visitors

ATR1IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR1

VehOccup = Average vehicle occupancy rate, as observed in summer 2013

7. Results	from	the	2014	visitor	survey	were	used	in	Equation	7	to	estimate	the	number	of	

inbound	BLRA	visitors	who	travel	to	and	from	BLRA	via	Nederland,	Colorado.	

Equation 7: NedIN_VISITORS = ATR1IN_VISITORS * TravelNED

Where:

NedIN_VISITORS = Hourly number of inbound BLRA visitors who travel to and from BLRA via

Nederland, Colorado

ATR1IN_VISITORS = Hourly number of inbound BLRA visitors

TravelNED = Proportion of BLRA visitors who reported in the 2014 visitor survey that they

traveled to and from BLRA via Nederland

8. Results	of	the	2014	visitor	survey	were	used	in	Equation	8	to	estimate	the	proportion	of	

BLRA	visitors	who	travel	to	and	from	BLRA	via	Nederland	that	would	choose	to	voluntarily	

park	in	Nederland,	Colorado,	and	ride	shuttle	service	between	there	and	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	visit	BLRA:	

Equation 8: RidershipNED = PercentRIDE * NedIN_VISITORS

Where:

RidershipNED = Hourly ridership demand for voluntary shuttle service between

Nederland, Colorado, and Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

PercentRIDE = Proportion of visitors who would opt to use the shuttle service

NedIN_VISITORS = Hourly number of inbound BLRA visitors who travel to and from BLRA via

Nederland, Colorado

Results	of	Equation	8	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	summer	days,	only	about	13	visitors	would	

voluntarily	choose	to	park	in	Nederland,	Colorado,	and	ride	shuttle	service	between	there	and	the	
422

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	visit	BLRA	(Table	6‐5).	This	result	suggests	there	would	not	be	

sufficient	ridership	demand	(a	minimum	of	100	riders	per	day)	for	voluntary	shuttle	service	

between	Nederland,	Colorado,	and	BLRA	to	be	financially	feasible.	

Table 6‐5. Ridership Demand Estimates for BLRA Alternative Transportation Options

Hour

Staging at Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot  

Ridership Demanda

Staging in Nederland, Colorado  

Ridership Demandb   

12:00 AM 2 0   

1:00 AM 0 0   

2:00 AM 0 0   

3:00 AM 0 0   

4:00 AM 2 0   

5:00 AM 0 0   

6:00 AM 11 1   

7:00 AM 0 1   

8:00 AM 29 1   

9:00 AM 1 1   

10:00 AM 20 2   

11:00 AM 49 1   

12:00 PM 20 1   

1:00 PM 44 1   

2:00 PM 0 1   

3:00 PM 10 1   

4:00 PM 0 0   

5:00 PM 4 0   

6:00 PM 0 0   

7:00 PM 0 0   

8:00 PM 0 0   

9:00 PM 2 0   

10:00 PM 0 0   

11:00 PM 2 0   

Total 195 13   

 

a Transit Ridership Estimate Gateway Circulator: Transit from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use

Lot coupled with parking restrictions in which it is assumed that 76% of visitors who cannot park in BLRA

because parking lots are full would take transit and the other 24% choose to go somewhere other than

BLRA.

 b Transit Ridership Demand Estimate Nederland Shuttle: Voluntary transit from Nederland, Colorado, to

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot (this would only operate when coupled with the Gateway circulator and

BLRA parking restrictions). Assumes 2% of all visitors who currently drive through Nederland on route to

and from BLRA would choose to use the voluntary transit service from Nederland to the Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot.
423

Summary of Findings: BLRA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand

Analyses

Results	of	the	user	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	visitor	use	does	not	exceed	the	designated	parking	

capacity	for	BLRA	on	typically	busy	days	during	the	winter	or	summer	season.	In	other	words,	user	

capacity,	as	defined	by	the	USFS	in	the	BLRA	Management	Plan	is	not	exceeded	on	typically	busy	

days	during	the	winter	or	summer	season.	

Related,	the	vast	majority	of	IPW	visitors	accessing	the	IPW	via	BLRA	(85%)	reported	in	the	2014	

summer	season	visitor	survey	that	they	do	not	feel	crowded	during	their	hike.	Ninety	percent	of	

IPW	visitors	reported	that	the	presence	of	other	people	on	the	trail	did	not	make	them	feel	rushed	

and/or	did	not	cause	them	to	slow	down	at	any	point	during	their	hike.	These	findings	suggest	that	

current	visitor	use	levels,	even	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	do	not	cause	unacceptable	

visitor	crowding	in	the	IPW.	

However,	BLRA	still	faces	user	capacity	management	challenges	because	many visitors do not

voluntarily park in the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot as a means for accessing BLRA.	To	make	full	

use	of	the	designated	parking	capacity	at	BLRA,	and	in	particular	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot,	an	onsite	parking	management	team	is	necessary	to	enforce	designated	parking	requirements	

within	BLRA	and	to	direct	all	overflow	parking	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	An	onsite	

parking	management	team	has	been	functioning	to	eliminate	unendorsed	roadside	parking	since	

2015.	A	continued	emphasis	should	be	made	to	direct	overflow	traffic	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot.	

In	addition,	visitors	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	with	the	intent	of	accessing	BLRA	

and/or	the	IPW	do	not	have	a	safe	and	convenient	way	to	access	their	destinations	“inside	BLRA.”	

Visitors	parking	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	must	walk	two	or	more	miles	in	traffic	on	

Brainard	Lake	Road	and/or	on	what	is	currently	a	partially	developed	network	of	connector	trails	

to	access	BLRA	and	IPW	recreation	sites.	A	circulator	shuttle	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot8	would	provide	a	safe	and	convenient	way	to	help	manage	

visitor	use	according	to	the	USFS’s	designated	user	capacity	for	BLRA.	It	is	estimated	there	would	

be	viable	ridership	demand	for	this	service,	approximately	195	daily	riders.	

																																																													

8 Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site provides a detailed description of the

estimated ridership demand for the referenced circulator shuttle service.
424

GP Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses

GP User Capacity Considerations

Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	data	collected	during	summer	2012	suggest	that	by	early	

morning	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days	at	GP,	the	designated	lots	at	GP	are	filled	with	vehicles	

beyond	their	capacities.	Correspondingly,	the	number	of	cars	parking	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	

roadside	at	GP	increases	sharply	through	the	morning	hours.	Overall	parking	accumulation	at	GP	

reaches	its	peak	in	the	late	morning,	at	which	time	there	are	nearly	twice	as	many	cars	parked	in	

unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	at	GP	than	in	the	designated	parking	lots.	

Results	from	the	2012	visitor	use	data	collection	and	2014	visitor	survey	indicate	that	Wilderness	

values	are	compromised	in	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness;	specifically,	on	typically	busy	summer	

days:	

 On	a	typically	busy	peak	season	day	approximately	800	people	per	day	hike	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail,	which	accounts	for	about	80%	of	all	hiking	use	that	occurs	in	the	GP	area.	

 Peak	visitor	densities	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	are	equivalent	to	a	moderate	level	

of	crowding	for	pedestrian	facilities	in	an	urban	environment,	such	as	a	city	sidewalk.9

 The	majority	of	weekend	hikers	(70%),	and	about	one‐third	of	weekday	hikers	(34%)	on	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	feel	crowded	during	their	hike.	

These	findings	suggest	the	physical	(i.e.,	designated	parking)	and	Wilderness	resource	capacities	of	

the	GP	area	are	exceeded.	Two	approaches	were	taken	to	analyze	and	estimate	capacity	at	GP,	

including:	1)	a	conventional	approach	based	only	on	the	parking	capacity	at	GP;	and	2)	a	resource‐

based	approach	that	integrates	Wilderness	resource	and	parking	capacities	together.	The	first	

approach,	based	on	the	physical	capacity	of	parking	lots	is	designed	to	accommodate	demand,	and	

correspondingly	accommodates	current	levels	of	visitation	that	have	been	documented	in	this	

study	to	cause	unacceptable	levels	of	crowing	and	impact	to	Wilderness	values	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.	The	second	approach	establishes	a	Wilderness	resource	capacity,	based	

on	a	threshold	for	the	number	of	people‐at‐one‐time	(PAOT)	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	and	

optimizes	parking	and	transit	within	the	parameters	of	the	Wilderness	resource	capacity.	In	this	

study,	the	term	“Wilderness	resource”	is	understood	as	a	collective	term	for	the	intended	resources	

and	values	that	comprise	Wilderness,	and	are	derived	from	the	Wilderness	Act,	including	

naturalness,	opportunities	for	solitude,	and	wildness.10 Both approaches are presented in this

																																																													

9 On typically busy peak season days, visitor density at‐one‐time on the summit of Mount Bierstadt is equivalent to

a Pedestrian Level of Service C rating according to the Highway Capacity Manual of Transportation Research Board

of the National Academy of Sciences. 10 Dawson, C. P., & Hendee, J. C. (2014). Wilderness management: Stewardship and protection of resources and

values. Fulcrum Publishing: Golden, CO.
425

section, but only the Wilderness resource capacity‐based approach provides a sustainable

solution for managing transportation and visitor use at GP.

GP User Capacity Analysis: Physical Capacity

During	the	2012	data	collection,	ATR3	and	ATR4	(Figure	6‐3)	were	located	to	cordon	GP	arrivals	

and	departures	from	the	north	and	south.	Data	collected	at	these	two	ATR’s	were	used	in	this	

analysis	to	estimate	the	timing	(hours	of	the	day)	and	amount	by	which	parking	capacity	at	GP	is	

exceeded	on	typically	busy	summer	weekend	days,	using	the	following	sequence	of	calculations.	
426

Figure 6‐3. Approximate location of all ATR’s, Guanella Pass summer 2012. Only data from ATR3 and

ATR4 were used in the GP parking capacity analysis.
427

1. Equation	1	was	used	to	estimate	hourly	parking	demand	at	GP	(Table	6‐6).	

Equation 1: GPACCUM = PHA + ((ATR3IN + ATR4IN) – (ATR3OUT – ATR4OUT))

Where:

GPACCUM = Hourly parking accumulation at GP

PHA = Previous hour’s parking accumulation at GP (assumed to be 0 at midnight)

ATR3IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR3

ATR4IN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR4

ATR3OUT = Hourly outbound vehicle traffic at ATR3

ATR4OUT = Hourly outbound vehicle traffic at ATR4

Table 6‐6. Estimated Hourly Parking Accumulation at GP on typically busy Peak Season Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Parking Accumulation

(GPACCUM)

12:00 AM 1

1:00 AM 1

2:00 AM 2

3:00 AM 4

4:00 AM 12

5:00 AM 42

6:00 AM 149

7:00 AM 244

8:00 AM 296

9:00 AM 345

10:00 AM 351

11:00 AM 342

12:00 PM 283

1:00 PM 210

2:00 PM 116

3:00 PM 72

4:00 PM 42

5:00 PM 25

6:00 PM 18

7:00 PM 12

8:00 PM 4

9:00 PM 4

10:00 PM 5

11:00 PM 5
428

2. Equation	2	was	used	to	compare	GPACCUM	to	the	total	number	of	designated	parking	spaces	

at	GP.	

Equation 2:   If (GPACCUM > GPCAPACITY), Parking Capacity Exceeded. Else, Not Exceeded.

Where:

GPACCUM = Hourly parking accumulation at GP

GPCAPACITY = Designated parking capacity at GP (106 parking spaces)

Results	of	the	physical	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	parking	demand	substantially	exceeds	the	

designated	parking	capacity	at	GP	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days.	The	total	number	of	

designated	parking	spaces	at	GP	is	106	spaces,	and	for	many	hours	of	the	day,	the	calculated	hourly	

parking	accumulation	exceeds	106,	indicating	that	parking	capacity	is	exceeded.	Transit	service	

from	an	overflow	parking	area	in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	or	elsewhere	along	GP	Road	could	be	

operated,	in	conjunction	with	a	ban	on	roadside	parking	along	GP	Road,	to	accommodate	current	

visitor	demand	while	eliminating	unsafe	and	unsustainable	roadside	parking	at	GP.	Transit	demand	

analysis	was	conducted	to	estimate	hourly	ridership	demand	for	two	transit	service	options.	

GP Transit Demand Analysis with Visitor Use Managed According to Physical

Capacity

Hourly	unmet	parking	demand	at	GP	and	corresponding	ridership	estimates	for	transit	service	from	

offsite	overflow	parking	were	estimated	using	the	following	sequence	of	equations.	

3. Equation	3	was	used	to	estimate	the	hourly	number	of	available/unoccupied	parking	spaces	

at	GP.	

Equation 3: ParkingOPEN = GPCAPACITY – (PHA – VTOUT)

Where:

ParkingOPEN = Hourly number of parking spaces open at GP

GPCAPACITY = Designated parking capacity of GP (106 parking spaces)

PHA = Previous hour’s parking accumulation at GP (assumed to be 0 at midnight)

VTOUT = Estimate of hourly outbound vehicle traffic at GP

4. Equation	4	was	used	to	estimate	hourly	unmet	parking	demand	as	a	function	of	the	hourly	

number	of	unoccupied	parking	spaces	and	inbound	vehicle	arrivals	at	GP:	

Equation 4: UPD = |ParkingOPEN – ATRIN|

Where:

UPD = Hourly unmet parking demand at GP

ParkingOPEN = Hourly number of parking spaces open at GP

ATRIN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR3 and ATR4
429

5. Equation	5	was	used	to	convert	the	hourly	unmet	demand	for	designated	parking	in	GP	

from	vehicles	to	visitors	using	the	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	for	GP	(Table	6‐7).	

Equation 5: UDVISITORS = UPD * VehOccup

Where:

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet visitor demand for designated parking at GP

UPD = Hourly unmet vehicle demand for designated parking at GP

VehOccup = Vehicle occupancy rate, as observed in summer 2012

Table 6‐7. Estimated Hourly Available Parking Spaces and Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and Visitors)

on typically busy Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Open Parking

Spaces

(ParkingOPEN)

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Vehicles

(UPD)

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Visitors

(UDVISITORS)

12:00 AM 106 0 0

1:00 AM 105 0 0

2:00 AM 105 0 0

3:00 AM 104 0 0

4:00 AM 102 0 0

5:00 AM 97 0 0

6:00 AM 71 43 108

7:00 AM 7 98 245

8:00 AM 6 59 148

9:00 AM 8 64 159

10:00 AM 12 32 81

11:00 AM 25 50 124

12:00 PM 40 31 77

1:00 PM 60 28 69

2:00 PM 82 0 0

3:00 PM 101 0 0

4:00 PM 109 0 0

5:00 PM 124 0 0

6:00 PM 115 0 0

7:00 PM 112 0 0

8:00 PM 112 0 0

9:00 PM 102 0 0

10:00 PM 105 0 0

11:00 PM 103 0 0

Total . 404 1,011
430

6. Results	from	the	2014	BLRA	visitor	survey	suggest	68%	of	GP	visitors	would	be	likely	to	

visit	GP	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	an	overflow	lot	elsewhere	on	GP	Road	

and	ride	shuttle	buses	from	there	to	GP.	Approximately	41%	said	they	would	be	likely	to	do	

this	if	the	overflow	lot	was	in	Georgetown,	Colorado.	These	percentages	were	applied	in	

Equation	6	to	the	hourly	unmet	visitor	demand	for	parking	at	GP	as	a	scale	factor	to	

determine	the	estimated	ridership	demand	for	shuttle	service	from	an	offsite	overflow	lot.	

Equation 6: RidershipGP = PercentRIDE * UDVISITORS

Where:

RidershipGP = Estimated hourly ridership demand for shuttle service from GP Road

PercentRIDE = Estimated proportion of visitors who would ride this transit service option

(from survey)

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet visitor demand for parking at GP

Results	of	Equation	6	suggest	that	on	a	typically	busy	peak	season	days	approximately	687	

visitors11,	who	could	not	otherwise	park	in	a	designated	parking	space	at	GP,	would	opt	to	take	

transit	service	from	an	overflow	lot	elsewhere	on	GP	Road,	while	414	visitors	would	do	this	if	the	

overflow	parking	lot	was	in	Georgetown,	Colorado	(Table	6‐8).	

																																																													

11The analysis generates “high end” estimates of potential ridership demand at GP, because the ATR data used in

the analysis include vehicle arrivals for visitors driving through GP, but not parking. These “drive‐by” visitors would

likely not park at an overflow lot and ride a shuttle bus to GP.
431

Table 6‐8. Ridership Demand Estimates for GP Transit Options with Visitor Use Managed According to

Physical Capacity

Hour

Staging on GP Road  

Ridership Demanda

Staging in Georgetown, Colorado

Ridership Demandb   

12:00 AM 0 0   

1:00 AM 0 0   

2:00 AM 0 0   

3:00 AM 0 0   

4:00 AM 0 0   

5:00 AM 0 0   

6:00 AM 73 44   

7:00 AM 166 100   

8:00 AM 101 61   

9:00 AM 108 65   

10:00 AM 55 33   

11:00 AM 84 51   

12:00 PM 52 31   

1:00 PM 47 28   

2:00 PM 0 0   

3:00 PM 0 0   

4:00 PM 0 0   

5:00 PM 0 0   

6:00 PM 0 0   

7:00 PM 0 0   

8:00 PM 0 0   

9:00 PM 0 0   

10:00 PM 0 0   

11:00 PM 0 0   

Total 687 414   

 

a Transit Ridership Estimate GP Road Shuttle: Transit originating on Guanella Pass Road (new lot) coupled

with parking restrictions in which we assume 68% of visitors who would otherwise park in undesignated

roadside parking (because designated lots are full) take transit and the other 32% choose to go

somewhere other than GP.

b Transit Ridership Estimate for Georgetown Shuttle: Transit staging area in Georgetown (expand/adapt

existing parking lots) coupled with parking restrictions in which we assume 41% of visitors who would

otherwise park in undesignated roadside parking (because designated lots are full) take transit and the

other 59% choose to go somewhere other than GP.
432

GP User Capacity Analysis: Wilderness Resource‐Based Analysis

Crowding Threshold for the Mount Bierstadt Summit

The	basis	for	the	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	is	visitors’	perceptions	of	and	thresholds	for	

crowding	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit.	Crowding	impacts	are	in	direct	conflict	with	Wilderness	

experience	values	outlined	in	the	Wilderness	Act	of	1964.	For	example,	the	Wilderness	Act	indicates	

that	in	addition	to	other	qualities,	a	Wilderness	area	must	offer,	“outstanding	opportunities	for	

solitude	and	primitive	and	unconfined	type	of	recreation.”	Furthermore,	crowding	avoidance	

behaviors	cause	resource	damage	(e.g.,	vegetation	and	soil	trampling,	social	trailing,	etc.)	as	spread	

out	over	a	landscape	to	get	away	from	other	visitors.	Respondents	to	the	2014	survey	of	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	hikers	were	asked	to	indicate	for	each	of	several	simulated	photos	of	varying	

numbers	of	people	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	if	they	would	feel	crowding	being	on	the	

summit	with	that	number	of	people	(Figure	6‐4).	

Figure 6‐4. For each photograph, please tell us if you would feel crowded if you were on the summit of

Mount Bierstadt with the number of people depicted in the photograph.
433

The	results	in	Figure	6‐4	were	used	to	identify	an	empirically‐based	crowding	threshold	that	serves	

to	balance	the	popularity	and	accessibility	of	the	area	with	concerns	for	the	quality	of	Wilderness	

resources	and	experiences.	An	overly	restrictive	threshold	would	not	be	pragmatic,	given	the	

popularity	and	accessibility	of	GP.	Meanwhile,	an	overly	relaxed	threshold	would	be	inconsistent	

with	the	Wilderness	designation	of	the	area	and	related	USFS	management	goals.	Based	on	these	

factors,	the	following	visitor‐based	crowding	threshold	was	adopted	for	the	Wilderness	Capacity	

analysis:	

No more than 15% of visitors who hike to the summit of Mount Bierstadt on a given day would see more

than 22 people‐at‐one‐time in their viewscape on the summit of Mount Bierstadt.

Figure 6‐5. Simulated photo of 22 people‐at‐one‐time on the summit of Mount Bierstadt.

Wilderness Use and Capacity Model

A	Wilderness	use	and	capacity	model	was	developed	using	visitor	use	data	collected	during	the	

2012	data	collection	period,	including:	

 GPS	tracks	of	visitor	hikes	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Variables	derived	from	this	data	

include	the	proportion	of	hikers	who	make	it	to	the	summit,	hiking	times	from	the	trailhead	

to	the	summit,	time	spent	on	the	summit,	and	hiking	times	returning	from	the	summit	to	the	

trailhead.	

 Hourly	and	daily	visitor	use	counts	recorded	via	infrared	trail	counter	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail.	
434

Simulations	were	conducted	with	the	Wilderness	use	and	capacity	model	to:	

 Estimate	crowding‐related	conditions	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	on	typically	busy	

summer	weekend	days.	

 Estimate	the	maximum	number	of	people	that	can	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	per	day	

without	exceeding	the	crowding	threshold	for	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	used	in	this	

analysis.	

Simulation	results	suggest	that:	

 On	typically	busy	summer	days,	approximately	800	visitors	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

and	approximately	60%	of	visitors	who	hike	to	the	summit	see	more	than	22	PAOT.	This	

exceeds	the	Wilderness	capacity	of	GP,	based	on	the	crowding	threshold	for	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	summit	used	in	this	analysis.	

 A	maximum	of	400	people	can	be	accommodated	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	per	day	

without	exceeding	the	crowding	threshold	for	the	Mount	Bierstadt	summit	used	in	this	

analysis.	

The	Wilderness	use	and	capacity	model	results	suggest	a	Wilderness	use	permit	system	with	a	

quota	of	no	more	than	400	hikers	per	day	is	required	to	manage	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

The	following	section	describes	analyses	conducted	to	estimate	parking	and	transit	demand	that	

would	result	from	instituting	a	Wilderness	use	permit	system	with	a	quota	of	400	hikers	per	day	on	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

GP Parking and Transit Demand Analysis with Wilderness Permit Quota

The	Wilderness	use	and	capacity	model	was	used	to	estimate	parking	demand	that	would	result	

from	instituting	a	Wilderness	use	permit	system	with	a	quota	of	400	hikers	per	day	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail.	Parking	demand	was	estimated	based	on:	

1. A	total	of	400	hikers	per	day	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	with	hourly	arrivals	based	on	the	

pattern	of	arrivals	observed	via	the	infrared	trail	counter	installed	on	the	trail	during	the	

2012	data	collection	period.	

2. Estimates	from	the	hourly	parking	accumulation	data	collected	in	2012	of	the	hourly	

number	of	vehicles	that	park	at	GP	for	reasons	other	than	hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail.	

3. Parking	durations,	based	on	hiking	times	from	the	GPS	track	data	for	Mount	Bierstadt	

hikers	and	parking	turnover	data	collected	in	2012	for	other	GP	visitors.	

4. Designating	15	(out	of	106	total)	parking	spaces	for	people	who	park	at	GP	for	reasons	

other	than	hiking	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	and	allocating	all	remaining	parking	spaces	

to	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	permit	holders.	
435

Results	of	this	analysis	are	summarized	in	Table	6‐9	and	report	the	estimated	number	of	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	permit	holders	and	other	GP	visitors	who	would	be	unable	to	park	in	designated	

parking	spaces	at	GP.	

Table 6‐9. Unmet Parking Demand at GP with Wilderness Permit Quota

Hour

Unmet Parking Demand

Mount Bierstadt Permit Holders a

Unmet Parking Demand

Other GP Visitors b   

12:00 AM 0 0   

1:00 AM 0 0   

2:00 AM 0 0   

3:00 AM 0 0   

4:00 AM 0 0   

5:00 AM 0 0   

6:00 AM 0 21   

7:00 AM 0 43   

8:00 AM 30 0   

9:00 AM 28 82   

10:00 AM 21 58   

11:00 AM 9 5   

12:00 PM 1 36   

1:00 PM 0 18   

2:00 PM 0 24   

3:00 PM 0 1   

4:00 PM 0 1   

5:00 PM 0 2   

6:00 PM 0 0   

7:00 PM 0 0   

8:00 PM 0 0   

9:00 PM 0 0   

10:00 PM 0 0   

11:00 PM 0 0   

Total 90 290   

 

a Hourly estimate of unmet demand for designated parking among permit‐holding Mount Bierstadt Trail

users when 91 of 106 designated GP parking spaces are reserved for permit‐holding Mount Bierstadt Trail

users, and Mount Bierstadt Trail use is limited to 400 users per day. Number of permit holders

determined using average vehicle occupancy rate.   b Hourly estimate of unmet demand for designated parking among visitors to GP that do not intend to

hike the Mount Bierstadt Trail when 15 of 106 designated GP parking spaces are reserved for visitors to

GP that do not intend to hike the Mount Bierstadt Trail. Number of other GP visitors determined using

average vehicle occupancy rate.

The	findings	in	Table	6‐9	suggest	that	only	about	300	people	would	be	able	to	hike	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	per	day,	if	unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	GP	is	eliminated	and	overflow	parking	

and	transit	service	is	not	provided.	Yet,	the	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	suggests	as	many	as	400	

people	could	hike	the	trail	per	day	without	exceeding	the	crowding	threshold	for	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	summit.	Overflow	parking	(in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	or	at	another	location	along	GP	

Road)	and	transit	service	could	be	provided	to	maximize	the	allocation	of	Wilderness	use	permits	
436

to	ensure	up	to	400	people	have	access	to	hike	the	trail	per	day.	It	is	uncertain	whether	people	who	

wish	to	visit	GP	for	reasons	other	than	hiking	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	would	be	willing	to	park	at	

an	overflow	lot	and	ride	transit	to	GP,	or	if	they	would	choose	to	go	somewhere	else.	Thus,	the	

lower‐bound	estimate	of	ridership	demand	is	equal	to	the	first	column	of	unmet	parking	demand	in		

Table	6‐9,	and	the	upper‐bound	estimate	is	equal	to	the	sum	of	the	two	columns	of	unmet	parking	

demand	estimates	in	Table	6‐9.	

Summary of Findings: GP Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analyses

Results	from	the	physical	capacity	and	wilderness	capacity	analyses	support	substantially	different	

recommendations	for	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	at	GP,	and	corresponding	

outcomes	related	to	Wilderness	resource	values	and	Forest	Goals	(Table	6‐10).	Only the

Wilderness resource capacity‐based approach provides a sustainable solution for managing

transportation and visitor use at GP.	

Table 6‐10. Summary of Findings and Outcomes for Physical and Wilderness Capacity Analyses

Physical Capacity Analysis Wilderness Capacity Analysis

Mount Bierstadt

Trail Peak Use 800+ people per day 400 people per day

Wilderness Resource

Conditions

Approximately 60% of hikers

encounter more than 22 people per

view or more on the summit of

Mount Bierstadt

No more than 15% of hikers

encounter more than 22 people per

view on the summit of Mount

Bierstadt

Visitor Use

Management

No systematic visitor use

management

Wilderness use permit quota system

Transit Service

Recommendations12

Transit service; ridership demand of

400 to 700 people/day

Transit service; ridership demand of

100 to 400 people/day

Alignment with

Forest Goals

Does not align with forest goals for

resource protection and Wilderness

values. May eliminate unendorsed

roadside parking

Aligns with multiple goals (resource

protection, Wilderness values,

eliminating unendorsed roadside

parking)

																																																													

12 Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site provides a detailed description of the

estimated ridership demand for the referenced transit service.
437

MERA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis

MERA User Capacity Considerations

Parking	accumulation	and	turnover	data	collected	during	the	summer	of	2012	suggest	parking	

demand	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days	in	MERA	is	far	above	parking	capacity	from	late	

morning	through	late	afternoon/early	evening.	Between	the	hours	of	12:00	PM	and	4:00	PM	on	

typically	busy	peak	season	days,	there	is	gridlock	in	parking	lots	and	on	the	road	itself	as	visitors	

wait	for	a	place	to	park	at	Summit	Lake	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	Traffic	data	collected	during	

the	2012	season	also	indicate	long	lines	of	traffic	form	at	the	Welcome	Station	on	typically	busy	

summer	days,	and	during	particularly	busy	periods,	traffic	backs	up	onto	Colorado	Highway	103.	

Parking	and	traffic	conditions	on	typically	busy	summer	days	in	MERA	conflict	with	the	paramount	

experience	in	MERA:	scenic	driving.	Findings	from	the	2014	visitor	survey	in	MERA	indicate:	

 The	vast	majority	of	visitor	groups	to	Mount	Evans	(91%)	engage	in	scenic	driving,	and	

61%	of	visitor	groups	report	that	scenic	driving	is	their	primary	activity	on	their	trip	to	

MERA.	

 The	majority	of	weekend	(93%)	and	weekday	(70%)	visitors	reported	that	they	

experienced	parking	congestion	during	their	visit	to	MERA.	

 More	than	two‐thirds	(69%)	of	weekend	visitor	groups	and	about	one‐third	(29%)	of	

weekday	visitor	groups	thought	that	parking	congestion	in	MERA	was	moderate	to	extreme.	

 Forty‐percent	of	MERA	visitors	that	parked	at	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	reported	that	

they	did	not	park	in	an	actual	parking	space.	

In	contrast	to	the	findings	regarding	scenic	driving,	survey	results	suggest	crowding‐related	

impacts	to	Wilderness	values	on	the	Mount	Evans	summit	are	less	problematic:	

 Very	few	visitors	reported	walking/taking	a	short	hike	(11%),	day	hiking	(8%),	or	

overnight	backpacking	(0%)	as	their	primary	activity	during	their	visit	to	MERA.	

 Less	than	half	(46%)	of	MERA	visitors	hiked	to	the	“true	summit”	of	Mount	Evans	(and	this	

is	likely	over‐reported,	due	to	confusion	among	respondents	about	the	difference	between	

the	Mount	Evans	parking	lot	and	the	“true	summit”).	

 Regardless	of	the	day	of	the	week,	a	minority	(17%	on	weekdays	and	44%	on	weekend	

days)	of	those	MERA	visitors	who	hiked	to	the	“true	summit”	felt	crowded	when	they	were	

there.	

Based	on	the	study	findings,	the	user	capacity	analysis	for	MERA	focuses	on	the	physical	capacity	of	

designated	parking	areas	in	MERA	to	address	the	impacts	of	parking	shortages	and	traffic	

congestion	on	scenic	driving	experiences	and	safety.	
438

MERA User Capacity Analysis

Inbound	and	outbound	vehicle	counts	from	one	Automated	Traffic	Recorder	(ATR;	Figure	6‐6)	

deployed	during	the	summer	2012	data	collection	period	were	used	as	the	basis	for	the	MERA	

capacity	analysis,	using	the	following	sequence	of	calculations.	

Figure 6‐6. Approximate location of ATR, Mount Evans summer 2012.
439

1. Equation	1	was	used	to	estimate	the	hourly	net	vehicle	accumulation	in	MERA.	

Equation 1: NVAACCUM = PHA + (ATRIN ‐ ATROUT)

Where:

NVAACCUM = Hourly net vehicle accumulation in MERA

PHA = Previous hour’s net vehicle accumulation in MERA (assumed to be 0 at midnight)

ATRIN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR

ATROUT = Hourly outbound vehicle traffic at ATR

2. Equation	2	was	used	to	scale	hourly	net	vehicle	accumulation	estimates	from	Equation	1	to	

an	estimate	of	the	number	of	vehicles	parked	or	attempting	to	park	(i.e.,	parking	demand;	

Table	6‐11),	rather	than	just	touring	the	road	without	plans	to	park.	The	scale	factor	used	in	

Equation	2	(PercentPARK)	was	developed	based	on	the	parking	accumulation	and	traffic	data	

collected	in	2012.	

Equation 2: PDEMAND = NVAACCUM * PercentPARK

Where:

PDEMAND = Estimated hourly parking demand in MERA

NVAACCUM = Hourly net vehicle accumulation in MERA

PercentPARK = Scale factor to convert hourly net vehicle accumulation to estimated

parking demand
440

Table 6‐11. Estimated Hourly Net Vehicle Accumulation and Parking Demand in MERA on typically busy

Peak Season Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Parking Accumulation

(NVAACCUM)

Hourly Parking Demand

(PDEMAND)

12:00 AM  ‐2 0

1:00 AM  ‐2 0

2:00 AM  ‐4 0

3:00 AM  ‐4 0

4:00 AM 0 0

5:00 AM 15 10

6:00 AM 28 20

7:00 AM 53 37

8:00 AM 90 63

9:00 AM 149 104

10:00 AM 211 148

11:00 AM 275 192

12:00 PM 360 252

1:00 PM 406 284

2:00 PM 394 275

3:00 PM 314 220

4:00 PM 239 167

5:00 PM 165 115

6:00 PM 115 80

7:00 PM 84 59

8:00 PM 63 44

9:00 PM 56 39

10:00 PM 56 39

11:00 PM 55 38

3. Equation	3	was	used	to	compare	the	estimated	hourly	park	demand	from	Equation	2	to	the	

physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	areas	in	MERA.	

Equation 3:   If (PDEMAND > MERACAPACITY), User Capacity Exceeded. Else, Not Exceeded.

Where:

PDEMAND = Estimated hourly parking demand in MERA

MERACAPACITY = Designated parking capacity of MERA (99 spaces)

Results	of	the	user	capacity	analysis	suggest	that	visitor	use	exceeds	MERA’s	capacity	on	typically	

busy	peak	season	days.	Options	for	addressing	this	include	redirecting	visitors	to	other	recreation	

destinations	in	“real‐time”	using	VMS	and/or	onsite	staff,	via	a	reservation/permit	system	with	a	

daily	quota,	or	directing	visitors	to	an	overflow	parking	lot	with	transit	service	to	MERA.	Transit	

demand	analysis	was	conducted	to	estimate	hourly	ridership	demand	for	two	transit	service	

options	from	overflow	parking	locations.	
441

MERA Transit Demand Analysis with User Capacity Management

Hourly	unmet	parking	demand	at	MERA	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	based	on	the	physical	

site	capacity	of	the	designated	parking	areas,	and	corresponding	ridership	estimates	for	transit	

service	from	offsite	overflow	parking	were	estimated	using	the	following	sequence	of	equations.	

Additionally,	the	analysis	assumes	that	unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	MERA	is	eliminated.	

4. Equation	4	was	used	to	estimate	the	hourly	number	of	available/unoccupied	parking	spaces	

at	MERA.	

Equation 4: ParkingOPEN = MERACAPACITY – (PHA – VTOUT)

Where:

ParkingOPEN = Hourly number of parking spaces open in MERA

MERACAPACITY = Designated parking capacity of MERA (99 spaces)

PHA = Previous hour’s total parking accumulation in MERA (assumed to be 0 at midnight)

VTOUT = Estimate of hourly outbound vehicle traffic at MERA

  

5. Equation	5	was	used	to	estimate	hourly	unmet	parking	demand	as	a	function	of	the	hourly	

number	of	unoccupied	parking	spaces	and	inbound	vehicle	arrivals,	scaled	to	account	for	

only	those	vehicles	entering	MERA	with	intentions	of	parking.	

Equation 5: UPD = |ParkingOPEN – (ATRIN*PercentPARK)|

Where:

UPD = Hourly unmet parking demand

ParkingOPEN = Hourly number of parking spaces open in MERA

ATRIN = Hourly inbound vehicle traffic at ATR

PercentPARK = Scale factor to convert hourly inbound vehicles to estimated parking

demand

Equation	6	was	used	to	convert	the	hourly	unmet	demand	for	parking	in	MERA	from	vehicles	to	

visitors	using	the	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	for	MERA	(Table	6‐12).	

Equation 6: UDVISITORS = UPD * VehOccup

Where:

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet visitor demand for parking in MERA

UPD = Hourly unmet vehicle parking demand

VehOccup = Vehicle occupancy rate, as observed in summer 2012
442

Table 6‐12. Estimated Hourly Available Parking Spaces and Unmet Parking Demand (Vehicles and

Visitors) on typically busy Peak Season Summer Days

Hour

Hourly Open Parking

Spaces

(ParkingOPEN)

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Vehicles

(UPD)

Hourly Unmet Parking

Demand – Visitors

(UDVISITORS)

12:00 AM 99 0 0

1:00 AM 99 0 0

2:00 AM 99 0 0

3:00 AM 99 0 0

4:00 AM 99 0 0

5:00 AM 99 0 0

6:00 AM 90 0 0

7:00 AM 81 0 0

8:00 AM 65 0 0

9:00 AM 42 5 14

10:00 AM 13 44 119

11:00 AM 26 58 156

12:00 PM 26 84 225

1:00 PM 27 74 200

2:00 PM 34 55 148

3:00 PM 43 21 57

4:00 PM 43 0 0

5:00 PM 43 0 0

6:00 PM 56 0 0

7:00 PM 59 0 0

8:00 PM 67 0 0

9:00 PM 70 0 0

10:00 PM 69 0 0

11:00 PM 70 0 0

Total . 341 919

6. Results	from	the	2014	MERA	visitor	survey	suggest	60%	of	MERA	visitors	would	be	likely	to	

visit	MERA	on	a	future	trip,	even	if	they	had	to	park	in	an	overflow	lot	near	the	MERA	

Welcome	Station	and	tour	MERA	in	vans.	In	contrast,	only	23%	of	visitors	said	they	would	

be	likely	to	do	this	if	overflow	parking	was	located	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado.	These	

percentages	were	applied	in	Equation	7	to	the	hourly	unmet	visitor	demand	estimates	from	

Equation	6	to	estimate	hourly	ridership	demand	for	shuttle	service	from	an	offsite	overflow	

lot.	

Equation 7: RidershipMERA = PercentRIDE * UDVISITORS

Where:

RidershipMERA = Estimated hourly ridership demand

PercentRIDE = Estimated proportion of visitors who would opt to ride the transit service

UDVISITORS = Hourly unmet visitor demand for parking in MERA
443

Results	of	Equation	7	suggest	that	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	approximately	552	visitors	

who	could	not	otherwise	park	in	designated	parking	spaces	at	MERA,	would	opt	to	use	transit	

service	from	an	overflow	parking	lot	near	the	MERA	Welcome	Station.	Alternatively,	approximately	

only	211	visitors	would	do	this	if	the	overflow	parking	lot	was	in	Idaho	Springs	(Table	6‐13).	

Table 6‐13. Ridership Demand Estimates for MERA Alternative Transportation Options

Hour

Staging Near Welcome Station  

Ridership Demanda

Staging in Idaho Springs

Ridership Demandb   

12:00 AM 0 0   

1:00 AM 0 0   

2:00 AM 0 0   

3:00 AM 0 0   

4:00 AM 0 0   

5:00 AM 0 0   

6:00 AM 0 0   

7:00 AM 0 0   

8:00 AM 0 0   

9:00 AM 8 3   

10:00 AM 71 27   

11:00 AM 93 36   

12:00 PM 135 52   

1:00 PM 120 46   

2:00 PM 89 34   

3:00 PM 34 13   

4:00 PM 0 0   

5:00 PM 0 0   

6:00 PM 0 0   

7:00 PM 0 0   

8:00 PM 0 0   

9:00 PM 0 0   

10:00 PM 0 0   

11:00 PM 0 0   

Total 552 211   

 

a Transit Ridership Estimate for Welcome Station Shuttle Service: Service from (newly designated or

constructed) lot near Welcome Station into MERA, coupled with parking restrictions in which it is

assumed 60% of visitors who would otherwise park in undesignated roadside parking (because

designated lots are full) take transit and the other 40% choose to go somewhere other than MERA.

 b Transit Ridership Estimate for Idaho Springs Shuttle Service: Service from Idaho Springs, Colorado,

to Welcome Station and from Welcome Station into MERA, coupled with parking restrictions in

which it is assumed 23% of visitors who would otherwise park in undesignated roadside parking

(because designated lots are full) take transit and the other 77% choose to go somewhere other

than MERA.
444

Summary of Findings: MERA Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand

Analysis

The	direction	for	the	MERA	user	capacity	analysis	was	derived	from	a	data‐driven	exploration	of	

transportation	and	visitor	use	issues	at	MERA.	Survey	results	suggest	that	scenic	driving	is	the	

paramount	visitor	use	at	MERA,	and	that	visitors	to	the	“true	summit”	generally	do	not	feel	

crowded	under	current	use	conditions.	Additionally,	parking	accumulation	and	traffic	data	indicate	

that	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	MERA	parking	demand	far	exceeds	capacity	and	gridlock	

occurs	in	parking	lots	and	on	the	road.	The	physical	capacity	analysis	identified	unmet	demand	for	

parking	at	MERA.	A	transit	demand	analysis	was	performed	to	determine	the	potential	for	transit	to	

satisfy	the	excess	demand	for	parking.	Two	alternative	transportation	scenarios	were	explored,	and	

may	serve	as	potential	solutions	for	accommodating	the	excess	demand	within	the	existing	parking	

capacity13.	If	alternative	transportation	to	MERA	is	implemented,	continued	monitoring	of	visitor	

use	and	perceptions	of	crowding	on	the	“true	summit”	of	MERA	should	be	implemented	to	ensure	

that	the	visitor	experience	is	not	altered	by	the	addition	of	alternative	transportation	to	MERA.	

																																																													

13 Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site provides a detailed description of the

estimated ridership demand for the referenced alternative transportation scenarios.
445

Chapter 7:TRANSIT FEASIBILITY ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY

SITE

Note: The content included in this chapter was originally contributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, report #DOT‐VNTSC‐FHWA‐16‐04, in the form of a

technical memorandum issued to FWHA CFLHD as an interim deliverable.
446

Introduction

Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site	describes	a	range	of	potential	

transit	components	at	each	study	site	that	could	be	implemented	to	address	identified	

transportation	needs.	For	each	transit	scenario,	a	description	of	the	component,	ridership	

estimates,	scheduling	and	operational	parameters,	vehicle	needs,	and	cost	estimates	are	provided.	

As	demonstrated	in	the	preceding	Chapter 6: ARNF Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand

Analysis, by Site,	transit	components	may	be	helpful	in	meeting	unmet	demand	for	vehicle	access	to	

the	study	sites.	To	further	explore	the	feasibility	of	transit	options	at	each	study	site,	this	transit	

feasibility	study	was	performed	to	greater	detail	for	potential	transit	implementation	at	BLRA,	GP,	

and	MERA.	

Potential	transit	alternatives,	representing	a	range	of	costs,	potential	impacts,	and	implementation	

timeframes	were	developed	in	consultation	with	the	USFS,	and	included,	among	other	things,	input	

from	local	stakeholders	and	public	meeting	attendees.	Using	initial	screening	from	the	evaluation	

criteria	(a	process	described	in	Chapter 8: Alternative Component Analyses, Methodology and Results

to	follow),	the	transit	components	that	were	most	likely	to	meet	the	study’s	goals	and	address	

USFS’s	needs	were	identified	and	evaluated.	Upon	further	analysis,	some	of	the	evaluated	transit	

components	proved	to	have	a	combination	of	high	costs	and	minimal	benefits,	such	that	these	were	

deemed	unfeasible	for	implementation.	These	“unfeasible”	transit	components	are	identified	in	this	

chapter,	but	detailed	evaluation	is	only	included	for	the	transit	scenarios	deemed	to	be	“feasible.”	It	

should	be	noted	that	all	costs	presented	in	this	chapter	are	estimates	based	on	assumptions	and	

industry	averages.	Actual	costs,	based	on	the	selected	vehicle	and	local	fuel	and	shuttle	operator	

costs,	should	be	determined	as	part	of	site‐specific	implementation	plans.	

Methods

The	cost	estimates	for	all	alternative	transportation	scenarios	are	a	combination	of	the	following:	

1. Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs	

2. Vehicle	purchase	or	lease	cost	

3. Start‐up	costs	

4. Operation	costs	(annual)	

5. Maintenance	costs	(annual)	

Operations	and	maintenance	costs	are	calculated	annually	based	on	fuel	costs,	vehicle	maintenance	

(related	to	road	and	operating	conditions),	driver	salaries,	and	other	fixed‐per‐mile	or	‐hour	

expenses.	The	other	costs	may	either	be	one‐time	costs	at	transit	initiation	or	costs	that	may	be	

spread	over	a	few	years,	depending	on	transit	system	design.	If	the	USFS	elects	to	do	a	short‐term	

pilot	or	lease	of	vehicles,	the	upfront	infrastructure	costs	will	be	less	in	the	short	term	but	may	

eventually	be	greater	in	the	long	term.	Both	lease	and	purchase	estimates	are	included	for	all	

scenarios.14	One‐time	costs	include:	

																																																													

14 The project team was not tasked with evaluating the ownership, leasing, or contracting options available to the

USFS for this shuttle service, so this report does not specify what entity would lease or own the vehicles.
447

 Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	like	bus	shelters	and	benches	and	

 Start‐up	costs	like	vehicle	procurement,	training,	and	initial	marketing,	which	is	higher	in	

the	first	year	of	operations	when	visitors	have	no	knowledge	of	the	service.	Start‐up	costs	

are	estimated	as	$20,000	in	Year	1.15

These	one‐time	costs	are	shown	as	aggregated	over	the	life	of	the	purchase,	which	in	most	cases	is	

12	years	(the	average	lifecycle	of	the	proposed	transit	vehicles).	These	are	simplified	because	

vehicles,	transit‐supportive	infrastructure,	staff	oversight	efforts,	and	signage	may	have	different	

lifecycles	and	replacement	needs.	

The	cost	estimates	also	include	a	cost	per	passenger,	which	includes	the	following	components:	

 Annual	capital	cost,	which	equals	the	total	capital	cost	(vehicle	purchase	or	lease,	bus	

shelters,	benches,	start‐up	costs)	divided	by	the	life	of	the	vehicles	and	infrastructure	(20‐	

and	28‐passenger	vehicles	are	calculated	with	a	12‐year	lifecycle	and	15‐passenger	vehicles	

with	a	7‐year	lifecycle)	plus...	

 Annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost,	which	includes	fuel,	driver	salaries,	and	annual	

maintenance,	divided	by...	

 The	total	number	of	passengers	per	season,	which	is	the	average	number	of	daily	

passengers	multiplied	by	the	number	of	service	days	per	year.	

BLRA Transit Feasibility Analysis

The	BLRA	is	located	approximately	55	miles	northwest	of	downtown	Denver	and	25	miles	

northwest	of	Boulder,	Colorado.	Brainard	Lake	Road	runs	from	the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway	

(Colorado	72)	4.8	miles	to	Brainard	Lake	and	around	the	lake	until	it	forks	with	one	fork	leading	to	

a	parking	lot	at	Long	Lake	Trailhead	and	the	other	leading	to	a	parking	lot	at	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead.	Both	of	these	trailheads	access	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW).	A	Courtesy	Station	

(where	the	parking	concessionaire	collects	a	fee)	and	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	are	

located	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	2.6	miles	from	the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway.	A	campground	and	the	

Day	Use	Parking	Lot	are	located	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	as	it	approaches	the	lake.	Brainard	Lake	

Road	is	closed	at	the	Courtesy	Station	from	mid‐October	to	mid‐June,	but	visitors	park	at	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	during	the	off‐season	and	hike	or	cross‐country	ski	in	BLRA.	The	

USFS	estimates	over	100,000	people	visit	BLRA	annually,	with	the	majority	of	use	concentrated	

between	June	and	October.	

In	the	past,	summer	visitation	volumes	led	to	several	undesirable	transportation‐related	safety	and	

natural	resource	concerns.	The	USFS	recently	addressed	these	concerns	by	re‐engineering	and	

expanding	the	Day	Use	Parking	Lot,	closing	a	portion	of	the	loop	road	around	the	lake,	prohibiting	

																																																													

15 Volpe Center. 2011. Bus Lifecycle Cost Model for Federal Land Management Agencies. User’s Guide. Accessed 23

April 2015: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐

lifecycle‐cost‐modeling
448

roadside	parking,	and	by	hiring	a	concessionaire	to	actively	manage	and	enforce	parking	

restrictions.	Nonetheless	a	few	more	minor	issues	exist	today:	

 Traffic	congestion,	idling,	and	queuing	at	the	Courtesy	Station,	which	has	natural	resource	

impacts	and	can	impede	access	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(as	noted	in	Chapter 4:

Need Identification by Site).	

 Visitors	walking	along	the	road,	and	therefore	conflicting	with	motor	vehicles,	between	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	lake	and	trailheads.	

Relevant Constraints and Needs

Currently,	the	USFS	believes	that	the	current	number	of	visitors	accessing	the	IPW	is	appropriate.	

However,	the	agency	also	feels	that	any	increase	in	the	number	of	visitors	to	the	IPW	would	have	

negative	impacts	on	visitor’s	wilderness	experience	as	well	as	impacts	to	natural	resources,	such	as	

erosion	and	off‐trail	impacts	to	the	IPW’s	fragile	above	tree‐line	ecosystems.	Therefore,	a	central	

constraint	for	the	transit	system	is	that	it	should	not	result	in	a	net	increase	of	visitors	to	the	IPW.	

Proposed Transit Scenarios

Through	meetings	with	USFS	staff,	stakeholders,	and	the	public,	the	following	transit	scenarios	

were	developed.	Evaluation	of	the	scenarios	by	project	partners	(FHWA	CFLHD,	RSG,	and	the	

USDOT	John	A.	Volpe	Center).	This	group	then	determined	that	the	first	three	scenarios	were	

impractical	due	to	their	costs	and	because	they	would	result	in	an	increase	of	visitors	to	the	IPW;	

however,	these	scenarios	were	evaluated	nonetheless	because	of	stakeholder	interest	expressed	

before	the	implementation	of	recent	parking	lot	and	management	improvements.	Of	the	presented	

scenarios,	the	fourth	scenario	has	been	deemed	the	most	practical	and	would	complement	these	

improvements.	All	of	the	scenarios	assume	the	current	fee	collection	and	parking	management	

operations	will	continue	into	the	future.	Figure	7‐1	illustrates	all	four	BLRA	scenarios	and	Table	7‐1	

lists	the	stops	served	by	each	scenario.	
449

Figure 7‐1. BLRA Scenarios

Table 7‐1. Stops Served by Each Scenario

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Nederland Yes Yes    

Gateway Trailhead

Parking Lot

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Day Use Lot Yes Yes Yes Yes

Niwot Mountain TH Yes Yes   

Long Lake TH Yes Yes Yes   

Mitchell Lake TH Yes Yes Yes   

1. Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, Day Use Lot, and IPW

Trailhead Lots Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	the	RTD	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Nederland,	

Colorado,	and	BLRA	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	in	BLRA	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	

Day	Use	Lot,	Long	Lake	Trailhead,	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead.	Existing	facilities	would	be	used	

for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	at	the	RTD	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Nederland	to	the	extent	

possible,	and	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	the	en	route	shuttle	stops	in	

BLRA.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	

through	Labor	Day.	This	decision	to	restrict	service	to	weekends	and	holidays	was	driven	by	

BLRA	visitation	patterns;	the	BLRA	receives	on	average	twice	the	number	of	visitors	on	

weekend	days	than	on	weekdays	during	the	summer.	The	hours	of	operation	correspond	with	
450

peak	hours	of	visitor	use	in	the	IPW.	The	frequency	of	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	

according	to	ridership	demand	and	parking	capacities.

2. Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot with Circulator from

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and IPW Trailheads

This	scenario	is	composed	of	two	separate	shuttle	services,	requiring	visitor	transfers	in	order	

to	access	the	IPW	trailheads.	The	first	shuttle	service	would	operate	between	the	RTD	park‐

and‐ride	lot	in	Nederland	and	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	BLRA.	The	second	shuttle	

service	would	operate	within	the	BLRA	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot,	Day	Use	Lot,	Niwot	Mountain	Lot,	Long	Lake	Trailhead,	and	Mitchell	Lake	

Trailhead.	Existing	facilities	would	be	used	for	shuttle	bus	loading/unloading	areas	at	the	park‐

and‐ride	lot	in	Nederland	to	the	extent	possible,	and	loading/unloading	areas	would	be	

designated	at	the	en	route	shuttle	stops	in	BLRA.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	

and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	hours	of	operation	

correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use/hiking	in	the	IPW.	The	frequency	of	shuttle	service	

would	be	operated	according	to	ridership	demand.	

3. Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and Indian Peaks

Wilderness Trailheads

For	this	scenario,	shuttle	buses	would	operate	within	the	BLRA	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	Day	Use	Lot,	Niwot	Mountain	Lot,	Long	Lake	Trailhead,	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead.	Loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	the	en	route	shuttle	

stops	in	BLRA.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	

weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	hours	of	operation	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	

use/hiking	in	the	IPW.	The	frequency	of	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	according	to	

ridership	demand	and	parking	capacities.	

4. Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot

For	this	scenario,	shuttle	buses	would	operate	within	the	BLRA	with	stops	at	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	Day	Use	Lot.	Loading/unloading	areas	would	be	designated	at	

these	two	stops.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	Day	

weekend	through	Labor	Day.	The	hours	of	operation	correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	

use/hiking	in	the	area.	The	frequency	of	shuttle	service	would	be	operated	according	to	

ridership	demand,	parking	capacities,	and	congestion	and	queuing	at	the	Courtesy	Station.

Table	7‐2	provides	a	summary	of	the	operations	and	costs	of	each	of	the	scenarios	and	the	following	

sections	contain	details	for	each	scenario.	Note	that	costs	to	own	are	averaged	over	seven	years	and	

do	not	include	start‐up	costs	for	marketing	or	signage,	which	is	estimated	to	be	around	$20,000	for	

each	scenario.	Scenario	4	is	the	most	cost	efficient	and	would	likely	improve	the	congestion	and	

safety	concerns	at	the	Courtesy	Station	more	effectively	or	at	least	as	effectively	as	any	of	the	other	

scenarios.	
451

Table 7‐2. BLRA Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary

Scenario 1 Scenario 2,

Component 1

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Travel Time (Round‐trip) 98 minutes 52 minutes 53 minutes 20 minutes

Distance (Round‐trip) 35.8 miles 28.6 miles 7.2 miles 4.4 miles

Hours of Operation 7am to 7pm 7am to 7pm 7am to 6pm 7am to 6pm

Frequency of Service 20 minutes 30 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes

Vehicles Required 5 2 3 1

Days in Service 35 35 35 35

Passengers/Day 208 13 195 195

Cost to Own/Year $136,408 $58,032 $66,604 $25,981

Cost to Own/Year/Rider $18.74 $127.54 $9.76 $3.81

Cost to Lease/Year $126,744 $51,422 $67,810 $26,967

Cost to Lease/Year/Rider $17.41 $113.02 $9.94 $3.95

Scenario 1: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot,

Day Use Lot, and IPW Trailhead Lots

This	section	describes	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	service	from	Nederland	to	BLRA.	

This	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	capital	elements	(such	as	

staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Nederland,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	BLRA	and	the	IPW	

Trailhead	Lots	with	a	stop	in	both	directions	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	Day	Use	

Parking	Lot.	Table	7‐3	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	between	stops	for	this	scenario.	

Table 7‐3. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 1

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot 14.3 miles 24 minutes

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot 2.2 miles 6 minutes

Day Use Lot to Long Lake Trailhead 1.1 miles 5 minutes

Long Lake Trailhead to Mitchell Lake Trailhead 0.7 miles 3 minutes

Mitchell Lake Trailhead to Day Use Lot 1.0 miles 5 minutes

Day Use Lot to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot 2.2 miles 6 minutes

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Nederland 14.3 miles 24 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 35.8 miles 73 minutes (driving)

98 minutes (with stops)16

																																																													

16 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading and unloading in Nederland and 3 minute stops at all

other stops.
452

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	first	

estimated	based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey17.	The	transit	

ridership	estimate	assumes	that	two	percent	of	all	visitors	who	currently	drive	through	Nederland	

on	route	to	and	from	BLRA	would	choose	to	use	the	optional	transit	service	from	Nederland	to	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	According	to	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	76%	of	visitors	

would	elect	to	take	a	short	transit	ride	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	BLRA	hiking	

destinations,	if this were their only option to visit BLRA because	parking	lots	were	full.	(The	

assumption	is	that	the	remaining	24%	of	visitors	would	not	visit	BLRA	during	times	that	these	

parking	conditions	exist.)	The	estimate	is	also	coupled	with	the	continuance	of	parking	restrictions	

and	management.	Hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	92nd	percentile	design	day	(737	vehicles	per	day)	at	

an	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	2.5	people	per	vehicle	were	used	to	translate	percentages	to	

ridership	volumes.	

The resulting estimate is 208 passengers per day (13	passengers	from	Nederland	to	BLRA	and	

195	passengers	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	other	stops).	Most	passengers	would	

arrive	between	10	a.m.	and	1	p.m.,	and	the	greatest	volume	of	visitors	would	be	between	11	a.m.	

and	12	p.m.	and	between	1	p.m.	and	2	p.m.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	are	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	

Traffic	volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	from	the	parking	and	transportation	studies	done	in	BLRA	

during	the	summer	2013	season	show	that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	at	Long	and	

Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Lots	starting	around	8	a.m.	However,	the	Day	Use	Lot	does	not	fill	up	until	

11	a.m.,	which	is	when	the	demand	for	the	transit	service	is	anticipated	to	be	greatest.	To	ease	the	

crowding	in	advance	of	exceeding	capacity	(for	visitors	who	would	prefer	to	take	a	shuttle	rather	

than	driving	to	or	within	BLRA),	transit	service	should	began	at	7:00	a.m.	

Headways	are	used	to	describe	the	average	amount	of	time	between	vehicles	traveling	the	same	

transit	route;	headways	indicate	the	scheduled	frequency	of	transit	service.	A	system	with	

maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	safety	with	

financial	and	operational	feasibility.18	The	system	would	operate	every	20	minutes	from	7	a.m.	

through	7	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	leaving	Nederland	at	5:20	p.m.).	See	Table	7‐4	for	a	summary	

schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	Scenario	1,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	

																																																													

17 Traffic volume and survey data for BLRA are reported in Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings. 18 The 20‐minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
453

This	service	schedule	would	consist	of	32	round	trips	daily	and	5	shuttle	buses.	There	would	be	an	

average	of	7	passengers	per	trip	throughout	the	day.	During	peak	periods	(11	a.m.	to	1	p.m.),	

average	ridership	would	be	higher,	perhaps	up	to	12	passengers	per	trip.	

Table 7‐4. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 1

Departure (Staging) Arrival (THs) Arrival (Staging) Vehicle #

7:00 AM 7:50 AM 8:40 AM 1

7:20 AM 8:10 AM 9:00 AM 2

7:40 AM 8:30 AM 9:20 AM 3

8:00 AM 8:50 AM 9:40 AM 4

8:20 AM 9:10 AM 10:00 AM 5

8:40 AM 9:30 AM 10:20 AM 1

9:00 AM 9:50 AM 10:40 AM 2

9:20 AM 10:10 AM 11:00 AM 3

9:40 AM 10:30 AM 11:20 AM 4

10:00 AM 10:50 AM 11:40 AM 5

10:20 AM 11:10 AM 12:00 PM 1

10:40 AM 11:30 AM 12:20 PM 2

11:00 AM 11:50 AM 12:40 PM 3

11:20 AM 12:10 PM 1:00 PM 4

11:40 AM 12:30 PM 1:20 PM 5

12:00 PM 12:50 PM 1:40 PM 1

12:20 PM 1:10 PM 2:00 PM 2

12:40 PM 1:30 PM 2:20 PM 3

1:00 PM 1:50 PM 2:40 PM 4

1:20 PM 2:10 PM 3:00 PM 5

1:40 PM 2:30 PM 3:20 PM 1

2:00 PM 2:50 PM 3:40 PM 2

2:20 PM 3:10 PM 4:00 PM 3

2:40 PM 3:30 PM 4:20 PM 4

3:00 PM 3:50 PM 4:40 PM 5

3:20 PM 4:10 PM 5:00 PM 1

3:40 PM 4:30 PM 5:20 PM 2

4:00 PM 4:50 PM 5:40 PM 3

4:20 PM 5:10 PM 6:00 PM 4

4:40 PM 5:30 PM 6:20 PM 5

5:00 PM 5:50 PM 6:40 PM 1

5:20 PM 6:10 PM 7:00 PM 2

Bolded runs would not pick up visitors in Nederland such that the last “new” transit visitors arrive via the 4:40 PM

shuttle.
454

Vehicle Selection

Ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	shuttle	would	average	seven	passengers	per	

trip	with	a	peak	of	10	to	12	in	the	late	morning	to	early	afternoon.	In	considering	passenger	safety	

and	convenience,	a	20	minute	headway	(see	Service	Hours	and	Frequency)	was	chosen,	and	with	

three	trips	per	hour,	transit	service	can	meet	demand	with	12‐passenger	light‐duty	shuttle	buses.	

Using	smaller	vehicles	will	save	some	on	upfront	capital	costs,	have	less	of	an	impact	on	the	

roadway,	would	not	require	drivers	to	hold	a	CDL,	and	allow	for	increased	vehicle	maneuverability	

and	storage	options.	

GSA	AutoChoice	lists	several	options	for	light‐duty	shuttle	buses	that	would	meet	the	needs	for	

BLRA	transit	service.	Since	the	shuttle	service	would	be	a	fixed‐route	system,	the	vehicle	must	be	

“readily	accessible	to	and	usable	by	individuals	with	disabilities,	including	individuals	who	use	

wheelchairs”19	(Figure	7‐2).	Such	a	vehicle,	such	as	a	Goshen	Coach	Pacer	II,	which	includes	a	

wheelchair	lift,	will	cost	about	$70,000.	Since	five	of	these	vehicles	are	necessary	for	Scenario	1,	the	

total	cost	to	purchase	these	vehicles	would	be	$350,000.	

Figure 7‐2. Exterior (left) and interior (right) of a Goshen Coach Pacer II20

	 	

Staging

Two	options	for	staging	transit	in	Nederland	were	considered.	In	both	cases,	lots	are	owned	by	

other	public	agencies	and	USFS	would	need	to	enter	into	a	use	agreement	with	owners.	The	

locations	in	Table	7‐5	were	considered	as	preliminary	options	for	staging.	To	date,	contact	has	not	

been	made	with	the	owners	of	these	lots	nor	has	an	assessment	of	the	current	status	of	each	lot	

during	peak	summer	weekend	days	been	completed.	

Table 7‐5. Preliminary Options for BLRA Scenario 1 Staging

																																																													

19 Subpart D. Acquisition of Accessible Vehicles By Public Entities; Sec. 37.71 Purchase or lease of new non‐rail

vehicles by public entities operating fixed route systems. http://www.fta.dot.gov/12876_3906.html 20 Source: tescobus.com
455

Location Capacity Notes

RTD Park‐N‐Ride Lot 79 lined spots Located close to downtown; Park‐N‐Ride serves

buses to/from Boulder and beyond

Nederland Middle‐Senior High School 46 lined spots 1.2 miles outside of town; also serves Hessie

Trailhead Shuttle on summer weekends

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions21

The	following	cost	assumptions	in	Table	7‐6	allow	for	the	calculation	of	seasonal	operations	and	

maintenance	costs.	All	costs	are	from	the	Volpe	Bus	Lifecycle	Cost	Model	and	updated	to	2015.	

Table 7‐6. Assumptions Driving Costs in BLRA Scenario 1

Transit Element Cost Assumption

Driver hourly wage $30

Fuel cost per gallon $3.50

Maintenance cost per mile (based on condition of

Peak‐to‐Peak Highway and Brainard Lake Rd.)

$0.60

Fueling station and maintenance facility $0.00 (Assume USFS uses existing stations/facility and

does not construct new ones exclusively for transit)

Cost Estimates

This	scenario	assumes	that	the	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs,	which	include	bus	shelters	

and	benches,	would	be	negligible	since	much	of	this	infrastructure	already	exists	at	the	proposed	

staging	areas	and	stops.	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation	of	signage,	

initial	promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1	and	should	

be	added	to	the	purchase	and	leasing	cost	estimates	below.	

Table	7‐7	and	Table	7‐8	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	full‐size	vans.	These	vehicles	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	BLRA.	These	tables	

also	show	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assumes	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	account	

for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐7. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 1

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

Light‐Duty Shuttle Bus 5 $70,000 $350,000

																																																													

21 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling).
456

Table 7‐8. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 1

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $78,938 $10.84

Year One Capital Costs   $350,000 $48.08

Costs Per Season (2‐7, cumulative) $525,919 $10.32

Total $954,856 $18.74

The	USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

full‐size	passenger	vans.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.22	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$3,092	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$12,368	each.	Because	lease	

rates	include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	

cost	is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	total	cost	of	$64,904	per	

year	for	all	five	vehicles.	Table	7‐9	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	

option.	

Table 7‐9. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease Per Year in BLRA Scenario 1

Full‐size

Passenger Vans

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital

Total O&M

(Fuel & Driver)

Total

Costs

Total Per

Passenger

One Season23 5 $3,092 $12,368 $61,840 $64,904 $126,744 $17.41

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	less	expensive.	

	Due	to	the	relatively	low	number	of	passengers	using	this	transit	service	(208	passengers	

represent	less	than	eight	percent	of	the	approximately	1,843	visitors	on	a	92nd	percentile	day),	the	

length	of	the	service	in	terms	of	miles	and	minutes,	and	the	high	level	of	service	needed	for	

passenger	safety	and	convenience,	the	cost	per	passenger	is	relatively	high	in	both	the	purchase‐	

and	lease‐scenarios.	Implementation	of	this	transit	scenario	would	need	capital	investment	from	

the	USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	vehicles	and	infrastructure.	This	scenario	would	likely	

need	a	subsidy	to	cover	the	per‐passenger	operating	cost	or	charge	high	fees	to	passengers.	

																																																													

22 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000 mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance. 23 The season refers to the three months of transit service described for all scenarios (Memorial Day through Labor

Day).
457

Scenario 2: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

with Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and IPW

Trailheads

This	section	describes	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	service	from	Nederland	to	BLRA	

and	is	divided	into	two	components:	the	first	component	is	a	shuttle	service	between	Nederland	

and	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(presented	below)	and	the	second	is	a	circulator	between	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	Day	Use	Lot	and	IPW	Trailheads	(presented	in	Scenario	

3).	This	section	presents	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	capital	

elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs	for	component	1	(with	the	assumption	

that	component	2,	described	in	Scenario	3,	would	also	be	implemented).	

Component 1: Shuttle Service from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Nederland	(the	Nederland	Park‐n‐Ride	is	used	as	the	staging	area	

for	the	analysis	below),	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	

BLRA.	Table	7‐10	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	between	stops	for	this	scenario.	

Table 7‐10. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 1

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Nederland to Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot

14.3 miles 24 minutes

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

to Nederland

14.3 miles 24 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 28.6 miles 48 minutes (driving)

52 minutes (with stops)24

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey25.	Accordingly,	the	ridership	

estimate	assumes	that	two	percent	of	all	visitors	who	currently	drive	through	Nederland	on	route	

to	and	from	BLRA	would	choose	to	use	the	optional	transit	service	from	Nederland	to	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	To	translate	this	percentage	to	ridership	volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	

a	92nd	percentile	design	day	(737	vehicles	per	day)	at	an	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	2.5	

people	per	vehicle	were	used.	The resulting estimate is 13 passengers per day.	

																																																													

24 The total time for each route includes a 4 minute stop at the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot. 25 Traffic volume and survey data for BLRA are reported in Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings.
458

Service Hours and Frequency

As	is	described	for	Scenario	1,	service	hours	and	frequency	are	based	on	ridership	demand	and	

feasibility.	Accordingly,	transit	service	should	begin	at	7:00	a.m.	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	30	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.	The	system	would	therefore	operate	every	30	

minutes	from	7	a.m.	through	7	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	leaving	Nederland	at	6	p.m.).	See	Table	

7‐11	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	component	1,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	to	

each	trip.	This	service	schedule	would	call	for	23	round	trips	daily	and	5	shuttle	buses.	

Table 7‐11. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1

Departure (Staging) Arrival (THs) Arrival (Staging) Vehicle #

7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 1

7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 2

8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 1

8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 2

9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 1

9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 2

10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1

10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 2

11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 1

11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 2

12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1

12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2

1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 1

1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 2

2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 1

2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 2

3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 1

3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 2

4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 1

4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 2

5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 1

5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 2

6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 1

Bolded runs would not pick up visitors in Nederland such that the last “new” transit visitors arrive via the 4:40 PM

shuttle.

Vehicle Selection

The	same	light‐duty	shuttle	bus	used	for	Scenario	1	should	be	used	for	Scenario	2.	Since	this	vehicle	

would	likely	cost	around	$70,000,	two	vehicles	would	cost	$140,000.	
459

Staging

Staging	for	BLRA	Scenario	2,	Component	1	in	Nederland	is	the	same	as	BLRA	Scenario	1.

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions26

The	operations	and	maintenance	assumptions	for	this	scenario	is	the	same	as	in	BLRA	Scenario	1.

Cost Estimates

The	cost	estimates	for	BLRA	Scenario	2,	Component	1	are	a	combination	of	the	following	costs:	

1. Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs	

2. Vehicle	purchase	or	lease	

3. Start‐up	costs	

4. Operation	costs	(annual)	

5. Maintenance	costs	(annual)	

This	scenario	assumes	that	the	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs,	which	include	bus	shelters	

and	benches,	would	be	negligible	since	much	of	this	infrastructure	already	exists	at	the	proposed	

staging	areas	and	stop.	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation	of	signage,	initial	

promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1	and	should	be	

added	to	the	purchase	and	leasing	cost	estimates	below.	

Table	7‐12	and	Table	7‐13	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	full‐size	vans.	These	vehicles	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	BLRA.	These	tables	

also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assumes	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	

account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐12. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

Light‐Duty Shuttle Bus 2 $70,000 $140,000

Table 7‐13. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $34,744 $76.36

Year One Capital Costs   $140,000 $307.69

Costs Per Season (2‐7, cumulative) $231,479 $72.68

Total $406,223 $127.54

As	is	the	case	with	Scenario	1,	USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	

option	to	test	the	viability	of	transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	

presents	pricing	options	for	full‐size	passenger	vans.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	

																																																													

26 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling).
460

federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.27	GSA	short‐

term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	this	size	are	$3,092	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	

$12,368	each.	Because	lease	rates	include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	

operations	and	maintenance	cost	is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	

at	a	total	cost	of	$26,686	per	year	for	both	vans.	Table	7‐14	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	

costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐14. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease Per Year in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 1

Full‐size

Passenger Vans

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital

Total O&M (Fuel

& Driver)

Total

Costs

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 2 $3,092 $12,368 $24,736 $26,686 $51,422 $113.02

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	less	expensive.	

Due	to	the	very	low	number	of	passengers	using	this	transit	service	(13	passengers	represent	less	

than	one	percent	of	the	approximately	1,843	visitors	on	a	92nd	percentile	day),	the	length	of	the	

service	in	terms	of	miles	and	minutes,	and	the	level	of	service	needed	for	passenger	convenience,	

the	cost	per	passenger	is	extremely	high	in	both	the	purchase‐	and	lease‐scenarios.	Implementation	

of	component	1	of	this	transit	scenario	would	need	capital	investment	from	the	USFS	(or	another	

funding	source)	for	vehicles	and	infrastructure.	Component	1	of	this	scenario	would	likely	need	a	

large	subsidy	to	cover	the	per‐passenger	operating	cost	or	charge	high	fees	to	passengers	and	is	

therefore	not	recommended	for	implementation.	Analyzing	component	2	together	with	this	

component	is	therefore	not	necessary,	so	the	following	transit	scenario	should	only	be	considered	

as	a	standalone	scenario.	

Scenario 3: Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot and

IPW Trailhead Lots

This	section	describes	capital	and	operational	elements	of	circulator	transit	service	in	BLRA.	This	

section	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	capital	elements	(such	

as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs	for	this	transit	scenario.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	making	a	circular	drive	to	the	

IPW	Trailhead	Lots	with	stops	at	the	Day	Use	Lot	and	Niwot	Mountain	Lot	to	and	from	the	

Trailhead	Lots	(Long	Lake	and	Mitchell	Lake).	Table	7‐15	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	

between	stops	for	this	scenario.	

																																																													

27 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000 mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged	to	

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance.
461

Table 7‐15. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 3

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot 2.2 miles 6 minutes

Day Use Lot to Niwot Mountain Lot 0.5 miles 2 minutes

Niwot Mountain Lot to Long Lake Trailhead Lot 0.7 miles 3 minutes

Long Lake Trailhead to Mitchell Lake Trailhead Lot 0.7 miles 3 minutes

Mitchell Lake Trailhead Lot to Niwot Mountain Lot 0.7 miles 3 minutes

Niwot Mountain Lot to Day Use Lot 0.5 miles 2 minutes

Day Use Lot to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot 2.2 miles 6 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 7.2 miles 25 minutes (driving)

53 minutes (with stops)28

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey29.	The	transit	ridership	

estimate	assumes	two	percent	of	all	visitors	who	currently	drive	through	Nederland	on	route	to	and	

from	BLRA	would	choose	to	use	the	optional	transit	service	from	Nederland	to	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	According	to	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	76%	of	visitors	would	

elect	to	take	a	short	transit	ride	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	BLRA	hiking	

destinations,	if this were their only option to visit BLRA because	parking	lots	were	full.	(The	

assumption	is	that	the	remaining	24%	of	visitors	would	not	visit	BLRA	during	times	that	these	

parking	conditions	exist.)	The	estimate	is	also	coupled	with	the	continuance	of	parking	restrictions	

and	management.	To	translate	these	percentages	to	ridership	volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	

92nd	percentile	design	day	(737	vehicles	per	day)	at	an	average	vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	2.5	people	

per	vehicle	were	used.	

The resulting estimate is 195 passengers per day. Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	10	

a.m.	and	1	p.m.,	and	the	greatest	volume	of	visitors	would	be	between	11	a.m.	and	12	p.m.	and	

between	1	p.m.	and	2	p.m.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	are	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	

Traffic	volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	conducted	in	BLRA	during	the	summer	2013	field	season	

show	that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	at	Long	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Lots	

starting	around	8	a.m.	However,	the	Day	Use	Lot	does	not	fill	up	until	11	a.m.,	which	is	when	the	

demand	for	the	transit	service	would	likely	be	greatest.	For	feasibility	of	transit	operations,	transit	

service	should	begin	at	7:00	a.m.	

																																																													

28 The total time for each route includes 4 minutes at each stop. 29 Traffic volume and survey data for BLRA are reported in Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings.
462

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.30	The	system	would	operate	every	20	minutes	from	

7:00	a.m.	through	6:00	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	leaving	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	5:00	

p.m.).	See	),	the	average	would	be	higher.	

Table	7‐16	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	Scenario	1,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	

to	each	trip.	

This	service	schedule	would	call	for	31	round	trips	daily	and	three	shuttle	buses.	There	would	be	an	

average	of	seven	passengers	per	trip	throughout	the	day,	but	during	peak	periods	(11	a.m.	to	1	

p.m.),	the	average	would	be	higher.	

																																																													

30 The 20‐minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
463

Table 7‐16. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 3

Departure (Staging) Arrival (THs) Arrival (Staging) Vehicle #

7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 1

7:20 AM 7:50 AM 8:20 AM 2

7:40 AM 8:30 AM 8:40 AM 3

8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 1

8:20 AM 8:50 AM 9:20 AM 2

8:40 AM 9:10 AM 9:40 AM 3

9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 1

9:20 AM 9:50 AM 10:20 AM 2

9:40 AM 10:10 AM 10:40 AM 3

10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 1

10:20 AM 10:50 AM 11:20 AM 2

10:40 AM 11:10 AM 11:40 AM 3

11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 1

11:20 AM 11:50 AM 12:20 PM 2

11:40 AM 12:10 PM 12:40 PM 3

12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1

12:20 PM 12:50 PM 1:20 PM 2

12:40 PM 1:10 PM 1:40 PM 3

1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 1

1:20 PM 1:50 PM 2:20 PM 2

1:40 PM 2:10 PM 2:40 PM 3

2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 1

2:20 PM 2:50 PM 3:20 PM 2

2:40 PM 3:10 PM 3:40 PM 3

3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 1

3:20 PM 3:50 PM 4:20 PM 2

3:40 PM 4:10 PM 4:40 PM 3

4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 1

4:20 PM 4:50 PM 5:20 PM 2

4:40 PM 5:10 PM 5:40 PM 3

5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 1

Vehicle Selection

The	same	light‐duty	shuttle	bus	used	for	Scenario	1	should	be	used	for	this	scenario.	Since	this	

vehicle	would	likely	cost	around	$70,000,	three	vehicles	would	cost	of	$210,000.	

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions

The	operations	and	maintenance	assumptions	for	this	scenario	is	the	same	as	in	Scenario	1.	
464

Cost Estimates

The	cost	estimates	for	BLRA	Scenario	2,	Component	2/Scenario	3	are	a	combination	of	the	

following	costs:	

1. Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs	

2. Vehicle	purchase	or	lease	

3. Start‐up	costs	

4. Operation	costs	(annual)	

5. Maintenance	costs	(annual)	

This	scenario	assumes	that	the	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs,	which	include	bus	shelters	

and	benches,	would	be	negligible	since	much	of	this	infrastructure	already	exists	at	the	proposed	

staging	areas	and	stops.	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation	of	signage,	

initial	promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐17	and	Table	7‐18	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	full‐size	vans.	These	vehicles	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	BLRA.	These	tables	

also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assumes	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	

account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐17. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/Scenario 3

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

Light‐Duty Shuttle Bus 3 $70,000 $210,000

Table 7‐18. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/

Scenario 3

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $33,440 $4.90

Year One Capital Costs   $210,000 $30.77

Costs Per Season (2‐7, cumulative) $222,791 $4.66

Total $466,230 $9.76

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

full‐size	passenger	vans.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.31	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$3,092	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$12,368	each.	Because	lease	

rates	include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	

cost	is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$64,904	per	year.	

Table	7‐19	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

																																																													

31 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000‐mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance.
465

Table 7‐19. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in BLRA Scenario 2, Component 2/Scenario

3

Full‐size

Passenger Vans

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital

Total O&M (Fuel

& Driver)

Total

Costs

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 3 $3,092 $12,368 $37,104 $30,706 $67,810 $9.94

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	more	expensive.	

Considering	the	number	of	passengers	using	this	service	(195	passengers,	which	represents	about	

11%	of	the	approximately	1,843	visitors	on	a	92nd	percentile	day),	the	length	of	the	service	in	terms	

of	miles	and	minutes,	and	the	level	of	service	needed	for	passenger	safety	and	convenience,	the	cost	

per	passenger	is	relatively	reasonable,	especially	for	the	purchase	option.	Implementation	of	this	

transit	scenario	would	need	capital	investment	from	the	USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	

vehicles	and	infrastructure.	This	scenario	would	likely	need	a	subsidy	to	cover	the	per‐passenger	

operating	cost	or	charge	high	fees	to	passengers.	

Scenario 4: Circulator from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot

This	section	describes	capital	and	operational	elements	of	circulator	transit	service	in	BLRA	from	

the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	Day	Use	Lot.	This	section	includes	the	route	description,	

ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	capital	elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	

costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	

to	the	Day	Use	Lot.		

Table	7‐20	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	between	the	stops	for	this	scenario.

Table 7‐20. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for BLRA Scenario 4

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

to Day Use Lot

2.2 miles 6 minutes

Day Use Lot to Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot

2.2 miles 6 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 4.4 miles 12 minutes (driving)

20 minutes (with stops)32

																																																													

32 The total time for each route includes 4 minutes at each stop.
466

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey33.	The	estimate	is	coupled	with	

the	continuance	of	parking	restrictions	and	management	which,	based	on	survey	results,	it	is	

assumed	that	76%	of	visitors	who	cannot	park	in	BLRA	because	lots	are	full	would	take	transit	and	

the	other	24%	choose	to	go	somewhere	other	than	BLRA.	To	translate	this	percentage	to	ridership	

volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	92nd	percentile	design	day	(737	vehicles	per	day)	at	an	average	

vehicle	occupancy	rate	of	2.5	people	per	vehicle	were	used.	

The resulting estimate is 195 passengers per day. Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	10	

a.m.	and	1	p.m.,	and	the	greatest	volume	of	visitors	would	be	between	11a.m.	and	noon	and	

between	1	p.m.	and	2	p.m.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	is	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	Traffic	

volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	in	conducted	in	BLRA	during	the	summer	2013	field	season	show	

that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	at	Long	and	Mitchell	Lake	Trailhead	Lots	starting	

around	8	a.m.	However,	the	Day	Use	Lot	does	not	fill	up	until	11	a.m.,	which	is	when	the	demand	for	

the	transit	service	would	likely	be	greatest.	For	feasibility	of	transit	operations,	transit	service	

should	begin	at	7:00	a.m.	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.34	The	system	would	operate	every	20	minutes	from	

7	a.m.	through	6	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	leaving	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	at	5:00	p.m.).	

See	Table	7‐21	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	Scenario	1,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	

assigned	to	each	trip.	

This	service	schedule	would	call	for	33	round	trips	daily	and	one	shuttle	bus.	There	would	be	an	

average	of	seven	passengers	per	trip	throughout	the	day,	but	during	peak	periods	(11	a.m.	to	1	

p.m.),	the	average	would	be	higher.	

																																																													

33 Traffic volume and survey data for BLRA are reported in Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings. 34 The 20‐minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
467

Table 7‐21. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for BLRA Scenario 4

Departure (Gateway) Arrival (Day Use) Arrival (Gateway)

7:00 AM 7:10 AM 7:20 AM

7:20 AM 7:30 AM 7:40 AM

7:40 AM 7:50 AM 8:00 AM

8:00 AM 8:10 AM 8:20 AM

8:20 AM 8:30 AM 8:40 AM

8:40 AM 8:50 AM 9:00 AM

9:00 AM 9:10 AM 9:20 AM

9:20 AM 9:30 AM 9:40 AM

9:40 AM 9:50 AM 10:00 AM

10:00 AM 10:10 AM 10:20 AM

10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10:40 AM

10:40 AM 10:50 AM 11:00 AM

11:00 AM 11:10 AM 11:20 AM

11:20 AM 11:30 AM 11:40 AM

11:40 AM 11:50 AM 12:00 PM

12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:20 PM

12:20 PM 12:30 PM 12:40 PM

12:40 PM 12:50 PM 1:00 PM

1:00 PM 1:10 PM 1:20 PM

1:20 PM 1:30 PM 1:40 PM

1:40 PM 1:50 PM 2:00 PM

2:00 PM 2:10 PM 2:20 PM

2:20 PM 2:30 PM 2:40 PM

2:40 PM 2:50 PM 3:00 PM

3:00 PM 3:10 PM 3:20 PM

3:20 PM 3:30 PM 3:40 PM

3:40 PM 3:50 PM 4:00 PM

4:00 PM 4:10 PM 4:20 PM

4:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:40 PM

4:40 PM 4:50 PM 5:00 PM

5:00 PM 5:10 PM 5:20 PM

5:20 PM 5:30 PM 5:40 PM

5:40 PM 5:50 PM 6:00 PM

Bolded runs would not pick up visitors at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot such that the last “new” transit visitors

arrived via the 5:20 PM shuttle.

Vehicle Selection

The	same	light‐duty	shuttle	bus	used	for	Scenario	1	should	be	used	for	this	scenario.	This	vehicle	

would	likely	cost	around	$70,000.	In	case	this	vehicle	breaks	down,	it	may	be	wise	for	the	USFS	to	

purchase	or	lease	a	second	vehicle	to	have	on	hand.	Otherwise,	service	would	have	to	be	suspended	

if	a	shuttle	breaks	down.	This	possibility	may	be	acceptable	to	the	USFS	since	then	visitors	would	
468

simply	have	to	walk	the	relatively	short	distance	instead.	Accordingly,	only	one	vehicle	is	used	in	

the	cost	estimates	below.	

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions35

The	operations	and	maintenance	assumptions	for	this	scenario	is	the	same	as	in	Scenario	1.	

Cost Estimates

The	cost	estimates	for	BLRA	Scenario	4	are	a	combination	of	the	following	costs:	

1. Vehicle	purchase	or	lease	

2. Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs	

3. Start‐up	costs	

4. Operation	costs	(annual)	

5. Maintenance	costs	(annual)	

This	scenario	assumes	that	the	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs,	which	include	bus	shelters	

and	benches,	would	be	negligible	since	much	of	this	infrastructure	already	exists	at	the	proposed	

staging	areas	and	stops.	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation	of	signage,	

initial	promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐22	and	Table	7‐23	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	the	full‐size	van.	This	vehicle	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	BLRA.	These	tables	

also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assumes	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	

account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐22. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 4

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

Light‐Duty Shuttle Bus 1 $70,000 $70,000

Table 7‐23. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in BLRA Scenario 4

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $14,599 $2.14

Year One Capital Costs   $70,000 $10.26

Costs Per Season (2‐7, cumulative) $97,267 $2.04

Total $181,866 $3.81

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

full‐size	passenger	vans.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.36	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

																																																													

35 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling). 36 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000‐mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to
469

this	size	are	$3,092	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$12,368	each.	Because	lease	

rates	include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	

cost	is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$14,599	per	year.	

Table	7‐24	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐24. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in BLRA Scenario 4

Full‐size

Passenger Vans

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital

Total O&M (Fuel

& Driver)

Total

Costs

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 3 $3,092 $12,368 $12,368 $14,599 $26,967 $3.95

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	more	expensive.	

Considering	the	number	of	passengers	using	this	service	(195	passengers,	which	represents	about	

11%	of	the	approximately	1,843	visitors	on	a	92nd	percentile	day),	the	length	of	the	service	in	terms	

of	miles	and	minutes,	and	the	level	of	service	needed	for	passenger	safety	and	convenience,	the	cost	

per	passenger	is	quite	reasonable,	especially	for	the	purchase	option.	Implementation	of	this	transit	

scenario	would	need	capital	investment	from	the	USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	vehicles	and	

infrastructure.	This	scenario	would	likely	need	a	subsidy	to	cover	the	per‐passenger	operating	cost	

or	charge	high	fees	to	passengers.	

GP Transit Feasibility Analysis

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	a	National	Forest	Scenic	Byway	located	approximately	40	miles	west	of	the	

Denver	metropolitan	area.	The	Road	is	24	miles	in	length	and	connects	Georgetown,	Colorado,	with	

Grant,	Colorado,	via	the	11,669’	Guanella	Pass.	The	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	Byway	is	within	both	the	

ARNF	and	the	Pike	National	Forest	(PNF).	The	primary	transportation	challenges	at	GP	result	from	

parking	congestion	at	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead.	Guanella	Pass	is	popular	among	hikers	for	its	

relatively	easy	hiking	access	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt,	which	is	one	of	Colorado’s	14,000+	

foot	peaks.	Mount	Bierstadt	is	located	within	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

Guanella	Pass	has	two	main	parking	lots	–	the	Lower	Lot	has	48	spaces	and	the	Upper	Lot	has	58	

spaces.	Most	visitors	drive	from	the	north	(Georgetown)	along	Guanella	Pass	Road	to	access	the	

trailhead,	arriving	early	in	the	morning	on	summer	days	to	complete	their	hike	before	afternoon	

thunderstorms	arrive.	These	lots	fill	to	capacity	between	6	a.m.	and	9	a.m.	and	remain	full	until	

early	afternoon.	Visitors	frequently	arrive	at	the	Pass	and	find	all	designated	spaces	full,	leaving	

them	with	no	choice	but	to	park	in	unendorsed	spaces	on	the	roadside	or	leave.	The	problem	is	so	

severe	that	nearly	twice	as	many	cars	are	parked	in	unendorsed	spaces	(230	vehicles)	as	in	the	

designated	lots	(125	vehicles).37

																																																													

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance. 37 Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site, Guanella Pass, Figures 13 and 14
470

The	heavy,	concentrated	visitation	leads	to	several	transportation	challenges.	As	summarized	in	

Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site,	these	include:	

 Unendorsed	roadside	parking,	causing	resource	impacts	and	visitor	safety	risks.	

 Extreme	crowding	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	during	peak	periods.	

 Off‐trail	trampling	of	vegetation	and	soils	in	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	

 Recreation‐related	traffic	congestion	in	Georgetown,	Colorado.	

Relevant Constraints and Needs

GP’s	primary	challenge	that	may	be	addressed	through	transit	is	the	unendorsed	roadside	parking	

near	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trailhead.	Since	Mount	Bierstadt	is	within	a	Wilderness	area	where	

concentrated	visitor	use	is	not	appropriate,	transit	service	must	be	sensitive	to	visitor	volume.	As	

stated	in	Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site,	measures	to	manage	visitor	use	levels	at	Guanella	

Pass	according	to	wilderness	management	objectives	and	corresponding	user	capacities	are	

needed;	transportation	and	management	strategies	will	be	necessary	to	manage	these	use	levels.	

The	following	constraints	at	Guanella	Pass	were	recognized	as	affecting	the	types	and	feasibility	of	

transit	systems	and	how	to	design	transit	that	would	best	address	the	site’s	challenges:	

1. Unique time constraints of visitor activity.	Nearly	all	congestion	at	the	trailhead	lots	is	

from	hiker	vehicles	that	are	parked	for	an	average	of	4	to	5	hours	on	weekends,	with	use	

concentrated	between	6	a.m.	and	3	p.m.	Also,	nearly	all	hikers	are	participating	in	the	same	

activity	(hiking	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt).	Transit	would	need	to	concentrate	on	

this	user	group	while	accommodating	variation	and	uncertainty	in	hiker	schedules.	

2. Peak hours and storms.	The	peak	hours	of	use	at	GP	are	concentrated	to	avoid	summer	

afternoon	thunderstorms.	Transit	headways	and	other	operational	parameters	would	need	

to	balance	visitor	safety	during	storm	events,	demand	for	transit,	and	crowd	control.	

3. Short season.	The	busiest	hiking	season	is	from	Memorial	Day	through	Labor	Day.	Since	

congestion	and	safety	risks	are	greatest	on	weekends	and	holidays,	the	operating	season	for	

transit	would	be	only	35	days.	

4. Coupling with parking enforcement needed.	Through	the	visitor	survey,	the	majority	of	

visitors	(68%)	would	be	willing	to	take	a	short	(15‐minute)	shuttle	“if	this	was	their	only	

option	for	visiting	because	parking	lots	were	full.”	A	smaller	percentage	(41%)	would	be	

willing	to	take	a	30‐minute	shuttle	from	Georgetown.38	Therefore,	there	would	need	to	be	

some	parking	enforcement	or	another	method	to	control	unendorsed	parking	to	compel	

visitors	to	use	transit.	Absent	such	enforcement,	ridership	would	be	too	low	for	feasible	

																																																													

38 Survey data for GP are reported in Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data Findings.
471

operation.	Additionally,	charging	a	fee	for	the	shuttle	(even	as	low	as	$1	per	person)	may	

have	a	significant	impact	on	ridership,	even	with	such	enforcement	in	place.39

5. Staging.	The	hiker	shuttle	would	attract	up	to	275	vehicles	at	one	time	during	peak	use	

periods,	which	would	be	a	significant	constraint	for	staging	and	parking.	The	staging	area	

would	only	be	used	35	days	per	year,	which	could	allow	for	greater	flexibility	in	using	

existing	lots	or	could	add	considerable	expense	to	acquire	or	construct	parking	that	would	

have	limited	use.	

Proposed Transit Scenarios

Through	meetings	with	USFS	staff,	stakeholders,	and	the	public,	the	following	transit	scenarios	

were	developed	to	address	parking	congestion	and	resource	management	needs	at	Guanella	Pass.	

Each	of	these	scenarios	assumes	that,	and	is	dependent	upon,	the	USFS	enforcing	parking	in	

designated	parking	lots	only	along	the	highway.	Figure	7‐3	provides	an	illustration	of	Guanella	Pass	

scenarios.	

																																																													

39The visitor survey did not ask about price sensitivity. However, transit ridership demand and its relationship to

transit fare is well‐documented. Studies show that increasing fares are associated with decreased ridership and

that fare‐free systems may result in increased ridership:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf, http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=405875, and

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/277.1.pdf.
472

Figure 7‐3. Guanella Pass Scenarios
473

1. Hiker Shuttle from Georgetown to Guanella Pass

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	

Colorado,	and	Guanella	Pass,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	by	request	at	the	Clear	Lake	

Campground,	Guanella	Pass	Campground,	and	the	Silver	Dollar	Lake	parking	area.	Hours	of	

operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hiking	hours	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trail	and	include	

contingency	operating	plans	for	visitor	safety	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	Shuttle	service	

would	operate	according	to	hiker	demand	coupled	with	parking	enforcement	at	the	Upper	and	

Lower	Lots	at	Guanella	Pass	and	along	Guanella	Pass	Road.

2. Hiker Shuttle Service from New Lot on Guanella Pass Road to Guanella Pass

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	

(near	the	Pass),	and	Guanella	Pass,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	by	request	at	the	Clear	Lake	

Campground,	Guanella	Pass	Campground,	and	the	Silver	Dollar	Lake	parking	area.	Hours	of	

operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hiking	hours	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trail	and	include	

contingency	operating	plans	for	visitor	safety	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	Shuttle	service	

would	operate	according	to	hiker	demand	coupled	with	parking	enforcement	at	the	Upper	and	

Lower	Lots	at	Guanella	Pass	and	along	Guanella	Pass	Road.	

3. Mandatory Hiker Shuttle Service from Georgetown to Guanella Pass (With Permit

System)

USFS	would	institute	a	wilderness	permit	system	that	permitted	only	400	hikers	per	day	on	

weekends	and	200	hikers	per	day	on	weekdays.	All	hikers	would	be	required	to	take	a	shuttle	to	

Guanella	Pass	Trailhead,	thus	decreasing	the	need	for	staffing	and	enforcement	at	the	trailhead.	

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	

and	Guanella	Pass.	Hours	of	operation	would	correspond	with	peak	hiking	hours	on	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	trail	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	visitor	safety	in	the	event	of	

thunderstorms.	

Cost	estimates	were	also	considered	and	developed	for	the	following	scenarios.	They	were	

dismissed	because	it	is	believed	that	the	costs	would	exceed	the	potential	benefits.	

4. Voluntary Hiker Shuttle Service from Guanella Pass Road to Guanella Pass.	

This	shuttle	service	would	be	similar	to	Scenario	2	above	but	it	would	not	be	linked	to	parking	

restrictions	or	enforcement.	Instead,	all	hikers	using	the	shuttle	would	do	so	on	a	voluntary	

basis.	It	was	assumed	that	up	to	five	percent	of	hikers	would	choose	to	use	the	shuttle.	With	

such	low	ridership	(approximately	81	visitors,	or	five	percent	of	1,627	visitors	on	the	95th

percentile	design	day40),	the	costs	of	instituting	a	shuttle	service	would	not	outweigh	the	

congestion	relief	benefits.	Also,	per‐passenger	costs	would	be	prohibitive.	

5. Hiker Shuttle Service Coupled With Wilderness Permit System

This	transit	scenario	envisions	that	a	wilderness	permit	system	is	in	effect	that	sets	a	limit	to	

the	number	of	people	that	can	hike	Mount	Bierstadt	per	day.	The	number	of	permits	is	limited	

such	that	no	more	than	15%	of	visitors	who	hike	to	the	summit	would	see	more	than	22	people‐

at‐one‐time.	The	total	volume	of	hikers	that	would	receive	permits	is	very	close	to	total	number	

																																																													

40 Traffic volume and design day selection for GP are reported in Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data

Findings.
474

of	designated	parking	spaces	at	the	Upper	and	Lower	Lots	(multiplied	by	vehicle	occupancy).	

The	cost,	capacity,	and	safety	risks	(from	waiting	for	shuttle	pick‐up	during	weather	events)	to	

run	shuttles	to	serve	a	small	number	of	“overflow”	hikers	exceeds	the	benefits.	It	was	decided	

instead	to	limit	the	permit	system	to	the	number	of	vehicles	that	will	fit	in	designated	spaces	at	

the	lot.	

Table	7‐25	provides	a	summary	of	the	operations	and	costs	of	Guanella	Pass	scenarios	1‐3	and	the	

following	sections	contain	details	for	each	scenario.	Note	that	costs	to	own	are	averaged	over	

twelve	years,	which	is	the	life	of	the	vehicle	(if	purchased).	Scenario	2	is	the	most	cost‐effective	

scenario	and	would	relieve	congestion	at	the	GP	parking	lots,	but	it	would	require	displacing	

parking	to	elsewhere	on	Guanella	Pass	Road.	

Table 7‐25. GP Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Travel Time (Round‐trip) 84 minutes 36 minutes 66 minutes

Distance (Round‐trip) 32 miles 10 miles 22 miles

Hours of Operation 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. 6 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Frequency of Service 20‐30 minutes 10‐20 minutes 15‐30 minutes

Vehicles Required 5 5 5

Passengers/Day 414 687 400 (weekends), 200 (weekdays)

Cost to Own/Year $166,309 $123,955 $234,271

Cost to Own/Year/Rider $11.48 $5.16 $8.37

Cost to Lease/Year* $130,315‐$144,900 $52,516 $181,790

Cost to Lease/Year/Rider* $8.99‐$10.00 $4.36‐$5.17 $6.49

*Cost range reflects addition of transit‐supportive infrastructure (bus shelters, benches, etc.) aggregated over 12

years.

Scenario 1: Hiker Shuttle from Georgetown to Guanella Pass

This	section	describes	the	process	of	planning	for	the	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	

service	from	Georgetown	to	Guanella	Pass.	This	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	

service	frequency,	capital	elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Georgetown,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	Guanella	Pass.	The	

shuttle	would	cater	to	hikers,	who	have	relatively	set	schedules	and	destinations.	The	survey	data	

indicates	that	the	majority	of	hikers	exclusively	visit	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trail;	therefore,	we	

anticipate	that	most	hikers	would	not	be	interested	in	other	destinations	along	Guanella	Pass	Road,	

but	the	shuttle	could	make	stops	by	request	only	at	the	Clear	Lake	Campground,	Guanella	Pass	

Campground,	and	the	Silver	Dollar	Lake	parking	area.	For	example,	if	a	group	of	hikers	were	

camping	at	one	of	the	campgrounds,	they	could	make	an	advance	reservation	for	shuttle	pick	up.	

Because	stops	at	these	locations	would	be	infrequent	and	brief,	they	are	not	included	in	the	time	

estimate	totals	in	Table	7‐26.	
475

Most	shuttles	would	carry	passengers	in	one	direction	only	(from	Georgetown	to	the	Pass	in	the	

morning	and	from	the	Pass	to	Georgetown	in	the	afternoon),	and	some	of	the	midday	shuttles	may	

carry	passengers	in	both	directions.	

Table 7‐26. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 1

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Georgetown Staging Area to Clear Lake Campground 11 miles 24 minutes

Clear Lake Campground to Guanella Pass Campground/Silver

Dollar Lake Parking

3 miles 7 minutes

Guanella Pass Campground to Guanella Pass Trailhead 2 miles 6 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 32 miles 74 minutes (driving)

84 minutes (with stops)41

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey42.	

According	to	the	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	41%	of	visitors	would	elect	to	take	transit	

from	Georgetown	(up	to	30	minutes)	if this were their only option to visit GP because	parking	

conditions	prevented	them	from	driving	their	private	vehicles.	(The	assumption	is	that	the	

remaining	59%	of	visitors	would	not	visit	GP	during	times	that	these	parking	conditions	exist.)	The	

estimate	is	also	coupled	with	the	addition	of	parking	restrictions	and	management.	To	translate	to	

ridership	volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	95th	percentile	design	day	coupled	with	available	

parking	and	likely	duration	of	stay	to	arrive	at	a	number	of	visitors	per hour	that	would	otherwise	

have	to	park	in	undesignated	roadside	parking	if	they	were	to	enter	GP	in	their	private	vehicle	were	

used.	

The resulting estimate is 414 passengers per day.	Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	6	a.m.	

and	9	a.m.,	with	departures	spaced	more	regularly	throughout	the	early	afternoon	and	tapering	off	

by	late	afternoon/evening.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	are	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	

Traffic	volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	show	that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	in	the	

Lower	Lot	starting	around	6	a.m.	and	in	the	Upper	Lot	by	9	a.m.	Therefore,	transit	service	would	

begin	at	6	a.m.	

Using	the	distribution	of	departing	vehicles,	which	peaks	between	12	p.m.	and	3	p.m.,	and	visitor	

hiking	times	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	the	hourly	desired	departure	times	relative	to	hourly	

parking	demand	based	on	arrival	times	were	estimated.	The	resulting	volumes	show	that	the	

																																																													

41 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading (either at Georgetown or at Guanella Pass) and 5

minutes unloading. 42 Traffic volume and survey data for GP are reported in Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data Findings.
476

greatest	demand	for	transit	(to	GP)	would	occur	between	6	a.m.	and	10	a.m.	and	the	greatest	

demand	for	transit	(from	GP)	would	be	from	12	p.m.	to	3	p.m.	However,	there	would	be	demand	for	

return	trips	until	7	p.m.	Therefore,	the	last	shuttle	would	leave	GP	at	approximately	6:15	p.m.	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	30	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.	When	possible	and	during	the	highest	demand	

periods,	shuttles	will	operate	with	15‐20	minute	headways.	43	Scheduled	departures	from	

Georgetown	would	better	allow	hikers	to	plan	for	and	adapt	to	30	minute	headways,	especially	

during	early	morning	hours.	See	Table	7‐27	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	GP	

Scenario	1,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	The	schedule	allows	for	some	flexibility	for	a	

vehicle	to	be	available	for	extra	trips	in	case	of	an	emergency.	

Table 7‐27: Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 1

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Pass)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

6:00 AM 6:42 AM 7:24 AM 1

6:30 AM 7:12 AM 7:54 AM 2

7:00 AM 7:42 AM 8:24 AM 3

7:20 AM 8:02 AM 8:44 AM 4

7:40 AM 8:22 AM 9:04 AM 5

8:00 AM 8:42 AM 9:24 AM 1

8:20 AM 9:02 AM 9:44 AM 2

8:40 AM 9:22 AM 10:04 AM 3

9:00 AM 9:42 AM 10:24 AM 4

9:30 AM 10:12 AM 10:54 AM 5

10:00 AM 10:42 AM 11:24 AM 1

10:20 AM 11:02 AM 11:44 AM 2

10:40 AM 11:22 AM 12:04 PM 3

11:00 AM 11:42 AM 12:24 PM 4

11:20 AM 12:02 PM 12:44 PM 5

11:40 AM 12:22 PM 1:04 PM 1

12:00 PM 12:42 PM 1:24 PM 2

12:20 PM 1:02 PM 1:44 PM 3

12:40 PM 1:22 PM 2:04 PM 4

1:00 PM 1:42 PM 2:24 PM 5

1:20 PM 2:02 PM 2:44 PM 1

1:40 PM 2:22 PM 3:04 PM 2

																																																													

43 The 20‐minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
477

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Pass)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

2:00 PM 2:42 PM 3:24 PM 3

2:20 PM 3:02 PM 3:44 PM 4

2:40 PM 3:22 PM 4:04 PM 5

3:00 PM 3:42 PM 4:24 PM 1

3:20 PM 4:02 PM 4:44 PM 2

3:40 PM 4:22 PM 5:04 PM 3

4:00 PM 4:42 PM 5:24 PM 4

4:30 PM 5:12 PM 5:54 PM 5

5:00 PM 5:42 PM 6:24 PM 1

5:30 PM 6:12 PM 6:54 PM 2

This service schedule would call for 34 round trips daily and 5 shuttle buses. There would be an average of 21

passengers per trip to GP and an average of 15 passengers per trip from GP.

Vehicle Selection

Ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	shuttle	would	fluctuate	between	24	and	86	

passengers	per	hour	to	GP.	Due	to	the	high	average	passengers	per	trip	in	the	morning	(see	Service	

Hours	and	Frequency),	the	28	passenger	vehicles	were	selected.	

One	potential	option	(used	for	cost	estimate	purposes)	is	the	light‐duty	StarTrans	Senator	HD	

(2014;	Figure	7‐4).	The	StarTrans	Senator	HD	base	model	can	be	modified	with	options	to	improve	

performance	on	steep	grade	roadways.	With	these	options	and	a	wheelchair	lift,	the	vehicle	will	

cost	approximately	$100,000,	with	a	total	vehicle	cost	of	$500,000	for	five	vehicles.	

Figure 7‐4. StarTrans HD44

																																																													

44 http://www.goshencoach.com
478

Staging

Several	options	for	staging	transit	in	Georgetown	were	considered.	Georgetown	offers	the	benefit	of	

proximity	to	Interstate	70	and	more	developed	parking	lots.	However,	lots	are	owned	by	multiple	

owners	(not	USFS)	and	USFS	would	need	to	either	purchase	and	develop	a	lot	(or	lots)	or	enter	into	

a	use	agreement	with	its	owner.	The	legal	and	financial	implications	for	either	option	could	vary	

considerably.	

The staging area would need to hold approximately 130 vehicles. The	nature	of	transit	riders	

coming	in	the	morning	and	leaving	in	the	afternoon,	combined	with	the	average	length	of	stay,	

means	that	sharing	parking	spaces	between	early	and	late	hikers	would	not	be	feasible.	

The	locations	in	Table	7‐28	were	considered	as	preliminary	options	for	staging.	Likely	more	than	

one	of	these	would	have	to	be	utilized	to	arrive	at	sufficient	capacity.	To	date,	the	owners	of	these	

lots	have	not	been	contacted	nor	have	assessments	of	the	current	status	of	each	lot	during	peak	

summer	days	been	completed.	

Table 7‐28. Preliminary Options for GP Scenario 1 Staging

Location Capacity Notes

Gateway Visitor Center TBD May be full on weekends

County government annex lot TBD Potential to use gravel overflow lot

Town hall lot TBD Unlined parking, both parallel and standard stalls

Gravel lot near reservoir TBD Need to check on status

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions45

The	following	cost	assumptions	in	Table	7‐29	allowed	for	the	calculation	of	seasonal	operations	and	

maintenance	costs.	All	costs	are	from	the	Volpe	Bus	Lifecycle	Cost	Model	and	updated	to	2015.	

Table 7‐29. Assumptions Driving Costs in GP Scenario 1

Transit Element Cost Assumption

Driver hourly wage $30

Fuel cost per gallon $3.50

Maintenance cost per mile (based on good condition

of Guanella Pass Road)

$1.00

Fueling station and maintenance facility $0.00 (Assume USFS uses existing stations/facility and

does not construct new ones exclusively for transit)

Cost Estimates

The	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	includes	bus	shelters	at	Georgetown	(2)	and	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trailhead	(3).	Additionally,	benches	are	needed	at	each	stop.	The	total	cost	for	shelters	

																																																													

45 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling).
479

and	benches	is	$160,000.46	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation,	initial	

promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐30	and	Table	7‐31	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	28‐passenger	shuttles.	These	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	GP.	These	tables	also	

calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assume	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	account	

for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐30. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

28‐passenger shuttle bus 5 $100,000 $500,000

Table 7‐31. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $93,060 $6.42

Year One Capital Costs   $680,000 $46.93

Costs Per Season (2‐12, cumulative) $1,227,650 $7.70

Total $2,000,710 $11.51

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

16‐25	passenger	vehicles.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.47	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$4,357	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$13,071.	Because	lease	rates	

include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost	

is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$64,960	per	year.	

Table	7‐32	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

																																																													

46 Bench and bus shelter costs: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2 47 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000 mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance.

GSA does not offer rates for 28 passenger vehicles. The cost estimate assumes that a similar schedule, service

frequency, and operating costs would hold true for 25 passenger vehicles. However, the transit operator would

need to make some adjustments, which may affect schedule and costs, to accommodate transit demand during a

few peak periods.
480

Table 7‐32. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 1

25‐passenger

vehicles

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital48

Capital Per

Passenger

Total O&M

(Fuel & Driver)

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 5 $4,357 $13,071 $65,355 $5.27 $64,960 $8.99

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	less	for	leasing	than	purchasing	a	vehicle.	In	both	cases,	capital	costs	

account	for	approximately	half	of	the	total	cost.	

With	a	relatively	large	number	of	passengers	using	this	transit	service	(414	passengers)	and	a	long	

transit	route,	there	are	more	vehicles	required	which	raises	the	cost	per	passenger.	Capital	

investment	from	the	USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	vehicles	and	infrastructure	could	help	

reduce	the	cost	per	passenger.	

Scenario 2: Hiker Shuttle from New Lot on Guanella Pass Road to Guanella Pass

This	section	describes	the	process	of	planning	for	the	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	

service	from	a	staging	area	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	to	Guanella	Pass.	This	includes	the	route	

description,	ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	capital	elements,	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	the	new	staging	lot,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	GP.	The	

shuttle	would	also	cater	to	hikers,	with	the	same	arrival	and	departure	patterns	described	in	

Scenario	1.	Similar	to	Scenario	1,	there	would	be	no	planned	stops	other	than	GP,	but	hikers	could	

make	a	reservation	or	request	for	pick‐up	and	drop‐off	at	a	campground	(depending	on	where	the	

staging	area	is	located).	Because	additional	stops	would	be	rare,	they	are	not	included	in	the	time	

estimates	listed	in	Table	7‐33.49	Similarly,	shuttles	would	be	mostly	full	only	in	one	direction.	

The	staging	area	is	not	yet	determined	(see	Staging),	but	for	planning	purposes,	a	staging	lot	near	

the	Clear	Lake	parking	area	is	used	for	distance	and	time	estimates.	

																																																													

48 Capital costs should also include $180,000 for benches, shelters, and start‐up costs. These will remain the same

regardless of lease or purchase of vehicles. For calculation purposes, they are not included in Table 33. If this cost

were aggregated over 12 seasons and added to the lease capital cost, the capital cost per passenger would be

$5.55 and the total cost (capital, operations, and maintenance) would be $10.03. 49 It is possible that after transit service is established, there may be increased demand from hikers staying at one

of the campgrounds. This may result in slight schedule adjustments but should not significantly alter the overall

levels of service or cost estimates included in this analysis for planning purposes. Overall, USFS and the transit

provider would need to adjust transit service based on demand after one or two seasons.
481

Table 7‐33. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 2

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Clear Lake Staging Area to Trailhead 5 miles 13 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 10 miles 26 minutes (driving)

36 minutes (with stops)50

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey51.	

According	to	the	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	68%	of	visitors	(see	Chapter 2: Guanella Pass

Summary of Data and Findings	for	visitor	survey	results)	would	elect	to	take	transit	from	a	lot	near	

the	trailhead	(up	to	15	minutes)	if this were their only option to visit GP because	parking	conditions	

prevented	them	from	driving	their	private	vehicles.	(The	assumption	is	that	the	remaining	32%	of	

visitors	would	not	visit	GP	during	times	that	these	parking	conditions	exist.)	The	estimate	is	also	

coupled	with	the	addition	of	parking	restrictions	and	management.	To	translate	to	ridership	

volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	95th	percentile	design	day	coupled	with	available	parking	and	

likely	duration	of	stay	to	arrive	at	a	number	of	visitors	per hour	that	would	otherwise	have	to	park	

in	undesignated	roadside	parking	if	they	were	to	enter	GP	in	their	private	vehicle	were	used.	

The resulting estimate is 687 passengers per day.	Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	6	a.m.	

and	9	a.m.,	with	departures	spaced	more	regularly	throughout	the	early	afternoon	and	tapering	off	

by	late	afternoon/evening.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	is	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	As	

with	GP	Scenario	1,	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	in	the	Lower	Lot	starting	around	6	

a.m.	and	in	the	Upper	Lot	by	9	a.m.	Therefore,	transit	service	will	begin	at	9	a.m.	The	demand	for	

return	service	to	the	staging	area	(calculated	based	on	data	from	departing	vehicles	and	visitor	

survey	data	on	length	of	hike)	is	the	same	as	GP	Scenario	1	(peak	demand	to	GP	is	from	6	a.m.	to	9	

a.m.	and	peak	demand	from	GP	is	from	12	p.m.	to	3	p.m.,	with	service	extending	until	7	p.m.).	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed,	although	headways	are	as	frequent	

as	10	minutes	during	the	morning	peak.	(See	Service	Hours	and	Frequency	in	GP	Scenario	1	for	

more	information	on	headways).	See	Table	7‐34	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	GP	

Scenario	2,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	The	schedule	allows	significant	flexibility	for	

the	fifth	vehicle	to	be	available	for	extra	trips	in	case	of	an	emergency.	

This	service	schedule	would	call	for	49	round	trips	daily	and	5	shuttle	buses.	The	fifth	shuttle	bus	is	

only	needed	during	peak	hours	(approximately	7	a.m.	through	2	p.m.)	but	it	may	help	with	

																																																													

50 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading (either at staging area or at Guanella Pass) and 5

minutes unloading. 51 Traffic volume and survey data for GP are reported in Chapter 2: Guanella Pass Summary of Data Findings.
482

emergency	runs	if	needed.	There	would	be	an	average	of	14	passengers	per	trip,	although	most	

trips	between	6	a.m.	and	9	a.m.	would	operate	at	or	near	capacity.	

Table 7‐34. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 2

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Pass)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

6:00 AM 6:18 AM 6:36 AM 1

6:20 AM 6:38 AM 6:56 AM 2

6:40 AM 6:58 AM 7:16 AM 3

7:00 AM 7:18 AM 7:36 AM 1

7:10 AM 7:28 AM 7:46 AM 2

7:20 AM 7:38 AM 7:56 AM 4

7:30 AM 7:48 AM 8:06 AM 5

7:40 AM 7:58 AM 8:16 AM 3

7:50 AM 8:08 AM 8:26 AM 1

8:00 AM 8:18 AM 8:36 AM 2

8:15 AM 8:33 AM 8:51 AM 4

8:30 AM 8:48 AM 9:06 AM 5

8:45 AM 9:03 AM 9:21 AM 3

9:00 AM 9:18 AM 9:36 AM 1

9:15 AM 9:33 AM 9:51 AM 2

9:30 AM 9:48 AM 10:06 AM 3

9:45 AM 10:03 AM 10:21 AM 4

10:00 AM 10:18 AM 10:36 AM 5

10:20 AM 10:38 AM 10:56 AM 1

10:40 AM 10:58 AM 11:16 AM 2

11:00 AM 11:18 AM 11:36 AM 3

11:20 AM 11:38 AM 11:56 AM 4

11:40 AM 11:58 AM 12:16 PM 5

12:00 PM 12:18 PM 12:36 PM 1

12:15 PM 12:33 PM 12:51 PM 2

12:30 PM 12:48 PM 1:06 PM 3

12:45 PM 1:03 PM 1:21 PM 4

1:00 PM 1:18 PM 1:36 PM 5

1:15 PM 1:33 PM 1:51 PM 1

1:30 PM 1:48 PM 2:06 PM 2

1:45 PM 2:03 PM 2:21 PM 3

2:00 PM 2:18 PM 2:36 PM 4

2:15 PM 2:33 PM 2:51 PM 1

2:30 PM 2:48 PM 3:06 PM 2

2:45 PM 3:03 PM 3:21 PM 3

3:00 PM 3:18 PM 3:36 PM 4
483

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Pass)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

3:15 PM 3:33 PM 3:51 PM 1

3:30 PM 3:48 PM 4:06 PM 2

3:45 PM 4:03 PM 4:21 PM 3

4:00 PM 4:18 PM 4:36 PM 4

4:20 PM 4:38 PM 4:56 PM 1

4:40 PM 4:58 PM 5:16 PM 2

5:00 PM 5:18 PM 5:36 PM 3

5:20 PM 5:38 PM 5:56 PM 4

5:40 PM 5:58 PM 6:16 PM 1

6:00 PM 6:18 PM 6:36 PM 2

6:20 PM 6:38 PM 6:56 PM 3

6:40 PM 6:58 PM 7:16 PM 4

7:00 PM 7:18 PM 7:36 PM 1

Vehicle Selection

Ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	shuttle	would	fluctuate	between	50	and	170	

passengers	per	hour	to	the	Pass.	Due	to	the	high	number	of	passengers	per	trip	during	peak	hours	

(6	a.m.	to	9	a.m.	and	12	p.m.	to	3	p.m.),	28	passenger	vehicles	were	selected.	The	vehicle	would	be	

the	same	as	in	Scenario	1.	

Staging

Several	options	for	staging	transit	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	were	considered.	Many	sites	are	

constrained	by	steep	slopes,	sensitive	habitat,	and/or	existing	recreational	use.	Much	of	the	land	is	

owned	by	USFS,	which	would	make	it	easier	to	develop	a	lot	(or	lots).	

The staging area would need to hold between 250 and 275 vehicles. The	nature	of	transit	

riders	coming	in	the	morning	and	leaving	in	the	afternoon,	combined	with	the	average	length	of	

stay,	means	that	sharing	of	parking	spaces	for	early	and	late	hikers	is	not	feasible.	This	represents	

an	area	of	approximately	2	acres	devoted	to	parking	and	loading.	Locating and acquiring use of such

a site near Guanella Pass Road represents a significant constraint in transit planning.

Locations	in	Table	7‐35	were	considered	as	preliminary	options	for	staging.	These	are	meant	to	help	

the	Forest	Service	examine	feasibility	of	developing	permanent	or	temporary	staging	areas	at	these	

locations.	Costs	of	developing	or	expanding	lots	are	not	calculated.	
484

Table 7‐35: Preliminary Options for GP Scenario 2 Staging

Location Ownership Notes

Ski area near Duck Lake USFS Plans to develop into campground

Clear Lake Recreation Area USFS The 30 spaces currently at Clear Lake

frequently fill with anglers

Xcel Energy Amenity Areas USFS (but under agreement

for use by Xcel Energy)

Limited capacity, further from Trailhead

Campgrounds USFS Would need to add significant amounts of

parking

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions52

All	operations	and	maintenance	assumptions	are	the	same	as	GP	Scenario	1.	

Cost Estimates

The	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	includes	bus	shelters	at	the	staging	area	(3)	and	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trailhead	(4).	Additionally,	benches	are	needed	at	each	stop.	The	total	cost	for	shelters	

and	benches	is	$220,000.53	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation,	initial	

promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐36	and	Table	7‐37	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	28‐passenger	shuttles.	These	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	GP.	These	tables	also	

calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assume	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	account	

for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐36. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 2

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

28‐passenger shuttle bus 5 $100,000 $500,000

Table 7‐37. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 2

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $53,020 $2.21

Year One Capital Costs   $740,000 $30.78

Costs Per Season (2‐12, cumulative) $699,441 $2.64

Total $1,492,461 $5.17

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	especially	for	a	pilot	test.	The	least	options	and	prices	are	the	

same	as	those	described	in	GP	Scenario	1.	Because	lease	rates	include	maintenance	costs	but	not	

fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost	is	calculated	separately.	These	

																																																													

52 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling). 53 Bench and bus shelter costs: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2
485

costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$39,445	per	year.	Table	7‐38	shows	the	total	costs	

and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐38. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 1

25‐

passenger

vehicles

Quantity

Cost

per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital54

Capital Per

Passenger

Total O&M

(Fuel &

Driver)

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 5 $4,357 $13,071 $65,355 $2.72 $39,445 $4.36

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	less	for	leasing	than	for	purchasing	a	vehicle.	

GP	Scenario	2	has	a	very	low	per‐passenger	cost,	due	to	the	high	number	of	passengers	and	the	low	

mileage	and	time	of	the	transit	route.	However,	these	costs	would	likely	be	augmented	significantly	

by	costs	to	build	a	staging	area	that	could	accommodate	up	to	275	vehicles.	

Scenario 3: Mandatory Hiker Shuttle from Georgetown to Guanella Pass

This	section	describes	the	process	of	planning	for	the	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	

service	from	Georgetown	to	Guanella	Pass,	as	part	of	a	mandatory	transit	system	for	hikers	on	

Mount	Bierstadt.	The	section	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	service	frequency,	

capital	elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Georgetown,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	Guanella	Pass.	The	

shuttle	would	be	the	only	transportation	option	for	hikers	to	access	the	Mount	Bierstadt	trailhead.	

Hikers	would	park	at	designated	lots	in	Georgetown	and	would	not	make	any	additional	stops	along	

Guanella	Pass	Road	except	for	at	the	trailhead.	Most	shuttles	would	carry	passengers	in	one	

direction	only	(from	Georgetown	to	the	Pass	in	the	morning	and	from	the	Pass	to	Georgetown	in	the	

afternoon),	and	some	of	the	midday	shuttles	would	carry	passengers	in	both	directions.	See		route	

description	and	mileage.	

Table	7‐39	for	route	description	and	mileage.	

																																																													

54 Capital costs should also include $240,000 for benches, shelters, and start‐up costs. These will remain the same

regardless of lease or purchase of vehicles. For calculation purposes, they are not included in Table 7‐38. If this

cost were aggregated over 12 seasons and added to the lease capital cost, the capital cost per passenger would be

$3.54 and the total cost (capital, operations, and maintenance) would be $5.19.
486

Table 7‐39. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for GP Scenario 3

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Georgetown Staging Area to Guanella Pass Trailhead 11 miles 28 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 22 miles 56 minutes (driving)

76 minutes (with stops)55

Ridership Demand

As	opposed	to	using	visitation	and	ridership	demands	calculated	through	visitor	surveys	and	traffic	

counts,	Scenario	3	relies	on	a	high‐level	estimate	of	“sustainable”	weekend	and	weekend	daily	hiker	

volumes	on	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	These	estimates	are	based	on	visitor	survey	data	using	photo	

simulations	in	which	the	survey	asks	visitors	to	respond	if	they	“would	feel	crowded	if	you	were	on	

the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	with	the	number	of	people	depicted”	in	a	series	of	simulated	photos.	

Based	on	these	responses,	the	USFS	determined	that	an	appropriate	weekend	use	level	could	be	the	

point	at	which	50%	of	visitors	think	that	there	are	too	many	people	on	the	summit.	This	level	

corresponded	to	400	hikers	per	day.	Since	the	current	weekday	use	level	is	200	hikers	per	day,	the	

USFS	proposed	holding	that	number	constant	so	as	not	to	shift	visitation	increases	to	weekdays.	

The resulting visitation levels are 400 hikers on weekend days and 200 hikers on weekdays.

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	are	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	Since	

all	hikers	will	be	required	to	take	the	shuttle,	USFS	can	more	easily	set	hours	of	transit	that	are	

based	on	the	most	popular	times	for	hiking.	The	proposed	operating	hours	are	6	a.m.	to	5	p.m.	

These	hours	correspond	with	peak	hiking	hours	and	allow	hikers	up	to	11	hours	to	complete	their	

hike.	

The	transit	vehicles	would	run	approximately	every	15	minutes	from	6	a.m.	through	2	p.m.,	which	

corresponds	with	anticipated	peak	levels	of	use	both	to	the	trailhead	and	from	the	trailhead	(based	

on	visitor	survey	and	traffic	count	data).	Headways	then	taper	off	to	30‐minute	frequency	from	2	

p.m.	through	5	p.m.	Exact	headways	could	be	adjusted	to	accommodate	hiker	demand	and	visitor	

safety.	See	Table	7‐40	for	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	GP	Scenario	3,	as	well	as	the	

vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	The	schedule	allows	for	some	flexibility	for	a	vehicle	to	be	available	

for	extra	trips	in	case	of	an	emergency.	For	weekdays,	transit	service	would	operate	at	

approximately	30	minute	frequencies	throughout	the	day.	The	USFS	and/or	transit	operator	could	

determine	if	higher	or	lower	levels	of	service	would	be	desirable	based	on	hiker’s	willingness	to	

schedule	their	arrivals	and	safety	of	hikers	upon	finishing	the	hike.

																																																													

55 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading (either at Georgetown or at Guanella Pass) and 5

minutes unloading.
487

Table 7‐40. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for GP Scenario 3

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Pass)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

6:00 AM* 6:38 AM 7:06 AM 1

6:15 AM 6:53 AM 7:21 AM 2

6:30 AM* 7:08 AM 7:36 AM 3

6:45 AM 7:23 AM 7:51 AM 4

7:00 AM* 7:38 AM 8:06 AM 5

7:15 AM 7:53 AM 8:21 AM 1

7:30 AM* 8:08 AM 8:36 AM 2

7:45 AM 8:23 AM 8:51 AM 3

8:00 AM* 8:38 AM 9:06 AM 4

8:15 AM 8:53 AM 9:21 AM 5

8:30 AM* 9:08 AM 9:36 AM 1

8:45 AM 9:23 AM 9:51 AM 2

9:00 AM* 9:38 AM 10:06 AM 3

9:15 AM 9:53 AM 10:21 AM 4

9:30 AM* 10:08 AM 10:36 AM 5

9:45 AM 10:23 AM 10:51 AM 1

10:00 AM* 10:38 AM 11:06 AM 2

10:30 AM 11:08 AM 11:36 AM 3

11:00 AM* 11:38 AM 12:06 PM 4

11:15 AM 11:57 AM 12:39 PM 5

11:30 AM* 12:12 PM 12:54 PM 1

11:45 AM 12:27 PM 1:09 PM 2

12:00 PM* 12:42 PM 1:24 PM 3

12:15 PM 12:57 PM 1:39 PM 4

12:30 PM* 1:12 PM 1:54 PM 5

12:45 PM 1:27 PM 2:09 PM 1

1:00 PM* 1:42 PM 2:24 PM 2

1:15 PM 1:57 PM 2:39 PM 3

1:30 PM* 2:12 PM 2:54 PM 4

1:45 PM 2:27 PM 3:09 PM 5

2:00 PM* 2:42 PM 3:24 PM 1

2:30 PM* 3:12 PM 3:54 PM 2

3:00 PM* 3:42 PM 4:24 PM 3

3:30 PM* 4:12 PM 4:54 PM 4

4:00 PM* 4:42 PM 5:24 PM 5

4:30 PM* 5:12 PM 5:54 PM 1
488

Runs	marked	with	an	asterisk	(*)	would	also	run	on	weekdays.	The	weekend	service	schedule	

would	call	for	36	round	trips	daily	and	5	shuttle	buses.	There	would	be	an	average	of	24	passengers	

per	trip	to GP	and	an	average	of	21	passengers	per	trip	from	GP	on	weekends.	Weekday	shuttles	

would	have	21	round	trips,	require	3	vehicles,	and	have	an	average	of	11	passengers	per	trip.	

Vehicle Selection

Ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	shuttle	would	fluctuate	between	55	and	120	

passengers	per	hour	to	GP	on	weekends	(or	30	to	60	passengers	per	hour	on	weekdays).	Due	to	the	

high	ridership	levels	and	concentration	of	use	(see	Service	Hours	and	Frequency),	28	passenger	

vehicles	were	selected.	

One	potential	option	(used	for	cost	estimate	purposes)	is	the	light‐duty	StarTrans	Senator	HD	

(2014;	Figure	7‐4).	The	StarTrans	Senator	HD	base	model	can	be	modified	with	options	to	improve	

performance	on	steep	grade	roadways.	With	these	options	and	a	wheelchair	lift,	the	vehicle	will	

cost	approximately	$100,000,	with	a	total	vehicle	cost	of	$500,000	for	five	vehicles.	

Staging

Staging	considerations	for	Scenario	3	are	similar	to	those	in	Scenario	1.	However,	USFS	would	need	

to	identify	vehicle	parking	for	weekdays	as	well	as	weekends	(approximately	80	vehicles	on	

weekdays	and	160	vehicles	on	weekends).	As	with	Scenario	1, hiking	patterns	and	a	long	average	

length	of	stay	means	that	sharing	parking	spaces	between	early	and	late	hikers	would	not	be	

feasible.	See	Table	7‐28	for	staging	options	in	Georgetown.	

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions56

The	following	cost	assumptions	in	Table	7‐41	allowed	for	the	calculation	of	seasonal	operations	and	

maintenance	costs.	All	costs	are	from	the	Volpe	Bus	Lifecycle	Cost	Model	and	updated	to	2015.	

Table 7‐41. Assumptions Driving Costs in GP Scenario 3

Transit Element Cost Assumption

Driver hourly wage $30

Fuel cost per gallon $3.50

Maintenance cost per mile (based on good condition

of Guanella Pass Road)

$1.00

Fueling station and maintenance facility $0.00 (Assume USFS uses existing stations/facility and

does not construct new ones exclusively for transit)

Cost Estimates

The	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	includes	bus	shelters	at	Georgetown	(2)	and	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trailhead	(3).	Additionally,	benches	are	needed	at	each	stop.	The	total	cost	for	shelters	

																																																													

56 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling).
489

and	benches	is	$160,000.57	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation,	initial	

promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐42	and	Table	7‐43	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	five	28‐passenger	shuttles.	These	shuttles	can	be	

shared	with	other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	GP.	

These	tables	also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assumes	a	three	percent	increase	per	

year	to	account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐42. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

28‐passenger shuttle bus 5 $100,000 $500,000

Table 7‐43. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in GP Scenario 1

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $150,525 $5.38

Year One Capital Costs   $680,000 $24.29

Costs Per Season (2‐12, cumulative) $1,985,730 $6.45

Total $2,816,255 $8.38

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

16‐25	passenger	vehicles.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.58	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$4,357	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$13,071.	Because	lease	rates	

include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost	

is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$116,435	per	year.	

Table	7‐44	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐44. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in GP Scenario 3

25‐passenger

vehicles

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital

Capital Per

Passenger

Total O&M

(Fuel & Driver)

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 5 $4,357 $13,071 $65,355 $5.27 $116,435 $6.49

																																																													

57 Bench and bus shelter costs: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2 58 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000‐mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance.

GSA does not offer rates for 28 passenger vehicles. The cost estimate assumes that a similar schedule, service

frequency, and operating costs would hold true for 25 passenger vehicles. However, the transit operator would

need to make some adjustments, which may affect schedule and costs, to accommodate transit demand during a

few peak periods.
490

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	less	expensive	for	the	lease	option.	In	both	cases,	capital	costs	

account	for	approximately	one‐third	of	the	total	cost.	

Relative	to	Scenario	1,	which	is	similar	in	route	and	service	frequency,	the	operations	costs	are	

higher	in	Scenario	3	due	to	the	weekday	service	addition.	However,	the	cost	per	passenger	is	less	in	

Scenario	3	since	there	are	many	more	visitors	using	the	transit	service.

MERA Transit Feasibility Analysis

The	MERA	is	located	approximately	70	miles	southwest	of	the	Denver	metropolitan	area	and	28	

miles	southwest	of	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado.	MERA	is	within	both	the	ARNF	and	the	Pike	National	

Forest	(PNF).	The	Mount	Evans	Highway	runs	14	miles	from	a	USFS	Welcome	Station	to	the	summit	

of	Mount	Evans.	At	14,264	feet,	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	the	highest‐elevation	paved	road	in	

North	America.	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	open	from	approximately	Memorial	Day	through	early	

October,	with	the	Summit	closing	after	Labor	Day.	Approximately	120,000	visitors	recreate	in	

MERA	annually,	concentrated	between	May	and	October,	and	visitation	is	further	concentrated	at	

the	Summit	Lake	Park	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit	parking	lot.	

The	heavy,	concentrated	visitation	leads	to	several	transportation	challenges.	As	summarized	in	

Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site,	these	include:	

 Unendorsed	roadside	parking,	causing	resource	impacts	and	visitor	safety	risks.	

 Traffic	congestion	near	Summit	Lake	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.

 Conflicts	between	bicyclists	and	motor	vehicles.	

 Extreme	crowding	on	the	summit	during	peak	periods.	

 Traffic	congestion	at	the	entrance	to	MERA	during	peak	periods.

 Steep,	narrow,	scenic	yet	deteriorating	roadway	causes	driver	safety	risks.	

Relevant Constraints and Needs

MERA’s	primary	challenge	that	may	be	addressed	through	transit	is	the	significant	traffic	

congestion	along	Mount	Evans	Highway	and	at	parking	lots	at	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	

Lake,	and	the	Mount	Evans	Summit.	Additionally,	roadway	conditions	are	deteriorating,	primarily	

due	to	sloughing	along	stretches	of	the	highway.	Congestion	results	in	frequent	parking	in	

undesignated	spaces	or	along	roadsides,	impacts	to	roadside	vegetation,	and	significant	risks	to	

visitor	safety.	It	was	envisioned	that	transit	components	may	be	effective	in	replacing	vehicles	on	

Mount	Evans	Highway	with	transit	shuttles,	thus	allowing	similar	visitation	levels	with	significant	

reductions	in	traffic	volumes	and	parking	demand.	Reducing	traffic	volumes	would	have	the	added	

benefit	of	reducing	the	risk	to	visitors	of	driving	on	the	degraded	roadway	and	reducing	the	net	

impact	of	vehicles	on	the	already‐poor	road.	
491

The	following	constraints	at	Mount	Evans	were	recognized	to	affect	if	and	what	types	of	transit	

systems	would	be	feasible	and	how	to	design	transit	that	would	best	address	the	site’s	challenges:	

1. Vehicle length.	The	maximum	vehicle	length	on	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	30	feet	due	to	the	

sharp	curves	and	steep	grade	of	the	road.	Transit	capacity	would	be	limited	to	vehicles	of	

this	length	with	a	maximum	of	28	passengers	per	vehicle.	

2. Short season.	Mount	Evans	Road	is	typically	closed	from	after	Labor	Day	through	before	

Memorial	Day.	Since	congestion	and	safety	risks	are	greatest	on	weekends	and	holidays,	the	

operating	season	for	transit	would	be	only	35	days.	

3. Limited staging.	By	nature	of	its	location,	Mount	Evans	has	limited	nearby	spaces	to	stage	

transit	(or	construct	a	new	parking	lot	to	hold	the	vehicles	of	transit	passengers,	as	well	as	a	

loading/unloading	area	and	necessary	passenger	facilities).	Idaho	Springs	similarly	lacks	a	

large,	unified	staging	area	but	may	have	more	capacity	in	dispersed	lots.	

4. Peak hours and storms.	The	peak	hours	of	use	at	MERA	also	correspond	with	summer	

thunderstorms.	Transit	headways	and	other	operational	parameters	would	need	to	balance	

visitor	safety	during	storm	events,	demand	for	transit,	and	crowd	control.	

5. Coupling with parking enforcement needed.	Most	visitors	(90%)	responding	to	the	

survey	would	prefer	to	drive	their	personal	vehicle	in	MERA,	but	some	percentage	of	

visitors	responded	that	they	would	be	willing	to	take	a	shuttle	to	visit	MERA	“if	this	was	

their	only	option	for	visiting	because	parking	lots	were	full.”59	Therefore,	there	would	need	

to	be	some	parking	enforcement	or	another	method	to	control	visitor	entry	based	on	total	

traffic	volume	on	Mount	Evans	Highway	in	place	to	compel	visitors	to	use	transit.	Absent	

such	enforcement,	ridership	would	be	too	low	to	be	feasible	to	operate.	Additionally,	

charging	a	fee	for	the	shuttle	(even	as	low	as	$1	per	person)	may	have	a	significant	impact	

on	ridership,	even	with	such	enforcement	in	place.	

Proposed Transit Scenarios

Through	meetings	with	USFS	staff,	stakeholders,	and	the	public,	the	following	transit	scenarios	

were	developed	to	address	parking	congestion	and	resource	management	needs	at	MERA.	Each	of	

these	scenarios	assumes	that,	and	is	dependent	upon,	the	USFS	enforcing	parking	in	designated	

parking	lots	only	along	the	highway.	

1. Shuttle Service from Idaho Springs to MERA

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	

and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	Lake,	Echo	Lake	

Campground,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	Summit	Lake.	Hours	of	operation	would	

correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	at	MERA	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	

managing	surges	in	ridership	demand	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	Shuttle	service	would	

operate	according	to	ridership	demand	coupled	with	parking	enforcement	along	Mount	Evans	

Highway.

2. Shuttle Service from New Staging Area Near Welcome Station to MERA

																																																													

59	Technical	Memo	3.8,	Figure	21	(page	25)	and	Figure	26	(page	30)	
492

Shuttle	buses	would	operate	between	a	newly	constructed	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	the	vicinity	of	

the	MERA	Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	

Lake	Campground,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	Summit	Lake.	Hours	of	operation	would	

correspond	with	peak	hours	of	visitor	use	at	MERA	and	include	contingency	operating	plans	for	

managing	surges	in	ridership	demand	in	the	event	of	thunderstorms.	Shuttle	service	would	be	

operated	according	to	ridership	demand	coupled	with	parking	enforcement	along	Mount	Evans	

Highway.

Figure	7‐5	illustrates	these	Mount	Evans	Scenarios.	Table	7‐45	provides	a	summary	of	the	

operations	and	costs	of	each	of	the	scenarios	and	the	following	sections	contain	details	for	each	

scenario.	Note	that	costs	to	own	are	averaged	over	twelve	years.	MERA	Scenario	2	is	the	more	cost	

efficient	option	on	a	per‐passenger	basis,	but	the	total	ownership	and	lease	costs	are	similar	

between	the	two	scenarios.	
493

Figure7‐5. Mount Evans Scenarios
494

Table 7‐45. MERA Scenarios Operations and Costs Summary

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Travel Time (Round‐trip) 160 minutes 108 minutes

Distance (Round‐trip) 55 miles 30 miles

Hours of Operation 10am to 7pm 10am to 8pm

Frequency of Service 20 minutes 12‐15 minutes

Vehicles Required 9 10

Passengers/Day 211 552

Cost to Own/Year $245,954 $269,888

Cost to Own/Year/Rider $33.30 $13.82

Cost to Lease/Year $111,012 $112,432

Cost to Lease/Year/Rider $29.19‐$31.38 $11.91‐$12.68

Scenario 1: Shuttle Service from Idaho Springs to MERA

This	section	describes	the	process	of	planning	for	the	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	

service	from	Idaho	Springs	to	MERA.	This	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	service	

frequency,	capital	elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Idaho	Springs,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	the	Mount	Evans	

Summit	and	stopping	in	both	directions	at	the	Welcome	Station,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	

Summit	Lake.	Table	7‐46	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	between	stops	for	this	scenario.	

Table 7‐46. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for MERA Scenario 1

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Idaho Springs Staging Area to Welcome Station 13 miles 21 minutes

Welcome Station to Mount Goliath 3 miles 8 minutes

Mount Goliath to Summit Lake 6.2 miles 15 minutes

Summit Lake to Mount Evans Summit 5.4 miles 15 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 55 miles 118 minutes (driving)

160 minutes (with stops)60

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey61.	

																																																													

60 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading and unloading in Idaho Springs, 3 minute stops at

Summit Lake and Mount Goliath in both directions, a 5 minute stop at Welcome Station in both directions, a 10

minute stop at Mount Evans Summit, and 59 minutes run time each way. 61 Traffic volume and survey data for MERA are reported in Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings.
495

According	to	the	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	23%	of	visitors	(see	Chapter 3: Mount Evans

Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	for	visitor	survey	results)	would	elect	to	take	transit	

from	up	to	one	hour	away	from	MERA	if	parking	conditions	prevented	them	from	driving	their	

private	vehicles	to	MERA.	(The	assumption	is	that	the	remaining	77%	of	visitors	would	not	visit	

MERA	during	times	that	these	parking	conditions	exist.)	To	translate	to	ridership	volumes,	the	

hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	90th	percentile	design	day	(approximately	1,000	vehicles	per	day)	

coupled	with	available	parking	and	likely	duration	of	stay	to	arrive	at	a	number	of	visitors	per hour

that	would	otherwise	have	to	park	in	undesignated	roadside	parking	if	they	were	to	enter	MERA	in	

their	private	vehicle	were	used.	

The resulting estimate is 211 passengers per day.	Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	10	

a.m.	and	2	p.m.,	and	the	greatest	volume	of	visitors	would	be	between	12	p.m.	and	1	p.m.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	is	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	

Traffic	volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	show	that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	in	

some	lots	starting	around	9	a.m.	However,	the	need	for	additional	capacity	at	9	a.m.	is	very	low	and	

picks	up	significantly	at	10	a.m.	For	feasibility	of	transit	operations,	transit	service	should	begin	at	

10:00	a.m.	

Baseline	parking	accumulation	data	(reported	in	detail	in	Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area

Summary of Data and Findings)	show	the	distribution	of	lengths	of	stay	among	visitor	groups	to	

MERA.	Using	these	data,	the	hourly	desired	departure	times	relative	to	hourly	parking	demand	

were	estimated	based	on	arrival	times.	The	resulting	volumes	show	that	the	greatest	demand	for	

transit	(in	both	directions)	would	occur	between	12	p.m.	and	5	p.m.,	but	transit	demand	would	

remain	steady	through	7	p.m.	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.62	The	system	would	operate	every	20	minutes	from	

10	a.m.	through	8:00	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	leaving	the	Mount	Evans	Summit	parking	lot	at	6:40	

p.m.).	Table	7‐47	provides	a	summary	schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	Scenario	1,	as	well	as	the	

vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	

This	service	schedule	would	call	for	23	round	trips	daily	and	9	shuttle	buses.	There	would	be	an	

average	of	9	passengers	per	trip	throughout	the	day,	but	during	peak	periods	(12	–	5	PM),	the	

average	would	be	much	higher.	

																																																													

62 The 20 minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
496

Table 7‐47. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for MERA Scenario 1

Departure (Staging) Arrival (Summit) Arrival (Staging) Vehicle #

10:00 AM 11:20 AM 12:40 PM 1

10:20 AM 11:40 AM 1:00 PM 2

10:40 AM 12:00 PM 1:20 PM 3

11:00 AM 12:20 PM 1:40 PM 4

11:20 AM 12:40 PM 2:00 PM 5

11:40 AM 1:00 PM 2:20 PM 6

12:00 PM 1:20 PM 2:40 PM 7

12:20 PM 1:40 PM 3:00 PM 8

12:40 PM 2:00 PM 3:20 PM 9

1:00 PM 2:20 PM 3:40 PM 1

1:20 PM 2:40 PM 4:00 PM 2

1:40 PM 3:00 PM 4:20 PM 3

2:00 PM 3:20 PM 4:40 PM 4

2:20 PM 3:40 PM 5:00 PM 5

2:40 PM 4:00 PM 5:20 PM 6

3:00 PM 4:20 PM 5:40 PM 7

3:20 PM 4:40 PM 6:00 PM 8

3:40 PM 5:00 PM 6:20 PM 9

4:00 PM 5:20 PM 6:40 PM 1

4:20 PM 5:40 PM 7:00 PM 2

4:40 PM 6:00 PM 7:20 PM 3

5:00 PM 6:20 PM 7:40 PM 4

5:20 PM 6:40 PM 8:00 PM 5

Bolded runs would not pick up visitors in Idaho Springs such that the last “new” transit visitors arrive via the 3:40

PM shuttle.

Vehicle Selection

MERA	is	limited	to	30‐foot	vehicles,	and	ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	

shuttle	would	fluctuate	between	13	and	52	passengers	per	hour.	In	considering	passenger	safety	

and	convenience,	a	20	minute	headway	(see	Service	Hours	and	Frequency)	was	instituted,	and	with	

three	trips	per	hour,	transit	service	can	meet	demand	with	20	passenger	vehicles	(rather	than	28	

passenger	vehicles).	Using	smaller	vehicles	will	save	some	money	on	upfront	capital	costs,	have	less	

of	an	impact	on	the	roadway,	and	allow	for	slightly	more	flexibility	in	vehicle	maneuvering	and	

storage.	

GSA	AutoChoice	lists	several	options	for	20‐passenger,	light‐duty	shuttle	buses	that	would	meet	the	

needs	for	MERA	transit	service.	Table	7‐48	shows	vehicle	options	and	prices.	A	20‐passenger	

vehicle	will	likely	cost	around	$90,000,	with	a	total	vehicle	cost	of	$810,000	for	nine	vehicles.	
497

Table 7‐48. MERA Scenario 1 Potential Vehicles

Vehicle Model Year All‐Wheel Drive Price

Champbus Challenger Ford F550 2014 No $86,895

StarTrans Senator HD Ford 2014 Available as option $88,711

Goshen Coach GCII FD (Figure 7‐6) 2014 Yes $99,504

Figure 7‐6. Champbus Challenger Ford F55063

Staging

Several	options	for	staging	transit	in	Idaho	Springs	were	considered.	Idaho	Springs	offers	the	

benefit	of	proximity	to	Interstate	70	and	more	developed	parking	lots.	However,	parking	lots	are	

owned	by	multiple	owners	(not	USFS)	and	USFS	would	need	to	either	purchase	and	develop	a	lot	

(or	lots)	or	enter	into	a	use	agreement	with	its	owner.	The	legal	and	financial	implications	for	either	

option	could	vary	considerably.	

The	locations	in	Table	7‐49	were	considered	as	preliminary	options	for	staging.	To	date,	the	owners	

of	these	lots	have	not	been	contacted	nor	have	assessments	of	the	current	status	of	each	lot	during	

peak	summer	days	been	completed.	

Table 7‐49. Preliminary Options for MERA Scenario 1 Staging

Location Capacity Notes

Idaho Springs High School or

school offices

60 lined spots, 45 lined

spots in upper lot

USFS Visitor Center TBD Usually fills on weekends; potential to expand

lot with sale of adjacent property

Fairgrounds/rodeo along I‐70 TBD Currently used as storage for CDOT and may

not be consistently available during summer

weekends

																																																													

63http://www.rohrerbus.com/bus‐sales/choose‐your‐vehicle/commercial‐buses/16‐25‐passenger‐

buses/champion‐challenger/
498

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions64

The	following	cost	assumptions	in	Table	7‐50	allow	for	the	calculation	of	seasonal	operations	and	

maintenance	costs.	All	costs	are	from	the	Volpe	Bus	Lifecycle	Cost	Model	and	updated	to	2015.	

Table 7‐50. Assumptions Driving Costs in MERA Scenario 1

Transit Element Cost Assumption

Driver hourly wage $30

Fuel cost per gallon $3.50

Maintenance cost per mile (based on poor

condition of Mount Evans Highway)

$1.50

Fueling station and maintenance facility $0.00 (Assume USFS uses existing stations/facility

and does not construct new ones exclusively for

transit)

Cost Estimates

The	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	includes	bus	shelters	at	Idaho	Springs	(1),	the	Welcome	

Station	(2),	Summit	Lake	(1)	and	the	Mount	Evans	Summit	(2).	No	shelter	is	included	at	Mount	

Goliath	because	there	is	already	a	Nature	Center.	Additionally,	benches	are	needed	at	each	stop.	The	

total	cost	for	shelters	and	benches	is	$194,000.65	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	

installation,	initial	promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐51	and	Table	7‐52	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	nine	20‐passenger	shuttles.	These	can	be	shared	

with	other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	MERA.	These	

tables	also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assume	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	

account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐51. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 1

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

20‐passenger shuttle bus 9 $90,000 $810,000

Table 7‐52. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 1

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $135,812 $18.39

Year One Capital Costs   $1,024,000 $138.66

Costs Per Season (2‐12, cumulative) $1,791,643 $20.22

Total $2,951,455 $33.30

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

																																																													

64 All cost references cited in Bus Lifecycle Cost Model (http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation‐planning/public‐

lands/department‐interior‐bus‐and‐ferry‐lifecycle‐cost‐modeling). 65 Bench and bus shelter costs: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2
499

16‐25	passenger	vehicles.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.66	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$4,357	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$13,071.	Because	lease	rates	

include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost	

is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$97,941	per	year.	

Table	7‐53	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐53. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in MERA Scenario 1

25‐passenger

vehicles

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital67

Capital Per

Passenger

Total O&M

(Fuel & Driver)

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 9 $4,357 $13,071 $117,639 $15.93 $97,941 $29.19

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	less	expensive.	In	both	cases,	capital	costs	account	for	approximately	half	of	the	total	cost.	

	Due	to	the	relatively	low	number	of	passengers	using	this	transit	service	(211	passengers	

represent	less	than	8	percent	of	the	approximately	2,700	visitors	on	a	90th	percentile	day),	the	

length	of	the	service	in	terms	of	miles	and	minutes,	and	the	high	level	of	service	needed	for	

passenger	safety	and	convenience,	the	cost	per	passenger	is	very	high	in	both	the	purchase‐	and	

lease‐scenarios.	Implementation	of	this	transit	scenario	would	need	capital	investment	from	the	

USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	vehicles	and	infrastructure.	This	scenario	would	likely	need	a	

subsidy	to	cover	the	per‐passenger	operating	cost	or	charge	very	high	fees	to	passengers.	

Scenario 2: Shuttle Service from Welcome Station to MERA

This	section	describes	the	process	of	planning	for	the	capital	and	operational	elements	of	transit	

service	from	the	Welcome	Station	to	MERA.	This	includes	the	route	description,	ridership	demand,	

service	frequency,	capital	elements	(such	as	staging	and	vehicle	selection),	and	costs.	

Route

The	route	would	start	and	end	at	Idaho	Springs,	making	an	out‐and‐back	drive	to	the	Mount	Evans	

Summit	and	stopping	in	both	directions	at	the	Welcome	Station,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	and	

Summit	Lake.	Table	7‐54	presents	the	mileage	and	driving	times	between	stops	for	this	scenario.	

																																																													

66 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000‐mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance. 67 Cost estimates should also include $194,000 for bus shelters, benches, and start‐up costs for year one. These are

calculated separately. However, if they were included in the least costs and aggregated over twelve years, the

capital per passenger cost would be $18.12 in year one and the total per passenger cost would be $31.38.
500

Table 7‐54. Mileage and Driving Time between Stops for MERA Scenario 2

Route Segment Mileage Driving Time

Welcome Station to Mount Goliath 3 miles 8 minutes

Mount Goliath to Summit Lake 6.2 miles 15 minutes

Summit Lake to Mount Evans Summit 5.4 miles 15 minutes

Round‐Trip Totals 30 miles 76 minutes (driving)

108 minutes (with stops)68

Ridership Demand

To	plan	for	appropriate	service	levels	and	capital	investment,	the	demand	for	transit	was	estimated	

based	on	current	traffic	volumes	and	results	from	the	visitor	survey69.	

According	to	the	visitors	that	responded	to	the	survey,	60%	of	visitors	(see	Chapter 3: Mount Evans

Recreation Area Summary of Data and Findings	for	visitor	survey	results)	would	be	willing	to	take	

transit	that	originated	near	the	MERA	entrance	station	if	parking	conditions	prevented	them	from	

driving	their	private	vehicles	to	MERA.	(The	assumption	is	that	the	remaining	40%	of	visitors	

would	not	visit	MERA	during	times	that	these	parking	conditions	exist.)	To	translate	to	ridership	

volumes,	hourly	traffic	volumes	on	a	90th	percentile	design	day	coupled	with	available	parking	and	

likely	duration	of	stay	to	arrive	at	a	number	of	visitors	per hour	that	would	otherwise	have	to	park	

in	undesignated	roadside	parking	if	they	were	to	enter	MERA	in	their	private	vehicle	were	used.	

The resulting estimate is 552 passengers per day.	Most	passengers	would	arrive	between	10	

a.m.	and	2	p.m.,	and	the	greatest	volume	of	visitors	would	be	between	12	p.m.	and	1	p.m.	

Service Hours and Frequency

Service	hours	and	frequency	is	based	on	ridership	demand,	passenger	safety,	and	feasibility.	Traffic	

volumes	and	parking	lot	counts	show	that	parking	demand	begins	to	exceed	capacity	in	some	lots	

starting	around	9	a.m.	However,	the	need	for	additional	capacity	at	9	a.m.	is	very	low	and	picks	up	

significantly	at	10	a.m.	For	feasibility	of	transit	operations,	transit	service	should	begin	at	10:00	a.m.	

Using	the	distribution	of	lengths	of	stay	among	visitor	groups	to	MERA,	the	hourly	desired	

departure	times	were	estimated	relative	to	hourly	parking	demand	based	on	arrival	times.	The	

resulting	volumes	show	that	the	greatest	demand	for	transit	(in	both	directions)	would	occur	

between	12	p.m.	and	5	p.m.,	but	transit	demand	would	remain	steady	through	7:30	p.m.	

A	system	with	maximum	headways	of	20	minutes	was	designed	to	balance	convenience	and	visitor	

safety	with	financial	and	operational	feasibility.70	However,	due	to	high	volumes	of	passenger	

																																																													

68 The total time for each route includes 5 minutes loading and unloading at the Welcome Station, 3 minute stops

at Summit Lake and Mount Goliath in both directions, a 10 minute stop at Mount Evans Summit, and 38 minutes

run time each way. 69 Traffic volume and survey data for MERA are reported in Chapter 3: Mount Evans Recreation Area Summary of

Data Findings. 70 The 20 minute figure is based on previous transit surveys conducted at Marsh‐Billings Rockefeller NHP and Muir

Woods National Monument. Also, a Center for Urban Transportation Research (University of South Florida) study
501

demand	throughout	the	day,	but	especially	from	12	p.m.	to	5	p.m.,	the	maximum	headways	for	

Scenario	2	would	be	15	minutes.	From	12	p.m.	to	4	p.m.,	shuttles	would	operate	approximately	

every	12	minutes.	The	system	would	operate	from	10	a.m.	through	8:00	p.m.	(with	the	last	shuttle	

leaving	the	Mount	Evans	Summit	parking	lot	around	7:00	p.m.).	See	Table	7‐55	for	a	summary	

schedule	of	shuttle	service	for	Scenario	2,	as	well	as	the	vehicle	assigned	to	each	trip.	

This	service	schedule	would	call	for	37	round	trips	daily	and	10	shuttle	buses.	There	would	be	an	

average	of	15	passengers	per	trip	throughout	the	day,	but	during	peak	periods	(12	–	4	PM),	the	

average	would	be	much	higher	and	several	shuttles	would	likely	operate	at	capacity.	

Table 7‐55. Schedule of Shuttle Runs for MERA Scenario 2

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Summit)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

10:00 AM 10:54 AM 11:48 AM 1

10:15 AM 11:09 AM 12:03 PM 2

10:30 AM 11:24 AM 12:18 PM 3

10:45 AM 11:39 AM 12:33 PM 4

11:00 AM 11:54 AM 12:48 PM 5

11:15 AM 12:09 PM 1:03 PM 6

11:30 AM 12:24 PM 1:18 PM 7

11:45 AM 12:39 PM 1:33 PM 8

12:00 PM 12:54 PM 1:48 PM 1

12:12 PM 1:06 PM 2:00 PM 2

12:24 PM 1:18 PM 2:12 PM 3

12:36 PM 1:30 PM 2:24 PM 4

12:48 PM 1:42 PM 2:36 PM 5

1:00 PM 1:54 PM 2:48 PM 6

1:12 PM 2:06 PM 3:00 PM 7

1:24 PM 2:18 PM 3:12 PM 8

1:36 PM 2:30 PM 3:24 PM 9

1:48 PM 2:42 PM 3:36 PM 10

2:00 PM 2:54 PM 3:48 PM 1

2:12 PM 3:06 PM 4:00 PM 2

2:24 PM 3:18 PM 4:12 PM 3

2:36 PM 3:30 PM 4:24 PM 4

2:48 PM 3:42 PM 4:36 PM 5

3:00 PM 3:54 PM 4:48 PM 6

3:12 PM 4:06 PM 5:00 PM 7

3:24 PM 4:18 PM 5:12 PM 8

																																																													

suggests a maximum wait time of 30 minutes is acceptable for urban transit systems, and the study team

estimates that a slightly shorter headway seems appropriate in the recreation context (CUTR study available at

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf)
502

Departure

(Staging)

Arrival

(Summit)

Arrival

(Staging)

Vehicle

#

3:36 PM 4:30 PM 5:24 PM 9

3:48 PM 4:42 PM 5:36 PM 10

4:00 PM 4:54 PM 5:48 PM 1

4:15 PM 5:09 PM 6:03 PM 2

4:30 PM 5:24 PM 6:18 PM 3

4:45 PM 5:39 PM 6:33 PM 4

5:00 PM 5:54 PM 6:48 PM 5

5:15 PM 6:09 PM 7:03 PM 6

5:30 PM 6:24 PM 7:18 PM 7

5:45 PM 6:39 PM 7:33 PM 8

6:00 PM 6:54 PM 7:48 PM 9

Bolded runs would not pick up visitors at the Welcome Station such that the last “new” transit visitors arrive via

the 4:15 PM shuttle.

Vehicle Selection

MERA	is	limited	to	30‐foot	vehicles,	and	ridership	demand	estimates	show	that	demand	for	the	

shuttle	would	fluctuate	between	34	and	135	passengers	per	hour,	with	an	average	hourly	demand	

of	92	passengers	per	hour).	With	a	high	hourly	demand,	a	28‐passenger	vehicle	is	the	most	

appropriate	in	Scenario	2.	The	hourly	demand	necessitates	at	least	15‐minute	headways,	with	12	

minute	headways	(5	trips	per	hour)	between	12	p.m.	and	4	p.m.	Twenty‐eight	passenger	vehicles	

are	the	largest	capacity	vehicles	that	can	safely	operate	with	the	30‐foot	length	limit	on	Mount	

Evans	Highway.	

Most	28‐passenger	vehicles	on	GSA	AutoChoice	exceed	30	feet	in	length.	One	potential	option	(used	

for	cost	estimate	purposes)	is	the	light‐duty	StarTrans	Senator	HD	(2014)	(see).	The	StarTrans	

Senator	HD	base	model	can	be	modified	with	options	to	improve	performance	on	steep	grade	

roadways.	With	these	options	and	a	wheelchair	lift,	the	vehicle	will	cost	approximately	$100,000,	

with	a	total	vehicle	cost	of	$1,000,000	for	ten	vehicles.	

Staging

Several	options	for	staging	transit	near	the	Welcome	Station	were	considered.	Staging	would	need	

to	accommodate	at	least	120	vehicles,	which	translates	to	36,000	square	feet	for	parking	or	

approximately	0.75	acres.	This	represents	a	significant	challenge	and	potential	impact	to	this	

transit	scenario.	

Two	options	for	staging	for	Scenario	2	are	the	development	of	a	property	adjacent	to	Echo	Lake	

Lodge	and	Campground	or	the	use	of	the	old	Echo	Lake	Ski	Area	(5.5	miles	east	of	the	lodge	on	

Colorado	103).	To	date,	owners	of	these	properties	have	not	been	contacted	about	the	feasibility,	

costs,	or	constraints	involved	in	using	these	as	transit	staging	areas	35	days	per	year.	

Operations and Maintenance Assumptions

The	operations	and	maintenance	assumptions	for	this	scenario	are	the	same	as	MERA	Scenario	1.	
503

Cost Estimates

The	cost	estimates	for	MERA	Scenario	2	are	a	combination	of	the	following	costs:	

1. Transit‐supportive	infrastructure	costs	

2. Vehicle	purchase	or	lease	

3. Start‐up	costs	

4. Operation	costs	(annual)	

5. Maintenance	costs	(annual)	

The	transit‐supportive	infrastructure	includes	bus	shelters	at	the	Welcome	Station	(2),	Summit	

Lake	(1)	and	the	Mount	Evans	Summit	(2).	No	shelter	is	included	at	Mount	Goliath	because	there	is	

already	a	Nature	Center.	Additionally,	benches	are	needed	at	each	stop.	The	total	cost	for	shelters	

and	benches	is	$161,000.71	Other	general	start‐up	costs	include	marketing,	installation,	initial	

promotion,	staff	training,	etc.	These	costs	are	anticipated	to	be	$20,000	in	Year	1.	

Table	7‐56	and	Table	7‐57	show	the	combined	cost	estimate	for	a	vehicle	purchase	option.	This	

assumes	that	USFS	or	another	party	purchases	ten	28‐passenger	shuttles.	These	can	be	shared	with	

other	sites	or	used	offsite	during	the	remainder	of	the	year	when	not	in	use	at	MERA.	These	tables	

also	calculate	an	annual	maintenance	cost,	which	assume	a	three	percent	increase	per	year	to	

account	for	inflation	and	fluctuation	in	driver,	maintenance,	and	fuel	costs.	

Table 7‐56. Capital Cost for Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 2

Vehicle Quantity Cost per Unit Total

28‐passenger shuttle 10 $100,000 $1,000,000

Table 7‐57. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Purchase in MERA Scenario 2

Costs Total Per Passenger

Annual O&M Costs (Season 1) $133,205 $6.89

Year One Capital Costs   $1,181,000 $61.13

Costs Per Season (2‐12, cumulative) $1,757,244 $7.58

Total $3,238,654 $13.82

USFS	may	also	elect	to	lease	vehicles,	which	may	be	an	attractive	option	to	test	the	viability	of	

transit	service	with	less	upfront	capital	investment.	GSA	AutoChoice	presents	pricing	options	for	

16‐25	passenger	vehicles.	GSA	offers	a	short‐term	lease	in	which	the	federal	agency	pays	a	monthly	

lease	fee	to	use	the	vehicles	for	a	few	months	at	a	time.72	GSA	short‐term	lease	rates	for	vehicles	of	

this	size	are	$4,357	per	month,	with	an	estimate	cost	per	season	of	$13,071.	Because	lease	rates	

include	maintenance	costs	but	not	fuel	or	driver	costs,	the	annual	operations	and	maintenance	cost	

																																																													

71 Bench and bus shelter costs: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=2 72 GSA also has leasing options that commit the leaser to a 7 year or 100,000‐mile lease, which would be less

attractive to the USFS if they were testing transit on a pilot basis. If USFS pursues transit, they are encouraged to

work with their regional GSA office for more detailed pricing options. Rates vary by region, but they are unlikely to

exceed the rates presented here. Short‐term lease rates include mileage and preventative maintenance.
504

is	calculated	separately.	These	costs	include	fuel	and	drivers	only,	at	a	cost	of	$99,361	per	year.	

Table	7‐58	shows	the	total	costs	and	per‐passenger	costs	with	a	lease	option.	

Table 7‐58. Total and Per‐Passenger Costs with Vehicle Lease in MERA Scenario 2

25‐passenger

vehicles

Quantity Cost per

Month

Cost per

Season

Total

Capital73

Capital Per

Passenger

Total O&M

(Fuel & Driver)

Total Per

Passenger

One Season 10 $4,357 $13,071 $130,710 $6.77 $99,361 $11.91

The	total	cost	per	passenger	is	similar	between	the	purchase	and	lease	options,	with	the	lease	being	

slightly	less	expensive.	In	both	cases,	capital	costs	account	for	approximately	half	of	the	total	cost.	

Relative	to	MERA	Scenario	1,	there	is	a	larger	number	of	passengers	using	this	transit	service	(552	

passengers	represents	20%	of	the	approximately	2,700	visitors	on	a	90th	percentile	day).	Also,	

Scenario	2	has	a	shorter	total	length	of	the	service	in	terms	of	miles	and	minutes,	which	results	in	a	

cost	per	passenger	that	is	much	lower	than	Scenario	1	in	both	the	purchase‐	and	lease‐scenarios.	A	

cost	of	$11	to	$14	per	passenger	may	significantly	reduce	demand,	and	the	USFS	should	consider	

options	to	subsidize	this	cost.	Capital	investment	from	the	USFS	(or	another	funding	source)	for	

vehicles	and	infrastructure	could	also	help	reduce	the	cost	per	passenger.	

Synthesis

The	most	cost‐effective,	defined	as	cost	per	rider,	and	likely	transit	scenarios	are	BLRA	Scenario	4,	

GP	Scenario	3,	and	MERA	Scenario	2.	Though	GP	Scenario	3	is	more	expensive	than	GP	Scenario	2,	

GP	Scenario	3	is	more	likely	since	it	would	help	alleviate	crowding	on	Mount	Bierstadt,	the	trail,	and	

in	the	wilderness	area.	While	MERA	Scenario	2	is	slightly	more	expensive	than	MERA	Scenario	1,	

MERA	Scenario	2	would	serve	more	passengers.	This	scenario	is	likely	if	the	road	degrades	to	a	

point	where	it	would	be	closed	to	private	vehicles	due	to	safety	concerns.	Table	7‐59	summarizes	

the	operations	and	costs	of	the	ARNF’s	most	feasible	scenarios	in	each	of	the	three	sites.	

																																																													

73 Cost estimates should also include $181,000 for bus shelters, benches, and start‐up costs for year one. These are

calculated separately. However, if they were included in the least costs and aggregated over twelve years, the

capital per passenger cost would be $7.54 in year one and the total per passenger cost would be $12.68.
505

Table 7‐59. Operations and Costs Summary of Feasible Scenarios

BLRA

Scenario 4

GP

Scenario 3

MERA

Scenario 2

Travel Time (Round‐trip) 20 minutes 66 minutes 108 minutes

Distance (Round‐trip) 4.4 miles 22 miles 30 miles

Hours of Operation 7am to 6pm 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. 10am to 8pm

Frequency of Service 20 minutes 15‐30 minutes 12‐15 minutes

Vehicles Required 1 5 10

Passengers/Day 195 400 (weekends), 200 (weekdays) 552

Cost to Own/Year $25,981 $234,271 $269,888

Cost to Own/Year/Rider $3.81 $8.37 $13.82

Cost to Lease/Year $26,967 $181,790 $112,432

Cost to Lease/Year/Rider $3.95 $6.49 $11.91‐$12.68

If	the	USFS	would	like	to	pursue	any	or	all	of	these	transit	scenarios,	the	next	steps	include	getting	

line	officer	and	Forest	leadership	team	support;	developing	an	implementation	plan	that	identifies	

partners	and	funding	sources	(such	as	the	Federal	Lands	Access	Program)	and	estimates	site‐

specific	capital	and	O&M	costs	and	capacities	of	necessary	staging	areas;	putting	agreements	into	

place;	implementing	the	system	as	well	as	accompanying	transportation	components	(such	as	

permit	systems,	etc.).	
506

Chapter 8: ALTERNATIVE COMPONENT ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND

RESULTS
507

Introduction

This	chapter	describes	the	evaluation	criteria,	method	of	analysis,	and	results	of	analysis	used	to	

evaluate	the	full	range	of	potential	alternative	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	

components	for	each	site	identified	in	Chapter 5:	Alternative Components by Site.	While	some	issues	

identified	are	site	specific,	many	are	common	to	all	sites,	and	as	such,	criteria	were	developed	to	

evaluate	the	components	consistently	across	all	sites.	The	evaluation	criteria	and	method	of	

analysis	were	applied	to	each	component	individually	and	to	some	packaged	components.	

Following	the	description	of	methods,	results	of	the	analysis	of	the	components	for	each	site	are	

reported	for	both	standalone	and	packaged	components.	The	evaluation	process	provides	a	

mechanism	for	narrowing	the	field	of	alternative	components	to	short‐term	and	long‐term	

solutions	for	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	that	align	with	forest	and	project	goals.	

Recommendations	stemming	from	this	evaluation,	and	those	analyses	reported	in	Chapters	6	and	7	

are	reported	in	Chapter 9: Study Recommendations by Site.	

Method for Alternative Component Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria

The	alternative	components	analysis	process	is	intended	to	evaluate	components	or	“building	

blocks.”	Components	were	evaluated	both	as	standalone	solutions	and	as	packaged	solutions.	

Packaging	of	solutions	was	done	to	maximize	component	efficiency	and	effectiveness	for	solving	

transportation	and	visitor	use	needs.	The	evaluation	process	was	structured	in	two	phases:	1)	a	

high‐level	“fatal	flaw”	analysis	for	standalone	components,	and	2)	a	more	detailed	technical	analysis	

of	standalone	components	and	packaged	combinations.	Accordingly,	the	team	developed	two	

different	sets	of	evaluation	criteria	for	use	in	fatal	flaw	and	technical	analyses,	1)	requirement	

criteria	and,	2)	technical	criteria.	

Requirement Criteria

Requirement	criteria	were	used	in	the	first	phase	of	analysis	(i.e.,	“fatal	flaw”	analysis)	for	

standalone	components.	These	criteria	were	used	to	evaluate	the	most	critical	aspects	of	each	

component	to	determine	whether	they	met	the	project’s	goals	and	are	viable	for	implementation	by	

addressing	the	following	questions:	

 Does	the	component	have	the	potential	to	meet	the	project's	purpose	and	need?	

 Is	the	component	consistent	with	the	Forest	Goals?	(Defined	as	objectives	in	Chapter 4: Need

Identification by Site.)	

 Is	the	component	politically	feasible?	

The	project	purpose and need	criterion	was	established	to	clearly	define	and	use	data	to	

substantiate	the	issues	observed	at	the	study	sites.	By	establishing	a	purpose	and	need	criterion,	it	

subjects	components	to	a	basic	level	analysis	to	determine	whether	implementation	of	the	

component	would	address	the	data‐informed	need	for	improvements	at	each	of	the	sites.	
508

Forest Goals and objectives	established	by	the	ARNF	were	adopted	as	the	goals	and	objectives	for	

this	alternative	transportation	study.	By	including	subthemes	such	as	contributing	to	the	protection	

of	forest	resources;	improving	the	safety,	efficiency,	and	sustainability	of	the	forest	transportation	

system;	and	preserving	the	quality	of	the	visitor	experience	this	criterion	evaluates	whether	or	not	

alternative	components	are	consistent	with	high‐level	USFS	programmatic	functions.	

Political Feasibility	is	the	most	subjective	of	the	requirement	criteria.	Understanding	that	

management	direction	and	public	opinion	could	change	in	the	long	term,	the	tenets	of	this	criterion	

support	technical	feasibility,	financial	feasibility,	and	political	palatability	under	current	

management	direction	and	public	use.	

An	example	of	the	requirements	criteria	cross	tabulated	for	the	screening	analysis	with	the	

components	for	the	Guanella	Pass	site	are	shown	in	Table	8‐1.	

Table 8‐1. Evaluation Criteria

Component Requirement Criteria

Site   # Component Name

Does the

component have

the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the

component

consistent with

the Forest

Goals?

Is the

component

currently

politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

Guanella Pass

Transit            

1 Hiker shuttle from Georgetown to GP             

2 Hiker shuttle from Guanella Pass Rd to GP             

3 Interpretive tour from Georgetown on GP Rd.             

4 Interpretive tour from Denver on GP Rd.             

Site design improvements            

5 Expand size of parking lots at GP             

6 Reduce size of parking lots at GP             

7 Widen road shoulders for roadside parking             

ITS & Visitor Information            

8 Variable Message signs             

9 Highway advisory radio             

10 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, Apps             

Parking management            

11 Dedicated traffic & parking management team             

12 Mandatory parking offsite when parking lots full             

13 Paid parking             

14 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking             

Visitor Use Management            

15 Amenity fee during peak periods             

16 Day use permit system and quota for Wilderness             
509

Points	were	not	awarded	for	requirement	criteria;	rather,	subjective	yes/no	assessments	were	

made	regarding	each	component	met	the	criteria.	If	a	component	did	not	meet	these	criteria,	it	was	

not	considered	further	as	a	standalone	component.	Components	that	did	meet	the	requirement	

criteria	were	eligible	for	further	standalone	evaluation	based	on	technical	criteria	in	the	second	

screening	phase.	Components	that	had	the	potential	to	meet	the	requirement	criteria	if	packaged	

with	other	components	were	carried	forward	to	the	component	packaging	phase	to	be	combined	

with	others	in	the	final	screening	evaluation.	

Technical Criteria

Technical	evaluation	criteria	were	developed	for	use	in	the	second	screening	phase.	These	criteria	

were	developed	to	address	a	more	detailed	evaluation	of	Forest	Goals,	specific	to	the	three	sites,	

and	issues	related	to	project	implementation.	Forest	resource	protection,	visitor	experience	quality,	

and	transportation	safety	and	operations	criteria	were	included	as	a	basis	to	evaluate	alternative	

components	relative	to	Forest	Goals,	while	cost	effectiveness,	displacement	and	implementation	

feasibility	criteria	were	developed	to	evaluate	implementation	issues.	Although	each	of	the	six	

technical	criteria	developed	encompassed	multiple	issues,	for	the	ease	of	scoring	and	summary	

purposes,	they	were	consolidated	into	general	categories.	The	technical	criteria	are	summarized	in	

Table	8‐2.	

Table 8‐2. Technical Criteria

Criteria Response Range Elements to Consider

Protection of

Forest

Resources

4 ‐ 0 *

Does the component maintain use below the Wilderness threshold?

To what extent does the component location or geographic scope of

component benefits correspond to areas with Wilderness capacity needs?

Potential noise or air quality impact

Potential visual impact

Potential impact to wildlife

Potential impact to other natural resources (vegetation, soil, water)

Visitor

Experience

0 ‐ 4

To what extent does the component provide benefits to visitors' experience

of the paramount use?

Transportation

Safety &

Operations

0 ‐ 4

To what extent does the component improve safety?

To what extent does the component location or geographic scope of

component benefits correspond to areas with transportation capacity needs?

Cost

Effectiveness

< $100,000 (4)

$100,000 ‐ $250,000 (3)

$250,001 ‐ 500,000 (2)

$500,001 ‐ $1,000,000

(1)

> $1,000,000 (0)

Total capital cost

O&M costs: operations and maintenance, vehicle replacement, liability and

insurance, administration, utilities

Are matching funds available?

Displacement

of Existing

Users

4 ‐ 0 *

To what extent does the component benefit the paramount user group to the

detriment of others?

Potential social impact to adjacent communities

Potential economic impact to adjacent communities
510

Criteria Response Range Elements to Consider

Implementation

Feasibility

0 ‐ 4

To what extent do the USFS or other willing partners have the organizational

capacity to oversee implementation?

Are necessary permits (or other administrative hurdles) not needed,

obtained, in the process of being obtained, or will be obtainable within a

reasonable time period?

NEPA class of action?

To what extent is the component publicly acceptable?

* “Reverse” scoring: less impact yields a higher score

The	Protection of Forest Resources	criterion	addresses	resource	and	wilderness	protection,	inclusive	

of	wilderness	capacity,	noise	and	air	quality,	visual	impact,	wildlife	impact,	and	other	natural	

resources	(soil,	vegetation,	etc.).	Given	the	range	of	resources	and	possible	impacts	under	this	

criterion,	the	scoring	was	intended	to	address	order	of	magnitude	concerns	for	overall	resource	

protection.	

The	Visitor Experience	criterion	provides	a	basis	to	evaluate	alternative	components	based	on	

perceived	visitor	benefits	in	experiencing	the	“paramount	use”	at	each	site.	Paramount	use	was	

defined	as	the	primary	experience(s)	for	which	the	USFS	manages	the	site	(e.g.,	Wilderness	

recreation	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit,	and	in	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness;	scenic	

auto	touring	at	MERA;	developed	recreation	in	the	day	use	area	of	BLRA).	

The	Transportation Safety and Operations	criterion	was	included	to	evaluate	the	degree	to	which	

the	components	improved	overall	safety	of	the	site.	In	addition,	the	geographic	scope	of	the	

component’s	ability	to	address	transportation	capacity	needs	was	considered	in	this	scoring.	

The	Cost Effectiveness	criterion	was	included	to	consider	estimated	total	capital	cost,	lifecycle	cost,	

and	whether	or	not	matching	funding	sources	may	be	available	for	implementation.	At	this	stage	of	

analysis	order	of	magnitude	cost	were	evaluated	at	a	planning	feasibly	level.	

The	Displacement (of existing users)	criterion	was	included	to	evaluate	potential	social	and	

economic	impacts	to	adjacent	communities,	and	the	extent	that	the	component	provided	benefits	to	

specific	user	groups	at	the	detriment	of	others.	

The	Implementation Feasibility	criterion	was	included	to	consider	the	organizational	capacity	of	the	

Forest	Service	or	other	partners	to	oversee	implementation.	In	addition,	the	complexity	of	

necessary	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	evaluation	and	permit	requirements	was	

considered.	Lastly,	public	acceptability	was	estimated	based	on	input	gathered	during	public	

outreach	and	visitor	surveys	conducted	at	each	site.	

Screening Analysis

The	component	screening	analysis	was	structured	in	four	phases:

1. Fatal	flaw	analysis	(i.e.,	analysis	using	Evaluation	Criteria)	

2. Technical	analysis	(i.e.,	analysis	using	Technical	Criteria)	

3. Packaging	

4. Technical	analysis	of	packages	(i.e.	analysis	using	Technical	Criteria)	
511

The	screening	analysis	attempts	to	apply	both	technical	and	nontechnical	criteria	to	a	set	of	

solutions	to	identify	which	solution	or	set	of	solutions	best	meets	the	purpose	and	need	identified	

as	part	of	this	study.	The	multiphase	analysis	sequentially	evaluates	components	identified	at	each	

of	the	three	recreation	sites.	The	methodology	and	scoring	rubric	used	for	the	series	of	phases	in	

the	analysis	are	described	in	the	following	sections.	

Fatal Flaw Analysis

The	fatal	flaw	analysis	is	intended	to	screen	out	components	that	do	not	address	the	project	

purpose	and	need,	are	inconsistent	with	Forest	Goals,	or	are	not	politically	feasible	as	standalone	

components.	The	requirement	criteria	lend	themselves	to	yes/no	answers	requiring	documentation	

on	how	the	component	did	or	did	not	meet	the	criteria.	Those	components	that	garnered	a	“yes”	to	

each	of	the	requirement	criteria	advanced	to	the	technical	criteria	screening,	and	those	components	

that	garnered	a	“no”	did	not	advance	further.	Components	must	receive	“yes”	answers	to	all	three	

criteria	in	order	to	advance	to	the	technical	screening	phase.	However,	some	components	that	

failed	the	requirement	criteria	were	determined	to	be	beneficial	when	packaged	with	other	

components.	These	“packaged	only”	components	bypassed	the	standalone	technical	criteria	

screening	phase	and	proceeded	directly	to	the	packaging	phase.	The	sections	below	elaborate	on	

the	logic	used	to	assign	“yes,”	“no,”	and	“package	only”	scores	to	individual	components.	Example	

components	from	each	of	the	three	sites	are	used	to	provide	examples	of	score	application.	

A	“Yes”	score	was	assigned	to	components	that	fully	met	the	criterion	under	evaluation.	For	

example	at	GP,	the	component	“Reduce	size	of	parking	lots	at	GP”	received	a	“Yes”	score	for	meeting	

the	requirement	“Is	the	component	consistent	with	USFS	goals”	because	the	stated	goals	for	the	

administering	forest	unit	include	resource	protection	and	reduction	of	resource	impacts.	Reducing	

the	size	of	a	parking	facility	in	the	fragile	tundra	environment	of	GP	is	an	action	consistent	with	

these	specified	USFS	goals.	

A	“Package	Only”	score	was	assigned	to	components	that	had	the	potential	to	meet	the	requirement	

criterion	if	packaged	together	with	other	components,	but	that	did	not	fully	meet	the	requirement	

criterion	on	their	own.	For	example	the	component	“Shuttle	between	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot	and	Day	Use	Lot”	at	BLRA	received	a	“Package	Only”	score	for	meeting	the	requirement	“Is	the	

component	consistent	with	Forest	goals”	because	on	its	own,	a	shuttle	system	could	have	variable	

impacts	that	may	or	may	not	meet	USFS	goals.	Instituting	a	hiker	shuttle	between	parking	areas	at	

BLRA	has	the	potential	to	greatly	increase	or	decrease	the	number	of	visitors	to	BLRA	trailheads	

depending	on	the	shuttle	size	and	frequency	of	service.	Furthermore,	implementing	a	shuttle	as	a	

standalone	measure	may	or	may	not	reduce	the	number	of	cars	arrived	at	BLRA	parking	areas	that	

may	already	be	full.	Only	when	coupled	with	visitor	use	management	and/or	parking	management	

does	the	shuttle	have	the	potential	to	reduce	resource	impacts	(a	stated	forest	goal).	

A	“No”	score	was	assigned	to	components	that	did	not	meet	the	criterion	under	evaluation.	For	

example,	the	component	“Expand	size	of	parking	lots	at	MERA”	received	a	“No”	score	for	meeting	

the	requirement	“Is	the	component	consistent	with	forest	goals”	because	the	stated	goals	for	the	

administering	forest	unit	are	related	to	resource	protection	and	reducing	impacts;	increasing	the	

size	of	an	existing	parking	lot	would	increase	(rather	than	decrease)	the	resource	impact.	
512

Individual	scores	were	applied	to	the	components	for	each	site.	The	individual	scores	for	each	

component	were	evaluated	for	consistency	between	score	applications.	Discrepancies	in	score	

applications	were	identified	and	rectified	through	an	iterative	process	among	FHWA	CFLHD,	

USDOT	John	A.	Volpe	Center,	and	RSG	project	team	members.	Where	discrepancies	existed	among	

assigned	scores,	the	score	that	a	majority	of	team	members	originally	selected	was	assigned	to	the	

component.	In	the	few	cases	where	applied	scores	seemed	to	be	in	opposition	(a	combination	of	

“Yes”	and	“No”	scores	for	the	same	component),	the	logic	behind	score	application	was	discussed,	

and	agreement	was	reached.	

Technical Analysis

Standalone	components	that	met	the	requirement	criteria	were	scored	in	a	technical	analysis,	using	

technical	criteria	described	in	previous	sections	of	this	report.	Components	received	a	score	with	

point	values	ranging	from	zero	to	four	for	each	of	the	six	criteria,	with	a	zero	score	representing	the	

least	beneficial.	Maximum	score	for	this	analysis	yielded	24	points.	Most	of	these	technical	criteria	

evaluated	the	positive	impacts	of	components,	meaning	the	higher	the	potential	for	improvement,	

the	higher	the	score.	However,	both	“Forest	Resources”	and	“Displacement”	criteria	evaluate	the	

negative	impacts	of	such	transportation	interventions.	Therefore,	these	two	criteria	were	scored	

using	reverse	scoring,	meaning	the	lower	the	potential	for	negative	impact,	the	higher	the	score.	

Probing	questions	were	developed	for	each	technical	criterion	to	provide	scorers	with	uniform	

guidance	for	evaluating	the	component’s	improvement	potential.	While	the	numeric	scoring	

methodology	was	developed	to	normalize	the	evaluation	process,	the	nature	of	the	scores	was	

based	on	professional	human	judgment	and	is,	by	nature,	subjective.	Reasoning	for	score	

applications	is	provided	on	a	case	by	case	basis	in	the	Results	section.	

A	score	of	four	was	assigned	if	the	component	fully	met	the	technical	criterion	under	consideration.	

For	example,	the	BLRA	component	“Dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	team”	received	a	

score	of	four	for	the	technical	criteria	“Transportation	Safety	and	Operations”	because	it	maximized	

the	potential	to	improve	on	the	two	probing	questions	for	the	criteria:	1)	To	what	extent	does	the	

component	improve	safety?	and	2)	To	what	extent	does	the	component	location	or	geographic	

scope	of	component	benefits	correspond	to	areas	with	transportation	capacity	needs?	At	BLRA,	

roadside	parking	and	traffic	congestion	in	the	designated	parking	areas	near	the	Indian	Peaks	

Wilderness	access	points	and	other	BLRA	recreation	areas	are	two	of	the	top	transportation	

capacity	needs	at	the	site.	In	comparison	to	previously	unregulated	state	of	traffic	and	parking	at	

BLRA,	implementing	the	traffic	and	parking	management	during	the	summer	of	2013	through	

employing	a	dedicated	onsite	team	greatly	improved	onsite	safety	and	address	the	geographic	

scope	of	the	problem.	Therefore,	this	component	received	a	top	score	for	Transportation	Safety	and	

Operations.	

A	score	of	three	was	assigned	to	a	component	if	the	component	generally	met	the	technical	

criterion,	but	also	contained	an	aspect	that	did	not	fully	meet	the	criterion.	For	example,	the	GP	

component	“Dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	team”	received	a	score	of	three	for	the	

technical	criterion	“Visitor	Experience.”	This	score	was	assigned	after	consideration	of	the	probing	

question	for	the	criterion:	To	what	extent	does	the	component	provide	benefits	to	visitors’	

experience	of	the	paramount	use?	For	the	purposes	of	this	study,	Mount	Bierstadt	trail	users	were	
513

considered	to	be	the	paramount	use	and	user	group	at	GP.	The	presence	of	a	dedicated	traffic	and	

parking	management	team	would	likely	reduce	the	confusion	associated	with	traffic	and	parking	at	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	trailhead.	This	improvement	of	the	overall	visitor	experience	for	the	

paramount	user	group	meets	some	of	the	“Visitor	Experience”	requirements;	however,	it	does	not	

directly	improve	the	on‐trail	hiking	experience	by	itself.	Recognizing	the	limits	of	this	component	to	

directly	influence	the	trail	hiking	experience	led	to	its	assignment	of	a	positive	score,	rather	than	a	

top	score.	

A	score	of	two	was	assigned	if	the	component	partially	met	the	criterion,	but	did	not	fully	meet	the	

criterion.	For	example,	the	MERA	component	“Signs/barriers	to	prevent	roadside	parking”	received	

a	score	of	2	for	the	technical	criterion	“Forest	Resources.”	The	Forest	Resources	technical	criterion	

was	evaluated	by	considered	whether	the	component	maintained	use	below	the	Wilderness	

threshold,	to	what	extent	the	component	benefits	correspond	with	Wilderness	capacity	needs,	and	

potential	environmental	impacts	such	as	visual	impacts,	noise	impacts,	and/or	impacts	to	wildlife.	

Using	signs/barriers	to	prevent	roadside	parking	is	not	as	effective	as	other	methods	of	parking	

management,	therefore	this	component	may	not	completely	maintain	use	below	Wilderness	

thresholds.	Additionally,	installing	man‐made	barriers	would	likely	have	some	environmental	

impacts	to	the	site.	For	these	reasons,	the	signs/barriers	component	at	MERA	received	a	two	for	

“Forest	Resources”	during	technical	criteria	screening.	

A	score	of	one	was	assigned	if	the	component	only	met	a	few	aspects	of	the	technical	criterion	

under	evaluation.	For	example,	the	GP	component	“Reduce	size	of	parking	lots	at	GP”	received	a	

score	of	one	for	the	technical	criterion	“Transportation	Safety	and	Operations.”	The	existing	parking	

lots	at	GP	are	already	filled	to	over	capacity	during	peak	demand	at	the	site.	Reducing	the	size	of	

existing	parking	lots	would	not	inherently	increase	the	safety	of	the	current	traffic	and	parking	

situation	at	GP	as	it	may	result	in	additional	congestion	or	increased	unendorsed	parking.	

Finally,	in	this	application	of	Phase	2	screening,	zero	scores	were	not	assigned	to	any	components.	

In	order	for	a	component	to	pass	the	Phase	1	Screening,	the	component	had	to	have	some	utility,	in	

and	of	itself,	to	receive	three	“Yes”	scores	for	the	requirements	criteria.	Therefore,	assigning	a	score	

of	zero	was	unlikely	in	this	application	of	the	Technical	Criteria	scoring	rubric	given	the	previous	

evaluation	in	Phase	1.	

Packaging

Though	many	components	scored	well	as	standalone	solutions,	most	were	determined	to	have	

increased	overall	benefit	and	higher	implementation	feasibility	when	packaged	with	other	

components.	Component	packaging	attempts	to	identify	the	optimal	mix	of	components	to	address	

the	needs	identified	at	each	site,	while	looking	for	manageable	solutions	that	can	be	implemented	in	

short‐	and	long‐term	timeframes.	The	resultant	packages	carried	forward	into	the	final	screening	

phase	included	components	that	passed	the	requirement	criteria	as	well	as	those	that	were	

identified	as	“packaged	only.”	

Due	to	the	complexity	of	potentially	implementing	a	transit	components,	additional	analysis	was	

conducted	to	evaluate	feasibility	of	the	transit	components	at	each	of	the	three	sites.	Transit	
514

feasibility	analysis	is	discussed	further	in	Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and

Recommendations by Site	and	Chapter 9: Study Recommendations by Site.

Component	packaging	was	guided	primarily	by	the	needs	identified	for	each	site	(see	Chapter 4:

Needs Identification by Site).	For	each	identified	need	area,	standalone	and	package	only	

components	were	grouped	together	to	provide	both	transit	and	nontransit	packaged	solutions.	

Transit	package	components	are	those	that	include	some	form	of	transit/shuttle	service	within	

and/or	to	the	study	site.	Nontransit	package	components	are	those	that	do	not	include	any	form	of	

transit	or	shuttle	service,	but	influence	the	flow	of	traffic	through	or	to	the	site,	such	as	intelligent	

transportation	systems,	parking	management	teams,	and/or	visitor	use	management	strategies.	

Packages	were	created	to	provide	a	range	of	solutions	including	indirect	and/or	optional	

management	actions	to	direct	and/or	mandatory	management	strategies.	For	example,	a	package	

using	an	indirect	management	strategy	may	include	actions	that	seek	to	passively	manage	vehicle	

flow	such	a	signs	indicating	the	parking	lot	is	full.	Conversely,	an	example	of	a	package	employing	a	

direct	management	strategy	may	recommend	the	physical	prevention	of	visitor	arrivals	at	a	parking	

area	through	closing	the	area	to	additional	use	when	full.	In	both	cases,	the	goal	of	the	strategy	is	to	

reduce	parking	lot	congestion;	however,	the	strategy	achievement	in	the	later	example	is	

accomplished	through	direct	enforcement	whereas	the	sign	example	indirectly	communicates	to	

visitors	that	they	should	turn	around	because	parking	is	limited.	

Packaged	solutions	were	organized	to	progress	from	simple	to	more	complex,	increasing	in	efficacy	

of	the	actions	as	packages	increase	in	the	extent	to	which	they	direct,	rather	than	simply	attempt	to	

persuade,	visitors’	behaviors.	The	increasing	complexity	is	reflected	in	the	numerical	list	of	

packages,	with	lower	numbered	packages	representing	simple	solutions	and	higher	number	

packages	representing	more	complex	solutions.	Figure	8‐1	provides	a	schematic	of	the	logic	used	to	

package	components	together.	
515

Figure 8‐1. Component Packaging Logic

Technical Analysis of Packages

The	final	step	in	the	screening	process	is	the	technical	evaluation	of	packaged	components.	The	

same	technical	criteria	scoring	rubric	applied	in	Phase	2	Screening	was	used	to	evaluate	packages	

in	Phase	4.	The	numerical	score	for	each	package	provides	a	relative	ranking	for	understanding	

both	the	anticipated	onsite	effectiveness	of	each	package	combined	with	administrative	feasibility.	

For	example,	the	technical	criteria	“Forest	Resources,”	“Visitor	Experience,”	and	“Transportation	

Safety	and	Operations”	provide	an	indication	of	the	onsite	improvement	potential	if	the	package	

were	to	be	implemented.	The	remaining	three	technical	criteria	“Cost	Effectiveness,”	“Displacement	

of	Existing	Users,”	and	“Implementation	Feasibility”	provide	an	indication	of	the	feasibility	of	the	

USFS	to	implement	the	package.	Therefore,	the	combination	of	the	six	technical	criteria	together	in	

the	unweighted,	summed	score	provides	a	mechanism	for	understanding	proposed	solutions	in	

context.	Analysis	of	package	scores	is	reflected	in	recommendations	for	short‐	and	long‐term	

recommendations	in	Chapter 9: Study Recommendations by Site.	
516

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Results

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening

Twenty‐eight	components	were	evaluated	for	fulfillment	of	the	Phase	1	Screening	requirement	

criteria.	The	majority	of	the	components	met	the	requirement	criteria,	with	seventeen	of	the	

twenty‐eight	proposed	components	moving	forward	as	standalone	components.	Three	components	

moved	on	as	“Package	Only”	components	for	subsequent	evaluation	in	Phases	3	and	4	of	the	

screening	process.	Eight	components	were	dropped	from	further	consideration.	Of	the	dropped	

components,	four	were	site	design	improvements	that	did	not	meet	any	of	the	Phase	1	requirement	

criteria.	The	“Meets	Reqs?”	column	of	Table	8‐3	contains	the	final	requirement	criteria	evaluation	

for	each	BLRA	component.	

Table 8‐3. Requirement Criteria Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Component Requirement Criteria

Site   # Component Name

Does the component

have the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the component

consistent with

the Forest Goals?

Is the component

currently politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Transit            

17 Shuttle from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead P P Y P

18a Shuttle from Gateway to Day Use to IPW TH’s P N Y N

18b

Shuttle between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and

Day Use Lot

P P Y P

Site design improvements

19 Accessible loop trail around BL Y Y Y

20 Loop trail: Sourdough and Little Raven Y Y Y

21 Trail: Little Raven to Left Hand Park Reservoir Y Y Y

22

Mixed use path: Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to BL

via Waldrop

Y Y Y

23 Trail: BL Day Use Parking Lot to BL via Waldrop Y Y Y

24 Expand the size of parking lots at IPW trailheads N N N N

25 Reduce the size of parking lots at IPW trailheads N N N N

26 Expand the size of BL Day Use Parking Lot N N N N

27 Reduce the size of BL Day Use Parking Lot N N N N

28 Reconfigure/optimize existing IPW trailhead lots Y Y Y

ITS & Visitor Information

29 Variable message signs Y Y Y

30 Highway Advisory Radio Y Y Y

31 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps Y Y Y

32 Improved Onsite Wayfinding   Y Y Y

Parking Management

33 Dedicated traffic and parking management team Y Y Y

34a Traffic queuing at Courtesy Station when lots full N N Y N

34b

Traffic queuing at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

when lots full

Y Y Y

35 Mandatory parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

when lots full

P Y Y P
517

Component Requirement Criteria

Site   # Component Name

Does the component

have the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the component

consistent with

the Forest Goals?

Is the component

currently politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

36 Mandatory parking offsite when all BLRA lots full P P N N

37 Paid parking Y Y Y

38 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y Y Y

39 Designated parking for wildlife viewing Y Y Y

Visitor Use Management

40 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak Y Y Y

41 Day use permits and quota for IPW trailheads Y Y Y

42 Temporary closures when parking lots are full Y Y N N

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening

The	seventeen	standalone	components	identified	through	Phase	1	screening	were	assigned	

individual	scores	representative	of	the	components’	improvement	potential	in	six	technical	areas.	

The	total	score	represents	the	likelihood	of	improvement	if	the	component	were	implemented.	

Technical	criteria	scores	for	the	seventeen	BLRA	components	ranged	from	12	to	20	(Table	8‐4).	

Components	with	higher	scores	tended	to	receive	scores	of	3	and	4	across	multiple	technical	

criteria.	Discussions	with	managers	during	the	May	2015	onsite	meetings	provided	valuable	

information	regarding	the	“Implementation	Feasibility”	technical	criteria	for	each	BLRA	

component.	Managers	discussed,	in	detail,	which	components	they	already	intended	to	implement	

based	on	the	BLRA	Management	Plan.	This	knowledge,	led	to	higher	“Implementation	Feasibility”	

scores	for	some	components.	Scores	for	“Displacement	of	Existing	Users”	also	tended	to	influence	

component	scoring.	

Table 8‐4. Technical Criteria Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Component

Meets Reqs?

Technical Criteria

Site

# Component Name

Forest ResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Transit

17 Shuttle from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead P            

18a Shuttle from Gateway to Day Use to IPW TH’s N            

18b

Shuttle between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and

Day Use Lot

P            

Site design improvements

19 Accessible loop trail around BL    3 2 2 3 4 2 16

20 Loop trail: Sourdough and Little Raven 2 2 1 2 4 2 13

21 Trail: Little Raven to Left Hand Park Reservoir    3 2 1 3 4 3 16

22

Mixed use path: Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to

BL via Waldrop

3 4 3 3 4 3 20

23 Trail: BL Day Use Parking Lot to BL via Waldrop    3 4 3 3 4 3 20
518

Component

Meets Reqs?

Technical Criteria

Site

# Component Name

Forest ResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

24 Expand the size of parking lots at IPW trailheads N            

25 Reduce the size of parking lots at IPW trailheads N            

26 Expand the size of BL Day Use Parking Lot N            

27 Reduce the size of BL Day Use Parking Lot N            

28 Reconfigure/optimize existing IPW trailhead lots    2 3 2 2 2 1 12

ITS & Visitor Information

29 Variable message signs    3 2 3 4 4 3 19

30 Highway Advisory Radio    3 2 2 3 2 3 15

31 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps    3 2 2 4 3 3 17

32 Improved Onsite Wayfinding     2 2 2 4 4 3 17

Parking Management

33 Dedicated traffic and parking management team    3 3 4 3 2 4 19

34a Traffic queuing at Courtesy Station when lots full N            

34b

Traffic queuing at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot

when lots full

3 2 3 4 3 4 19

35 Mandatory parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking

Lot when lots full

P            

36 Mandatory parking offsite when all BLRA lots full N            

37 Paid parking    4 2 3 3 1 1 14

38 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking    2 2 2 4 4 3 17

39 Designated parking for wildlife viewing    2 1 3 3 4 3 16

Visitor Use Management

40 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak    3 2 1 2 2 2 12

41 Day use permits and quota for IPW trailheads    4 4 4 3 1 2 18

42 Temporary closures when parking lots are full N            

Phase 3: Component Packaging

While	many	of	the	BLRA	components	scored	well	as	standalone	solutions,	most	had	increased	

overall	benefit	and	higher	implementation	feasibility	when	packaged	with	other	components	(See	

Table	8‐5	for	list	of	components	eligible	for	packaging).

Table 8‐5. Brainard Lake Recreation Area Components Eligible for Packaging

Site # Component Name Requirement

Criteria Score

Brainard Lake

Recreation

17 Shuttle from Nederland to Gateway Trailhead P

18b

Shuttle between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and Day Use

Lot

P

19 Accessible loop trail around BLRA Y

20 Loop trail: Sourdough and Little Raven Y
519

Site # Component Name Requirement

Criteria Score

21 Trail: Little Raven to Left Hand Park Reservoir Y

22

Mixed use path: Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to BL via

Waldrop

Y

23 Trail: BL Day Use Parking Lot to IPW trailheads Y

28 Reconfigure / optimize existing IPW trailhead lots Y

29 Variable message signs Y

30 Highway advisory radio Y

31 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps Y

32 Improved onsite wayfinding Y

33 Dedicated traffic & parking management team Y

34b Traffic queuing at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when lots full Y

35 Mandatory parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when lots

full

P

37 Paid parking Y

38 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y

39 Designated parking for wildlife viewing Y

40 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak Y

41 Day use permits and quota for IPW trailheads Y

Note: Components that did not pass the requirement criteria have been removed (24, 25, 26, 27, 34,

36, 42)

For	BLRA,	two	over‐arching	need	areas	were	identified	around	which	to	develop	packages:	parking	

demand	management	and	Wilderness	use	management.	Package	development	began	with	the	

creation	of	transit	and	nontransit	options	to	address	parking	demand	at	BLRA.	Subsequently,	

transit	and	nontransit	parking	demand	management	packages	were	coupled	with	other	

components	to	produce	packages	addressing	parking	demand	and	Wilderness	use	management	

issues.	Nine	packages	were	created	as	potential	solutions	for	the	two	needs	at	BLRA.	Three	

packages	relate	specifically	to	addressing	parking	demand	management,	and	the	remaining	six	

packages	address	both	parking	demand	and	Wilderness	use	management	(Table	8‐6).	Additionally,	

five	of	the	components	eligible	for	packaging	were	not	added	to	specific	packages,	but	rather	

included	as	“add‐ons”	to	the	existing	proposed	packages.	For	example,	component	28	(reconfigure	/	

optimize	existing	IPW	trailhead	lots)	could	be	added	to	any	of	the	proposed	packages	to	help	with	

parking	efficiency	and	traffic	circulation	at	the	IPW	trailhead	lots.

Table 8‐6. Brainard Lake Recreation Area Packages

Component Technical Criteria Site

Need   Package   Component #’s

Included

Brainard

L k

Parking

Demand

Management

1

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

lots are full, ITS, onsite signs/barriers, onsite parking management team,

and access trails1

(nontransit)

34b, 35, 29, 30,

31, 38, 33, 22,

23
520

Component Technical Criteria Site

Need   Package   Component #’s

Included

2

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

lots are full with shuttle to Day Use Lot, ITS, onsite signs/barriers, onsite

parking management team, and access trails1 (transit)

34b, 35, 18b,

29, 30, 31, 38,

33, 22, 23

3

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

lots are full with shuttle to Day Use Lot, optional offsite parking in

Nederland, Colorado, with shuttle to Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot, ITS,

onsite signs/barriers, onsite parking management team, and access trails1

(transit)

34b, 35, 18b,

17, 29, 30, 31,

38, 33, 22, 23

Parking

Demand &

Wilderness

Use

Management

4 Development of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package 1

parking management (nontransit)

19, 20, and/or

21, and

Package 1

5 Development of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package 2

parking management (transit)

19, 20, and/or

21, and

Package 2

6 Development of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package 3

parking management (transit)

19, 20, and/or

21, and

Package 3

7 Management with Wilderness quota, development of additional onsite

recreational trails2, and Package 1 parking management (nontransit)

41 & 19, 20,

and/or 21, and

Package 1

8 Management with Wilderness quota, development of additional onsite

recreational trails2, and Package 2 parking management (transit)

41 & 19, 20,

and/or 21, and

Package 2

9 Management with Wilderness quota, development of additional onsite

recreational trails2, and Package 3 parking management (transit)

41 & 19, 20,

and/or 21, and

Package 3

Note Component 28 could be added to any of the above packages to help with parking efficiency and traffic circulation

at the IPW trailhead lots

Components 37 and/or 40 could be added to any of the above packages to help with parking demand

management

Component 39 could be added to any of the above packages to help manage “moose jams”

Component 32 could be added to any of the above packages to improve visitor wayfinding onsite

1 Access trails refer to trails constructed to improve the flow of pedestrian traffic between various parking lot

options within BLRA, specifically including a mixed use path between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Brainard

Lake via Waldrop (#22) and a trail between the Day Use Lot to Brainard Lake via Waldrop (#23)

2 Recreational trails refer to trails constructed to provide BLRA visitors with additional recreational access to sites

outside of the IPW, specifically referring to options such as an accessible loop trail around Brainard Lake (#19), a

trail from Sourdough to Little Raven (#20), and a trail from Little Raven to Left Hand Reservoir (#21)

Phase 4: Package Scoring

BLRA	package	scoring	identified	three	packages	with	high	scores	of	18	(relative	to	the	scores	of	the	

other	BLRA	packages;	Table	8‐6).	These	packages	addressed	both	parking	and	visitor	use	

management	needs,	with	driving	factors	being	cost	and	safety.	The	May	2015	onsite	meetings	with	

BLRA	managers	confirmed	that	the	USFS	has	implemented	parking	management	solutions	such	as	

employing	an	onsite	team	to	prevent	roadside	parking	in	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots.	These	
521

meetings	also	confirmed	the	desire	for	increased	pedestrian	safety	between	parking	areas	and	

recreation	access	points.	Additionally,	the	meetings	provided	insight	on	the	implementation	

feasibility	for	certain	components;	these	conversations	are	reflected	in	the	scoring.	For	example,

Packages	4	and	5	received	scores	of	4	for	the	“Implementation	Feasibility”	technical	criterion	

because	USFS	managers	indicated	future	plans	to	construct	additional	access	and	recreational	trails	

in	BLRA.	
522

Table 8‐7. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Brainard Lake Recreation Area

Packages Technical Criteria

Site

# Package Description

ForestResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

Brainard Lake Recreation Area

1

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot when lots are full, ITS, onsite

signs/barriers, onsite parking management team,

and access trails1 (nontransit)

2 2 3 3 2 4 16

2

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot when lots are full with shuttle

to Day Use Lot, ITS, onsite signs/barriers, onsite

parking management team, and access trails1

(transit)

2 2 4 2 3 4 17

3

Mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot when lots are full with shuttle

to Day Use Lot, optional offsite parking in

Nederland, Colorado, with shuttle to Gateway

Trailhead Parking Lot, ITS, onsite signs/barriers,

onsite parking management team, and access trails1

(transit)

2 2 4 0 3 1 12

4

Development of additional onsite recreational

trails2, and Package 1 parking management

(nontransit)

2 3 3 3 3 4 18

5 Development of additional onsite recreational

trails2, and Package 2 parking management (transit) 3 3 4 1 3 4 18

6 Development of additional onsite recreational

trails2, and Package 3 parking management (transit) 3 3 4 0 3 2 15

7

Management with Wilderness quota, development

of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package

1 parking management (nontransit)

4 4 3 3 1 3 18

8

Management with Wilderness quota, development

of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package

2 parking management (transit)

4 4 4 1 1 3 17

9

Management with Wilderness quota, development

of additional onsite recreational trails2, and Package

3 parking management (transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15
523

Guanella Pass Results

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening

Nine	of	the	seventeen	evaluated	GP	components	met	all	of	the	criteria	and	moved	on	to	Phase	2	

Screening	as	standalone	components.	Six	components	moved	on	as	“Package	Only”	components	for	

later	evaluation	in	Phases	3	and	4.	Two	site	design	improvement	components	were	dropped	from	

further	consideration	for	not	being	consistent	with	USFS	goals	or	politically	feasible.	The	“Meets	

Reqs?”	column	of	Table	8‐8	contains	the	final	requirement	criteria	evaluation	for	each	GP	

component.	

Table 8‐8. Requirement Criteria Scores for Guanella Pass

Component Requirement Criteria

Site # Component Name

Does the

component have

the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the

component

consistent with

the Forest

Goals?

Is the

component

currently

politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

Guanella Pass

Transit            

1 Hiker shuttle from Georgetown to GP P P Y P

2 Hiker shuttle from Guanella Pass Rd to GP P P Y P

3 Interpretive tour from Georgetown on GP Rd. P P Y P

4 Interpretive tour from Denver on GP Rd. P P Y P

Site design improvements

5 Expand size of parking lots at GP Y N N N

6 Reduce size of parking lots at GP Y Y Y

7 Widen road shoulders for roadside parking Y N N N

ITS & Visitor Information

8 Variable Message signs Y Y Y

9 Highway advisory radio Y Y Y

10 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, Apps Y Y Y

Parking management

11 Dedicated traffic and parking management team Y Y Y

12a Mandatory parking offsite when parking lots full Y P Y P

12b Mandatory parking offsite for the Mount Bierstadt

trail

Y Y P P

13 Paid parking Y Y Y

14 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y Y Y

Visitor Use Management

15 Amenity fee during peak periods Y Y Y

16 Day use permit system and quota for Wilderness Y Y Y

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening

The	scores	for	each	component	were	summed	across	the	technical	criteria	to	generate	a	total	score	

representing	the	likelihood	of	improvement	if	the	component	were	implemented.	Technical	criteria	

scores	for	the	nine	GP	components	scored	in	Phase	2	range	from	10	to	19	(Table	8‐9).	
524

Table 8‐9. Technical Criteria Scores for Guanella Pass

Component

Meets Reqs?

Technical Criteria

Site

# Component Name

ForestResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

Guanella Pass

Transit

1 Hiker shuttle from Georgetown to GP P            

2 Hiker shuttle from Guanella Pass Rd to GP P            

3 Interpretive tour from Georgetown on GP Rd. P            

4 Interpretive tour from Denver on GP Rd. P            

Site design improvements

5 Expand size of parking lots at GP N            

6 Reduce size of parking lots at GP    3 1 1 2 1 2 10

7 Widen road shoulders for roadside parking N            

ITS & Visitor Information

8 Variable Message signs    3 3 4 2 2 3 19

9 Highway advisory radio    3 2 2 3 2 3 15

10 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, Apps    3 2 2 4 3 3 17

Parking management

11 Dedicated traffic & parking management team    3 3 4 2 2 3 17

12a Mandatory parking offsite when parking lots full P            

12b Mandatory parking offsite for the Mount

Bierstadt trail

P            

13 Paid parking    3 3 2 1 1 1 11

14 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking    3 2 3 3 2 2 15

Visitor Use Management

15 Amenity fee during peak periods    2 2 2 3 1 1 11

16 Day use permit system and quota for Wilderness    4 3 3 3 2 1 16

Phase 3: Component Packaging

Two	over‐arching	need	areas	were	identified	from	the	specific	needs	identified	in	Chapter 4: Need

Identification by Site	to	serve	as	the	basis	for	developing	packages:	roadside	parking	and	reduction	

of	visitor‐use‐related	impacts	in	designated	Wilderness	areas.	Package	development	began	with	the	

creation	of	transit	and	nontransit	options	to	address	roadside	parking	at	GP	from	package‐eligible	

components	(Table	8‐10).	

Table 8‐10. Guanella Pass Components Eligible for Packaging

Site # Component Name Requirement

Criteria Score

Gua

nella

1 Hiker shuttle from Georgetown to GP P

2 Hiker shuttle from Guanella Pass Rd to GP P
525

Site # Component Name Requirement

Criteria Score

3 Interpretive tour from Georgetown on GP Rd. P

4 Interpretive tour from Denver on GP Rd. P

6 Reduce size of parking lots at GP Y

8 Variable Message signs Y

9 Highway advisory radio Y

10 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media, Apps Y

11 Dedicated traffic & parking management team Y

12a Mandatory parking offsite when parking lots full P

12b Mandatory parking offsite for the Mount Bierstadt trail P

13 Paid parking Y

14 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y

15 Amenity fee during peak periods Y

16 Day use permit system and quota for Wilderness Y

Note: Components that did not pass the requirement criteria have been removed (#5 and 7)

Subsequently,	transit	and	nontransit	roadside	management	packages	were	coupled	with	other	

components	to	produce	packages	addressing	roadside	parking	and	visitor‐use	management	issues.	

Developed	packages	included	transit‐only	components,	non‐transit‐only	components,	or	a	

combination	of	both	transit	and	nontransit	components.	Fourteen	packages	were	created	as	

potential	solutions	for	the	two	needs	(referenced	above)	at	GP.	Six	packages	relate	specifically	to	

addressing	roadside	parking,	and	the	subsequent	eight	packages	address	roadside	parking	and	

visitor	use	management	(Table	8‐11).

Table 8‐11. Guanella Pass Packages

Component Technical Criteria

Site

Need Package Component #’s

Included

Guanella Pass

Roadside

Parking  

1 ITS and onsite signs/barriers (nontransit) 8, 9, 10, 14

2 ITS, onsite signs/barriers, and onsite parking management team

(nontransit) 8, 9, 10, 11, 14

3 Mandatory offsite overflow parking when lots are full, transit service

from offsite parking, ITS, and onsite signs/barriers (transit)

1 or 2, 8, 9, 10, 12a, 14

4

Mandatory offsite overflow parking when lots are full, transit service

from offsite parking, ITS, onsite signs/barriers, and onsite parking

management team (transit)

1 or 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12a

5

Mandatory offsite parking for all visitors to Mount Bierstadt trail,

transit service from offsite parking, ITS, and onsite signs/barriers

(transit)

1 or 2, 8, 9, 10, 12b,

14
526

Component Technical Criteria

Site

Need Package Component #’s

Included

6

Mandatory offsite parking for all visitors to Mount Bierstadt trail,

transit service from offsite parking, ITS, onsite signs/barriers, and

onsite parking management team (transit)

1 or 2, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12b, 14

Roadside

Parking &

Wilderness

Impacts

7 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 1 (nontransit) Package 1, & 16

8 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 2 (nontransit) Package 2, & 16

9

Reduced onsite parking, management with Wilderness quota, and

Package 1 (nontransit) Package 1, & 6, 16

10

Reduced onsite parking, management with Wilderness quota, and

Package 2 (nontransit) Package 2, & 6, 16

11 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 3 (transit) Package 3, & 16

12 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 4 (transit) Package 4, & 16

13 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 5 (transit) Package 5, & 16

14 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 6 (transit) Package 6, & 16

Note: Components 13 and/or 15 could be added to any of the above packages to help with parking management

Phase 4: Package Scoring

Overall,	the	GP	package	scoring	process	did	not	identify	clear	front	runners	for	potential	

implementation.	Generally,	packages	with	higher	scores	tended	to	be	those	that	were	less	

expensive,	increase	safety	at	the	site,	and	include	a	Wilderness	quota.	However,	the	point	

differential	between	the	lowest	and	highest	scoring	packages	was	only	a	4	point	difference	(low	

score	of	13,	high	score	17).	Scores	for	“Cost	Effectiveness,”	“Displacement,”	and	“Implementation	

Feasibility”	varied	the	most	between	packages,	whereas	the	scores	for	the	other	technical	criteria	

did	not	vary	as	much	between	packages.	While	the	four‐step	process	did	not	identify	a	clear,	top‐

choice	solution,	the	process	provides	utility	in	identifying	the	tradeoffs,	strengths,	and	weaknesses	

of	the	components	and	packages	for	GP.	
527

Table 8‐12. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Guanella Pass

Packages Technical Criteria

Site

# Package Description

Forest ResourcesVisitor ExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCost EffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

Guanella Pass

1 ITS and onsite signs/barriers (nontransit) 2 2 2 4 3 4 17

2 ITS, onsite signs/barriers, and onsite parking management

team to enforce endorsed parking only (nontransit)

2 2 2 2 2 3 13

3

Mandatory offsite overflow parking when lots are full,

transit service from offsite parking, ITS, and onsite

signs/barriers (transit)

2 3 3 0 3 2 13

4

Mandatory offsite overflow parking when lots are full,

transit service from offsite parking, ITS, onsite

signs/barriers, and onsite parking management team

(transit)

3 3 3 0 2 2 13

5

Mandatory offsite parking for all visitors to Mount

Bierstadt trail, transit service from offsite parking, ITS, and

onsite signs/barriers (transit)

3 3 4 0 3 3 16

6

Mandatory offsite parking for all visitors to Mount

Bierstadt trail, transit service from offsite parking, ITS,

onsite signs/ barriers, and onsite parking management

team (transit)

3 3 4 0 3 2 15

7 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 1

(nontransit)

2 4 2 4 1 4 17

8 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 2

(nontransit) 3 4 3 2 1 3 16

9

Reduced onsite parking, management with Wilderness

quota, and Package 1 (nontransit)

2 4 2 3 1 1 13

10

Reduced onsite parking, management with Wilderness

quota, and Package 2 (nontransit) 3 4 3 2 1 1 14

11 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 3

(transit)

4 4 3 0 1 3 15

12 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 4

(transit)

4 4 4 0 1 3 16

13 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 5

(transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15

14 Management with Wilderness quota and Package 6

(transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15
528

Mount Evans Recreation Area Results

Phase 1: Evaluation Criteria and Requirement Criteria Screening

Thirty	components	were	evaluated	for	fulfillment	of	the	three	requirement	criteria	in	Phase	1.	

Approximately	one‐third	of	the	components	met	all	three	requirement	criteria,	with	eleven	of	the	

thirty	proposed	components	moving	on	to	Phase	2	screening	as	standalone	components.	Six	moved	

on	as	“Package	Only”	components	and	will	be	re‐evaluated	in	Phases	3	and	4	of	the	screening	

process.	Notably,	all	proposed	transit	components	were	considered	to	be	viable	as	“Package	Only”	

components	because	they	did	not	fully	meet	Forest	goals	or	project	needs	with	standalone	

implementation.	Thirteen	components	were	dropped	from	further	consideration,	including	all	of	

the	components	related	to	site	design	improvements	and	visitor	access	for	long‐term	road	closure.	

The	“Meets	Reqs?”	column	of	Table	8‐13	contains	the	final	requirement	criteria	evaluation	for	each	

MERA	component.	

Table 8‐13. Requirement Criteria Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area

Component Requirement Criteria

Site # Component Name

Does the component

have the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the component

consistent with

the Forest Goals?

Is the component

currently politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

Mount Evans Recreation Area

Transit

43 Shuttle Service from Idaho Springs to MERA P P Y P

44 Shuttle from Echo Lake to MERA P P Y P

45 Shuttle from new offsite to MERA P P Y P

46 Interpretive tour from Idaho Springs to MERA P P Y P

47 Interpretive tour from Denver to MERA P P Y P

Site Design Improvements

48 Expand size of parking lots in MERA P N N N

49 Reduce size of parking lots in MERA N N N N

50 Widen road shoulders for roadside parking N N N N

51 Paved pullouts Y Y N N

52 Striped bike lanes on Mount Evans Hwy. Y Y N N

ITS & Visitor Information

53 Variable message signs Y Y Y

54 Highway advisory radio Y Y Y

55 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps Y Y Y

Parking Management

56

Dedicated traffic and parking management

team

Y Y Y

57

Traffic queuing at Welcome Station when lots

full

N N Y N

58 Mandatory parking offsite when all MERA lots

full

P Y Y P

59 Parking reservation fee Y Y Y

60 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y Y Y

Traffic Management
529

Component Requirement Criteria

Site # Component Name

Does the component

have the potential to

meet the project's

purpose and need?

Is the component

consistent with

the Forest Goals?

Is the component

currently politically

feasible?

Meets

Reqs?

61 Extend express lane at Welcome Station Y N Y N

62 Queue bypass lane at Welcome Station Y N Y N

63 Stacked kiosks at Welcome Station Y N Y N

64 Traffic lane closures N N N N

65 Designate Mount Evans Hwy. a toll road Y Y Y

66 Carpool/HOV program Y Y Y

Visitor Use Management

67 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak Y Y Y

68 Day use permits and quota for MERA Y Y Y

69 Designated dates/times for bike access Y Y Y

Visitor Access for Long‐Term Road Closure

70 Cog Railroad to summit P P N N

71 Aerial tram to summit P P N N

72 Hiking access only to MERA and summit N N N N

Phase 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria and Screening

The	eleven	standalone	components	identified	through	Phase	1	screening	were	assigned	individual	

scores	representative	of	the	component’s	improvement	potential	in	six	technical	areas.	The	total	

score	represents	the	likelihood	of	improvement	if	the	component	were	implemented.	Technical	

criteria	scores	for	the	eleven	MERA	components	ranged	from	12	to	19	(Table	8‐14).	Components	

with	lower	technical	criteria	scores	tended	to	receive	lower	scores	for	“Transportation	&	Safety,”	

“Displacement	of	Visitors,”	and	“Implementation	Feasibility.”	The	two	higher	scoring	components	

tended	to	receive	higher	marks	for	“Cost	Effectiveness,”	“Displacement	of	Existing	Users,”	and	

“Implementation	Feasibility.”	

Table 8‐14. Technical Criteria Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area

Component

Meets Reqs?

Technical Criteria

Site

# Component Name

Forest ResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

Mount Evans Recreation

Area

Transit

43 Shuttle from Idaho Springs to MERA P            

44 Shuttle from Echo Lake to MERA P            

45 Shuttle from new offsite lot to MERA P            

46 Interpretive tour from Idaho Springs to MERA P            

47 Interpretive tour from Denver to MERA P            

Site Design Improvements

48 Expand size of parking lots in MERA N            
530

Component

Meets Reqs?

Technical Criteria

Site

# Component Name

Forest ResourcesVisitorExperienceTransportationSafety andOperationsCostEffectivenessDisplacement ofExisting UsersImplementationFeasibilityTotal(max = 24)

49 Reduce size of parking lots in MERA N            

50 Widen road shoulders for roadside parking N            

51 Paved pullouts N            

52 Striped bike lands on Mount Evans Hwy. N            

ITS & Visitor Information

53 Variable message signs    3 2 3 4 4 3 19

54 Highway Advisory Radio    2 2 2 3 2 3 14

55 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps    3 2 2 4 3 3 17

Parking Management

56 Dedicated traffic and parking management team    3 3 4 3 2 2 17

57

Traffic queuing at Welcome Station when lots

full

N            

58 Mandatory parking offsite when all MERA lots

full

P            

59 Parking reservation fee    4 3 3 2 1 1 14

60 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking    2 2 2 4 4 3 17

Traffic Management

61 Extend express lane at Welcome Station N            

62 Queue bypass lane at Welcome Station N            

63 Stacked kiosks at Welcome Station N            

64 Traffic lane closures N            

65 Designate Mount Evans Hwy. a toll road    2 2 1 3 2 2 12

66 Carpool/HOV program    3 1 1 4 2 2 13

Visitor Use Management

67 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak    3 2 1 2 2 2 12

68 Day use permits and quota for MERA    4 4 4 3 1 2 18

69 Designated dates/times for bike access    2 4 4 3 3 3 19

Visitor Access for Long‐Term Road Closures

70 Cog Railroad to summit N            

71 Aerial tram to summit N            

72 Hiking access only to MERA and summit N            

Phase 3: Component Packaging

The	process	of	packaging	components	at	MERA	played	an	important	role	in	providing	a	range	of	

alternative	solutions	for	the	identified	site	needs.	During	the	Phase	1	screening	process,	only	eleven	

of	thirty	possible	components	were	determined	to	meet	all	requirement	criteria.	Therefore,	less	

than	half	of	the	proposed	components	were	evaluated	at	the	technical	level	in	Phase	2.	The	process	

of	packaging	components	together	reintroduced	six	additional	components	for	consideration	as	

part	of	packaged	solutions.	Therefore	at	Mount	Evans,	Phase	3	played	a	critical	role	in	allowing	a	
531

diverse	range	of	solutions	to	be	considered	(See	Table	8‐15	for	eligible	components).	Component	

packaging	was	guided	by	the	needs	identified	for	MERA.	

Table 8‐15. Mount Evans Recreation Area Components Eligible for Packaging

Site # Component Name Requirement

Criteria Score

Mount Evans Recreation Area

43 Shuttle from Idaho Springs to MERA P

44 Shuttle from Echo Lake to MERA P

45 Shuttle from new offsite lot to MERA P

46 Interpretive tour from Idaho Springs to MERA P

47 Interpretive tour from Denver to MERA P

53 Variable message signs Y

54 Highway advisory radio Y

55 CDOT 511, ARNF Website, Social Media Apps Y

56 Dedicated traffic & parking management team Y

58 Mandatory parking offsite when all MERA lots full P

59 Parking reservation fee Y

60 Signs/barriers to prevent roadside parking Y

65 Designate Mount Evans Hwy a toll road Y

66 Carpool / HOV program Y

67 Differential amenity fees for peak and nonpeak Y

68 Day use permits and quota for MERA Y

69 Designated dates / times for bike access Y

Note Components that did not pass the requirement criteria have been removed (48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 70,

71, 72)

Similar	to	the	identified	needs	for	GP	and	BLRA,	two	primary	needs	were	also	identified	for	MERA	

related	to	parking	and	visitor	use	management.	Package	development	began	with	the	creation	of	

nontransit	and	transit	packages	to	address	roadside	parking	needs	at	MERA.	Next,	visitor	use	

management	needs	were	considered	(in	the	context	of	the	existing	roadside	parking	management	

packages),	and	day	use	quota	components	were	added	(as	appropriate)	to	the	existing	packages.	

Ultimately,	nine	packages	were	developed,	providing	a	range	of	potential	solutions	including	transit	

and	nontransit	options,	direct	and	indirect	management	strategies,	and	limited	effectiveness	to	

increased	effectiveness	of	actions	(Table	8‐16).	
532

Table 8‐16. Mount Evans Recreation Area Packages

Component Technical Criteria

Site

Need Package Component #’s

Included

Mount Evans Recreation Area

Roadside

Parking

1 ITS and onsite signs/barriers (nontransit) 53, 54, 55, 60

2

Mandatory offsite overflow parking with transit service from Idaho

Springs and shuttle service in MERA, ITS, signs/barriers, and onsite

parking management team (transit)

58, 43, 53, 54, 55,

60, 56

3

Mandatory offsite overflow parking with transit service from Echo Lake

and shuttle service in MERA, ITS, signs/barriers, and onsite parking

management team (transit)

58, 44, 53, 54, 55,

60, 56

4

Mandatory offsite overflow parking in new offsite lot near Welcome

Station with shuttle service in MERA, ITS, signs/barriers, and onsite

parking management team (transit)

58, 45, 53, 54, 55,

60, 56

Roadside

Parking &

Visitor Use

Management

5 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 1 (nontransit) 68 & Package 1

6 Management with MERA day use quota, onsite parking management

team, and Package 1 (nontransit)

68, 56, & Package

1

7 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 2 (transit) 68 & Package 2

8 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 3 (transit) 68 & Package 3

9 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 4 (transit) 68 & Package 4

Note Components 59 and/or 67 could be added to any of the above packages to help with parking demand

management

Components 65 and/or 66 could be added to any of the above packages to help with parking shortages and traffic

congestion

Component 69 could be added to any of above packages to help with traffic congestion and roadway safety

Phase 4: Package Scoring

The	package	scoring	process	revealed	two	packages	with	high	improvement	potential	(relative	to	

the	other	MERA	packages)	if	implemented.	Packages	5	and	6	scored	the	highest,	with	scores	of	18	

and	19	respectively	(Table	8‐17).	These	packages	scored	highly	for	being	cost‐effective	solutions	

that	address	both	the	parking	and	visitor	use	management	needs	of	MERA.	Other	packages,	

including	those	involving	shuttle	service	to	the	site	or	within	the	site,	received	lower	scores	due	to	

high	implementation	costs	and	low	implementation	feasibility.	Conversations	with	MERA	managers	

during	the	May	2015	site	visits	confirmed	the	low	implementation	potential	for	transit	service	at	

MERA	due	to	high	costs	and	concern	about	the	viability	of	the	road	to	Mount	Evans,	and	revealed	

the	jurisdictional	complexity	unique	to	MERA	among	the	three	ARNF	sites.	
533

Table 8‐17. Technical Criteria Package Scores for Mount Evans Recreation Area

Packages Technical Criteria

Site

# Package Description

Forest Resources

Visitor Experience

Transportation

Safety and

Operations

Cost Effectiveness

Displacement of

Existing Users

Implementation

Feasibility

Total

(max = 24)

Mount Evans Recreation Area

1 ITS and onsite signs/barriers (nontransit) 2 1 1 4 4 4 16

2

Mandatory offsite overflow parking with transit service

from Idaho Springs and shuttle service in MERA, ITS,

signs/barriers, and onsite parking management team

(transit)

3 0 2 0 3 1 9

3

Mandatory offsite overflow parking with transit service

from Echo Lake and shuttle service in MERA, ITS,

signs/barriers, and onsite parking management team

(transit)

3 1 2 0 3 0 9

4

Mandatory offsite overflow parking in new offsite lot near

Welcome Station with shuttle service in MERA, ITS,

signs/barriers, and onsite parking management team

(transit)

3 2 2 0 3 1 11

5 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 1

parking management (nontransit) 3 4 3 4 1 3 18

6

Management with MERA day use quota, onsite parking

management team, and Package 1 parking management

(nontransit)

4 4 4 3 1 3 19

7 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 2

parking management (transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15

8 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 3

parking management (transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15

9 Management with MERA day use quota and Package 4

parking management (transit)

4 4 4 0 1 2 15
534

Synthesis

The	evaluation	of	components,	both	individually	and	in	packages,	according	to	requirement	and	

technical	criteria	is	intended	to	provide	a	systematic	way	to	compare	the	range	of	potential	

solutions	available	to	meet	the	needs	of	GP,	BLRA,	and	MERA.	The	application	of	the	four‐part	

screening	process	identified	a	few	key	areas	for	USFS	managers	to	consider	when	evaluating	the	

suggested	packaged	solutions:	

 Across	the	three	sites,	the	highest	scoring	packaged	components	generally	represent	cost‐

effective	and	easy	to	implement	solutions	that	may	only	provide	short‐term	solutions	for	

the	identified	needs	rather	than	long‐term	solutions.	For	example,	at	each	of	the	locations	

the	simplest	solutions	to	address	roadside	parking	with	signs	and	barriers,	ITS,	and	a	

parking	management	team	often	scored	high	due	to	driving	factors	such	as	implementation	

feasibility	and	low	cost	and	not	because	the	package	presents	a	long‐term	solution	to	the	

problem	of	excess	demand	for	parking	at	the	site.	

 The	incorporation	of	transit	service	to	and	from	a	site	as	a	transportation	and/or	visitor	use	

management	solution	tended	to	keep	transit	oriented	package	scores	low	due	to	the	

extended,	long‐term	operational	costs	of	providing	shuttle	service.	Often,	packages	

including	a	transit	option	received	a	“0”	score	for	the	“Cost	Effectiveness”	criterion	because	

the	estimated	cost	of	the	transit	alone	(derived	from	analysis	in	Chapter 7: Transit

Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site	exceeded	$1,000,000,	which	was	the	break	

point	for	the	scale.	The	assignment	of	a	“0”	score	was	rare	for	other	technical	criteria	

considered.	This	exercise	demonstrated	cost	to	be	a	driving	factor,	particularly	related	to	

the	feasibility	of	transit‐based	solutions.	

 Many	of	the	components	scored	well	individually;	however,	the	packages	of	components	

provide	a	range	of	comprehensive	solutions	for	addressing	site	needs.	The	four‐step	

screening	process	effectively	eliminated	components	that	were	not	feasible	early	on,	

providing	a	limited	range	of	options	for	consideration	in	packaging.	The	result	led	to	the	

creation	of	a	smaller	number	of	more	realistic	packages	for	consideration	by	USFS	

managers.	
535

Chapter 9: STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS BY SITE
536

Introduction

Results	of	the	user	capacity,	transit	demand,	transit	feasibility,	and	alternative	components	

analyses	and	input	from	meetings	with	the	public	and	forest	managers	were	used	to	inform	

recommendations	for	addressing	identified	visitor	use	and	transportation	needs.	

Recommendations	were	made	according	to	the	needs	identified	at	each	site	and	the	maximum	

levels	of	visitor	use	that	can	be	accommodated	at	each	study	site	without	unacceptable	impacts	to	

forest	resources,	Wilderness	values,	and	recreation	experiences	identified	through	the	user	

capacity	analyses	at	each	site.	

The	purpose	of	this	chapter	is	to	report	the	short‐term	and	long‐term	recommendations,	by	study	

site,	for	effectively	addressing	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	needs.	Management	

recommendations	at	each	site	are	organized	into	phases,	described	below,	according	to	

implementation	feasibility	and	anticipated	financial	constraints	and/or	needs.	Strategies	for	

adaptive	management	are	also	discussed,	as	appropriate,	for	each	study	site	after	phased	

recommendations.	

 Phase	1	recommendations	are	short‐term	management	interventions	that	generally	address	

pressing	needs,	are	less	expensive	to	implement	(than	other	proposed	recommendations),	

and	likely	do	not	require	NEPA	compliance	(and/or	other	time‐intensive	administrative	

processes)	to	be	completed	before	implementation.	Phase	1	recommendations	also	include	

acknowledgement	of	current	practices	that	are	anticipated	to	continue	to	meet	

transportation	and	visitor	use	needs.	

 Phase	2	recommendations	are	midterm	management	interventions	that	address	identified	

needs	that	are	important,	but	not	as	pressing	as,	those	needs	addressed	in	Phase	1.	Phase	2	

recommendations	may	require	more	planning	and/or	financial	resources	than	those	in	

Phase	1;	inclusion	in	Phase	2	provides	additional	time	for	these	realistic	components	of	

implementation.	These	recommendations	should	be	considered	for	implementation	as	soon	

as	feasible,	given	budgetary	and	administrative	constraints.	

 Phase	3	recommendations	are	long‐term	management	interventions	that	require	significant	

planning	and	financial	support	to	fully	implement.	These	recommendations	address	

identified	needs,	but	likely	cannot	be	implemented	without	the	support	of	stakeholders.	

Implementation	of	these	recommendations	is	just	as	important	as	the	implementation	of	

Phase	1	and	2	recommendations;	however,	this	phasing	acknowledges	the	efforts	needed	to	

implement	solutions	on	this	scale.	

Rough	order	of	magnitude	(ROM)	costs	for	phased	recommendations	are	provided	(Table	9‐1,	

Table	9‐2,	and	Table	9‐3).	The	included	ROM	costs	are	adapted	from	Class	C	cost	estimates	for	other	

similar	projects	and	provide	only	a	rough	estimate	of	cost;	detailed	cost	estimates	should	be	

prepared	prior	to	implementation.	

The	following	subsections	present	transportation	and	visitor	use	management	recommendations,	

by	site,	and	included	the	following	information:	
537

1. Overview	of	site‐specific	needs	derived	from	study	data	and	analysis.	

2. Narrative	summary	of	recommendations,	with	an	overview	of	components	and	phasing.	

3. Tabular	summary	of	recommendations	and	phasing,	including	rough	order	of	magnitude	

cost	estimates	(i.e.,	Implementation	Plan).	

4. Detailed	descriptions	of	recommended	components	and	phasing.	

Brainard Lake Recreation Area Recommendations

Overview of BLRA Needs74

The	following	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	needs	were	identified	

at	BLRA	through	considering	public	input,	reviewing	previous	studies	and	planning	documents,	and	

collecting	and	analyzing	new	baseline	data:	

 The	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	is	distant	from	most	visitors’	destinations.	

 Small	trailhead	parking	lots	limit	convenient	access	to	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	(IPW),	but	

may	help	prevent	unacceptable	crowding.	

 Parking	management	staff	are	required	to	prevent	unendorsed	roadside	parking.	

 Traffic	congestion	occurs	at	the	Courtesy	Station	when	parking	lots	inside	BLRA	are	full.	

 Confusion	exists	among	visitors	who	park	in	the	Brainard	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	about	how	to	

access	BLRA	visitor	destinations	and/or	the	IPW.	

 Currently,	there	is	a	lack	of	safe,	convenient	pedestrian	connections	among	parking	lots	and	

visitor	destinations.	

 Historically,	high	visitor	use	and	corresponding	potential	for	crowding	and	adverse	

resource	impacts	exist	in	the	IPW.	

BLRA Recommendations

BLRA	recommendations	are	organized	into	three	implementation	phases.	They	provide	short,	mid,	

and	long‐term	approaches	to	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	according	to	BLRA’s	

designated	parking	capacity	and	corresponding	user	capacity	specified	in	the	2005	BLRA	

Management	Plan.	The	recommendations	are	summarized	in	Table	9‐1	and	described	in	more	

detail	in	the	following	subsections.	

																																																													

74 See Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site for a more detailed description of need identification for BLRA.
538

 Phase	1	addresses	the	need	to	more	effectively	utilize	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	

manage	BLRA	parking	demand	and	user	capacity;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	

is	also	recommended.	

 Phase	2	focuses	on	providing	a	safe	connection	from	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	to	the	IPW	

trailheads,	while	also	developing	other	trail‐based	recreation	opportunities	to	help	disperse	

use	away	from	the	IPW.	

 Phase	3	provides	a	long‐term	solution	to	increasing	the	safety	and	convenience	of	access	

between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	BLRA	destinations	through	the	provision	of	

shuttle	service	from	the	parking	area	into	BLRA.	

An	adaptive	strategy	for	management	consideration	is	included	after	presentation	of	the	phased	

recommendations.	This	strategy	should	be	considered	if	substantial	changes	to	visitor	use	of	BLRA	

occur	over	the	next	five	to	ten	years.	
539

Table 9‐1. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management, BLRA

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Capital

Costs

Operations &

Maintenance

Phase 1    

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $8,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders   ($5,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends  ‐  ($14,000)

2. Continue presence of onsite traffic and parking management team  ‐  $41,000

3. Require mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

other lots are full and prohibit queuing at Courtesy Station   $1,000 Included in 2

4. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $6,000  ‐ 

5. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions   $120,000 $3,000

6. Complete trail connection between the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and

Brainard Lake via the Waldrop Trail $221,000  ‐ 

7. Install improved onsite wayfinding signage in parking areas $3,000  ‐ 

8.

Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info

centers* $210,000 $54,000

Update and Maintenance of ARNF Website  ‐  ($14,000)

Creation and Distribution of Information at Information Centers ($10,000)  ‐ 

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $569,000 $118,000

Phase 2    

9.

Construct access trail to improve the flow of pedestrian traffic between parking

areas $206,000  ‐ 

10. Construct recreation trails to increase visitor opportunities and enhance enjoyment $300,000  ‐ 

Phase 2 ROM** Cost $506,000 $0

Phase 3    

11. Operate a circulator shuttle from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot $70,000 $15,000

Phase 3 ROM** Cost $70,000 $15,000

Adaptive Management    

12. Implement day use permit system and quota for Indian Peaks Wilderness   N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.  
540

Phase 1: Short‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management

In	accordance	with	the	2005	Brainard	Lake	Management	Plan,	a	long‐term	plan	for	visitor	

use	monitoring	should	be	implemented	to	gauge	the	impact	of	visitor	use	on	social	and	

resource	conditions	at	BLRA	and	in	the	IPW.	The	capacity	analysis	suggests	that	at	current	

visitor	use	levels	(when	all	available	parking	options	are	used	by	visitors),	capacity	is	not	

exceeded.	Similarly,	visitor	survey	results	show	that	crowding	is	not	an	issue	for	visitors	to	

BLRA.	These	conclusions	about	resource	conditions	are	derived	from	baseline	

measurements	of	visitor	use	under	current	management	strategies.	Through	the	

implementation	of	a	long‐term	visitor	use	management	plan,	managers	will	be	able	to	

identify	trends	in	visitor	use	that	can	be	used	to	understand	if	resource	conditions	are	likely	

to	be	impacted.	

To	implement	a	long‐term	monitoring	plan,	Automated	Traffic	Recorders	(ATRs)	and	trail	

counters	should	be	deployed	in	the	same	locations	as	they	were	deployed	during	the	

baseline	data	collection.	This	includes	two	ATRs	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	three	trail	

counters	at	the	following	trails:	Beaver	Creek	Trail,	Mitchell	Lake	Trail,	and	Lake	Isabelle	

Trail	(Figure	9‐1).	Interim	reports	should	be	issued	on	an	annual	basis,	with	an	in‐depth	

evaluation	every	five	years	to	identify	trends	and	determine	if	adaptive	strategies	for	visitor	

use	management	should	be	considered	(as	described	in	the	section	Adaptive Strategy for

Long‐Term Management	to	follow).	
Figure 9‐1. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at BLRA (Recommendation 1).
542

2. Continue presence of onsite traffic and parking management team

The	onsite	traffic	and	parking	management	team	currently	in	use	during	the	peak	season	

(mid‐June	through	Labor	Day)	at	BLRA	should	be	continued	(Figure	9‐3).	The	team	would	

continue	to	operate	daily	during	the	peak	season	from	early	morning	to	midafternoon.	The	

team	would	consist	of	four	members:	two	staff	members	stationed	at	each	of	the	IPW	

trailhead	parking	lots	(i.e.,	one	at	the	Mitchell	Lake	Trail	Parking	Lot,	and	one	at	Long	Lake	

Trail	Parking	Lot),	one	roving	staff	member,	and	one	member	stationed	in	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	The	IPW	trailhead	parking	lot	team	of	two	individuals	would	use	

two‐way	radios	to	inform	the	third	member	of	the	parking	management	team	and	the	USFS	

staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	when	the	trailhead	parking	lots	are	full,	and	when	parking	

spaces	become	available	again	after	the	lots	are	full.	The	third	member	would	be	roving	

between	various	locations	in	BLRA	throughout	the	day,	depending	on	where	parking	is	

available.	This	member	of	the	parking	management	team	would	be	responsible	for	directing	

visitors	to	available	parking	spaces	and	blocking	the	roadway	to	prevent	visitors	from	

driving	to	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	when	they	are	full.	Staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	

would	inform	arriving	visitors	of	their	parking	options,	based	on	the	information	received	

via	radio	from	the	three	members	of	the	parking	management	team	inside	of	BLRA.	A	fourth	

member	of	the	parking	management	team	would	direct	traffic	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	when	BLRA	lots	are	full	(for	additional	detail	see	Recommendation 4: Require

mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when other lots are full

and prohibit queuing at Courtesy Station).

3. Require mandatory queuing and/or parking at Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot when

other lots are full and prohibit queuing at Courtesy Station

The	BLRA	capacity	analysis	shows	that	at	current	use	levels	the	stated	site	capacity	of	

available	designated	parking	spaces	is	not	exceeded.	However,	this	conclusion	only	holds	

true	when	those	vehicles	that	cannot	park	inside	BLRA	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot.	Some	BLRA	visitors	would	rather	wait	in	line	in	their	vehicles	for	parking	to	

become	available	inside	BLRA	than	park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	access	

BLRA	destinations.	Under	current	traffic	and	parking	management,	this	queuing	for	BLRA	

parking	occurs	on	the	Brainard	Lake	Road	at	the	Courtesy	Station.	Queuing	on	the	road	at	

the	Courtesy	Station	is	frustrating	for	visitors,	creates	traffic	backups	on	Brainard	Lake	

Road,	and	creates	unsafe	roadway	conditions	for	pedestrians	and	vehicles	alike.	Therefore,	

vehicles	waiting	in	line	to	access	BLRA	should	be	required	to	queue	in	a	portion	of	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	nearest	to	the	Courtesy	Station	rather	than	on	Brainard	Lake	

Road	(Figure	9‐3).	

A	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	staff	member	should	be	stationed	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	to	manage	the	vehicle	queue	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot.	As	

stated	previously,	when	the	IPW	trailhead	parking	lots	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	are	full,	

USFS	staff	at	the	Courtesy	Station	and	the	three	parking	management	team	members	inside	

BLRA	would	stop	visitors	from	entering	BLRA.	At	this	point,	visitors	would	be	required	to	

park	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	or	would	be	given	the	option	to	wait	in	their	
543

vehicle	in	a	queue	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	until	parking	spaces	become	

available	inside	BLRA.	A	fourth	member	of	the	parking	management	team,	stationed	in	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	would	manage	queuing	of	vehicles	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot.	This	parking	management	team	member	would	communicate	with	the	

Courtesy	Station	staff	and	the	parking	management	team	members	inside	BLRA	to	

coordinate	entry	of	queued	vehicles	(from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot)	into	BLRA	as	

parking	spots	become	available. Visitors	would not	be	allowed	to	queue	on	the	road	at	the	

Courtesy	Station	while	waiting	for	parking	spaces	to	become	available	in	BLRA.	Visitors	

would	be	allowed	to	freely	enter	BLRA	again	after	the	peak	hours	of	the	day	when	a	

substantive	number	of	parking	spaces	are	available	in	BLRA	and	active	parking	

management	is	no	longer	needed	to	prevent	unendorsed	roadside	parking.	

4. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking

Existing	barriers	and	signs	should	be	retained	at	their	current	locations.	These	signs	and	

barriers	prevent	roadside	parking	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	the	access	road	to	the	

Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trail	Parking	Lots,	where	it	once	occurred	in	large	numbers.	In	

addition,	roadside	barriers	should	be	installed	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	south	of	Brainard	

Lake	to	prevent	roadside	parking	from	occurring	when	moose	are	sighted	in	the	area.	
544

5. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions

As	stated	previously,	the	BLRA	capacity	analysis	shows	that	at	current	use	levels,	the	stated	

site	capacity	of	available	designated	parking	spaces	is	not	exceeded	when	the	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot	is	fully	utilized	as	a	parking	option	for	BLRA	visitors.	Portable	(trailer	

style)	variable	message	signs	(VMS;	Figure	9‐2)	should	be	used	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	and	

the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway	to	communicate	parking	conditions	and	resultant	parking	

options	to	approaching	BLRA	visitors	(Figure	9‐3).	Specifically,	VMS	should	be	used	to	

direct	visitors	to	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	when	parking	areas	inside	BLRA	are	

full,	using	a	message	such	as,	“BLRA	Parking	Closed,	Park	in	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	

Lot.”	Alternative	VMS	messages	for	other	BLRA	parking	scenarios	include,	“Mitchell	Lake	

Parking	Closed,	Use	BLRA	Day	Lot,”	or,	“All	Lots	Open.”	Using	VMS	in	this	manner	would	

assist	the	parking	management	team	in	directing	visitors	to	available	parking	options	and	

restricting	unendorsed	parking	through	setting	visitor	expectations	about	parking	options	

before	arrival	at	the	Courtesy	Station.	As	future	recommendations	are	implemented	at	

BLRA	VMS	messaging	should	be	updated	to	reflect	management	changes	and	direct	visitors	

appropriately.	It	should	be	noted	that	a	NEPA	analysis	may	be	needed	for	VMS	sign	use	

along	State	Highway	72;	the	NEPA	analysis	would	need	to	be	done	in	coordination	with	

Colorado	Department	of	Transportation	(CDOT).		

Figure 9‐2. Mobile variable message sign (VMS) example.
Figure 9‐3. Phase 1 Recommendations: Parking management and queuing restrictions for BLRA (Recommendations 2‐5).
546

6. Complete trail connection between the Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and Brainard

Lake via the Waldrop Trail

Construction	of	a	connector	trail	(which	has	already	begun	as	this	report	was	compiled)	

between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	should	be	completed	

as	soon	as	possible	to	provide	a	safe	pathway	for	visitor	travel	between	BLRA	destinations	

and	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	(Figure	9‐4).	The	connector	trail	should	initially	

follow	the	existing	trail	alignment	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	the	Waldrop	

Trail.	The	trail	alignment	should	continue	along	the	existing	Waldrop	Trail	alignment	until	

the	Waldrop	Trail	begins	to	head	north	toward	the	South	St	Vrain	Trail	(#909).	At	this	point,	

a	new	trail	alignment	heading	north	from	the	Waldrop	Trail	to	Brainard	Lake	should	begin	

to	complete	the	connector	trail	from	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	to	Brainard	Lake.	

Until	the	connector	trail	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	Brainard	Lake	is	

finished,	a	temporary	bike	and	pedestrian	lane	should	be	designated	on	Brainard	Lake	Road	

from	the	Gateway	Parking	Area	into	BLRA	to	increase	visitor	safety	(if	existing	road	

geometry	allows	for	this	designation).	

7. Install improved onsite wayfinding signage in parking areas

Improved	wayfinding	and	directional	signs	should	be	installed	at	all	BLRA	parking	areas	to	

reduce	visitor	confusion	about	how	to	get	to	and	from	parking	lots	(or	future	shuttle	stops)	

and	their	target	destinations	within	BLRA	and/or	the	IPW	(Figure	9‐4).	Active	parking	

management	at	BLRA	will	influence	where	visitors	park	—	this	may	lead	to	visitors	parking	

away	from	their	intended	destination	in	an	unintended	parking	area.	Installing	wayfinding	

and	directional	signs	in	all	designated	parking	areas	will	provide	visitors	with	information	

about	how	to	access	destinations	of	interest	in	BLRA	regardless	of	where	their	vehicles	are	

parked.	Additionally,	trail	junctions	located	outside	of	federally	designated	wilderness	

should	be	marked	with	directional	signs	to	assist	visitors	in	moving	between	parking	lots	

and	recreational	destinations	in	BLRA.	
Figure 9‐4. Phase 1 Recommendations: Improved onsite wayfinding and connectivity between parking areas (Recommend
548

8. Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info centers

BLRA	survey	data	show	that	over	80%	of	BLRA	visitors	report	that	they	would	likely	use	the	

ARNF	website	as	a	source	of	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	BLRA,	if	

it	was	available	for	planning	a	future	trip.	Other	sources	of	information	that	ranked	highly	

among	visitors	include	smartphone	applications	and	tourist	information	centers.	Web	

resources	should	be	used	to	communicate	parking	and	crowding	conditions	to	potential	

BLRA	visitors.	Currently,	such	information	about	BLRA	is	unavailable	on	the	ARNF	website.	

Pre‐trip	information	including	parking	management	practices	and	policies,	maps	of	

connector	trails	between	parking	areas,	and	information	about	peak	use	times	and	

crowding	should	be	made	available	to	BLRA	visitors	via	web	resources.	Messages	and	

related	content	should	be	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	information	about	the	

advantages	of	visiting	BLRA	during	off‐peak	periods	and	to	set	expectations	about	peak‐

period	conditions	and	parking	availability	inside	BLRA	and	in	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot.	In	addition,	links	to	websites	and	information	about	other	outdoor	recreation	

and	tourist	destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	BLRA	could	be	provided	to	inform	visitors	of	

options	to	consider	as	alternatives	to	visiting	BLRA	during	peak	periods.		

Paper	brochures	should	be	made	available	at	tourist	information	centers	to	distribute	

information	about	parking	management	practices	and	policies,	maps	of	alternative	parking	

locations	and	connector	trails,	and	information	about	peak	use	times	and/or	recreation	

alternatives.		

Visitors	across	all	three	study	sites	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	use	a	smartphone	

application	to	access	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	if	it	was	available	

for	planning	a	future	trip.	A	smartphone	application	should	be	developed	for	the	ARNF,	

providing	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	specific	to	each	of	the	three	

study	sites.	The	ROM	cost	provided	for	the	smartphone	application	(included	in	Table	9‐1)	

provides	an	estimate	of	the	cost	for	development	of	a	single	application,	rather	than	an	

application	specific	to	BLRA.		

It	should	be	noted	that	visitor	survey	results	show	that	other	methods	of	information	

provision	such	as	using	social	media,	highway	advisory	radio,	telephone	information	lines,	

and	text	updates	tended	to	receive	significantly	less	anticipated	use	than	website,	

smartphone	app,	and	tourist	information	center	options.	

Phase 2: Midterm Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

9. Construct access trail to improve the flow of pedestrian traffic between parking areas

Construction	of	access	trails	between	the	Brainard	Lake	Day	Use	Parking	Lot	and	the	IPW	

trailheads	(which	has	already	begun	as	this	report	was	compiled)	should	be	completed	

(Figure	9‐5).	The	new	access	trails	will	provide	pedestrian	access	from	the	BLRA	Day	Use	

Parking	Lot	to	the	Mitchell	Lake	and	Long	Lake	Trails.	In‐depth	descriptions	of	suggested	

trail	alignments	for	the	recommended	trails	are	reported	in	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake
549

Recreation Area Summary of Data Findings,	in	the	section	titled	“Brainard	Lake	Recreation	

Area	Alternative	Trail	Alignment	Analysis,	Summer	2012.”	

10. Construct recreation trails to increase visitor opportunities and enhance enjoyment

Construction	of	the	following	three	recreation	trails	in	BLRA	should	be	completed	to	

increase	visitor	opportunities	for	recreation	and	enhance	enjoyment	(Figure	9‐5).	One	of	

the	recommended	trails	would	provide	universal	access	to	mobility	impaired	visitors.	The	

other	recommended	trails	would	increase	recreation	opportunities	outside	of	the	IPW,	with	

the	intent	that	some	visitor	use	may	be	shifted	away	from	the	IPW	by	providing	alternative	

recreation	access.	In‐depth	descriptions	of	suggested	trail	alignments	for	the	recommended	

trails	are	reported	in	Chapter 1: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Summary of Data Findings,	in	

the	section	titled	“Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Alternative	Trail	Alignment	Analysis,	

Summer	2012.”	

1. Accessible loop trail around Brainard Lake

A	universally	accessible	nature	trail	would	be	constructed	around	Brainard	Lake,	

providing	access	for	pedestrians,	bicyclists,	and	visitors	with	mobility	impairments.	The	

trail	would	enhance	the	accessibility	of	recreational	opportunities	at	BLRA.	

2. Loop trail connecting the Sourdough and Little Raven Trails

New	trail	alignments	would	be	developed	to	connect	the	Sourdough	and	Little	Raven	

Trails.	The	new	trail	alignments	would	create	opportunities	for	loop	hikes	from	the	

Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	potentially	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	

IPW.	

3. Trail connecting the Little Raven Trail to Left Hand Park Reservoir

A	new	trail	alignment	would	be	developed	to	connect	the	Little	Raven	Trail	to	Left	Hand	

Park	Reservoir.	The	new	trail	alignment	would	provide	off‐road	pedestrian	and	bicycle	

access	to	Left	Hand	Park	Reservoir	and	potentially	shift	some	visitor	use	away	from	the	

IPW.	
Figure 9‐5. Phase 2 Recommendations: Increased access and wildlife‐viewing area (Recommendations 9‐10).
551

Phase 3: Long‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

11. Operate a circulator shuttle from Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot to Day Use Lot

The	capacity	analysis	for	BLRA	indicates	that	current	visitor	use	levels	at	BLRA	do	not	

exceed	the	stated	capacity	of	available	designated	parking	spaces	at	BLRA.	However,	this	

conclusion	about	capacity	only	holds	when	visitors	to	BLRA	use	the	Gateway	Trailhead	

Parking	Lot	as	a	parking	option	because	the	demand	for	parking	inside	BLRA	exceeds	the	

available	parking	spaces	inside	BLRA.	The	visitor	survey	also	shows	that	current	visitor	use	

levels	are	not	causing	unacceptable	crowding	conditions	in	the	IPW	or	other	BLRA	

destinations,	indicating	that	current	levels	can	be	maintained	while	still	achieving	desired	

resource	conditions.	To	increase	visitor	safety	and	provide	a	convenient	transportation	

option	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot,	circulator	

shuttle	service	should	be	provided	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	

BLRA	Day	Use	Lot	(Figure	9‐6).	

The	transit	demand	analysis	for	this	shuttle	service	estimates	that	approximately	195	

passengers	per	day	would	use	the	recommended	shuttle	service.	The	service	would	operate	

from	7:00	a.m.	to	6:00	p.m.	during	peak	season	weekend	days	and	holidays	between	

Memorial	Day	weekend	and	Labor	Day.	The	service	schedule	would	operate	on	a	20‐minute	

loop	between	the	Gateway	Trailhead	Parking	Lot	and	the	BLRA	Day	Use	Lot,	deliberately	

excluding	direct	service	to	the	IPW	trailheads	to	prevent	over‐delivering	of	visitors	to	these	

Wilderness	trailheads.	The	parking	capacity	and	transit	ridership	demand	analyses	behind	

this	recommendation	are	reported	in	Chapter 6: ARNF Integrated User Capacity and Transit

Demand Analysis, by Site.	The	preliminary	estimated	costs,	proposed	schedule,	and	

operation	details	are	described	in	Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and

Recommendations by Site.	An	implementation	plan	with	updated	visitation	numbers	and	

more	specific	costs	should	be	developed	before	the	suggested	shuttle	service	is	

implemented.	
Figure 9‐6. Phase 3 Recommendation: Circulator shuttle service between Gateway Trailhead Parking Lot and Day Use Lot (
553

12. Adaptive Strategy for Long‐Term Management

Following	direction	from	the	BLRA	Management	Plan,	a	long‐term	visitor	use	monitoring	

plan	should	be	implemented	at	BLRA	to	track	trends	in	visitor	use	(as	described	in	

Recommendation 1: Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management).	

Implementation	of	a	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	is	critical	to	verifying	that	visitor	use	does	

not	increase	to	levels	that	result	in	unacceptable	resource	conditions.	If	trends	identified	

through	the	monitoring	plan	indicate	that	visitor	use	increases	significantly	(compared	to	

baseline	use	levels)	at	BLRA	during	the	monitoring	period,	a	more	in‐depth	study	should	be	

initiated	at	that	time	to	determine	the	extent	of	increased	use	and	corresponding	impacts	to	

Wilderness	resources	in	the	IPW.	Such	in‐depth	studies	would	provide	data‐driven	results	

to	guide	evaluation	of	the	potential	need	for	development	of	a	day	use	permit	quota	for	IPW	

trailheads	and/or	parking	at	BLRA.	

A	potential	management	action	that	could	be	considered	is	adaptive	management	is	

necessary	at	BLRA	is	the	implementation	of	a	managed‐use	permit	system	and	quota	for	day	

use	in	BLRA	and/or	the	IPW.	Increases	to	trail	use	in	the	IPW	or	increased	demand	for	

parking	that	exceeds	the	capacity	of	all	available	parking	at	BLRA	would	be	indicators	that	

such	a	system	may	be	necessary	to	manage	visitor	use.	

If	such	a	system	were	necessary,	visitors	would	be	required	to	obtain	and	display	a	permit	

for	a	specific	date	and	time	period	during	which	they	would	be	allowed	to	hike	in	the	IPW	

and/or	park	at	BLRA	(depending	on	the	target	area	for	visitor	use	management).	An	online	

permit	system	could	be	used	to	allow	visitors	to	obtain	their	permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	

to	BLRA,	or	permits	could	be	obtained	at	one	or	more	locations	in	BLRA	(e.g.,	Gateway	

Trailhead	Parking	Lot,	Courtesy	Station)	when	visitors	arrive.	The	number	and	distribution	

of	day	use	permits	would	be	based	on	crowding‐related	capacities	for	the	IPW	and/or	

operational	capacity	of	BLRA	(i.e.,	parking	capacities,	shuttle	service	capacities	if	applicable,	

etc.).	
554

Guanella Pass Recommendations

Overview of GP Needs75

The	following	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	needs	were	identified	

at	GP	through	considering	public	input,	reviewing	previous	studies	and	planning	documents,	and	

collecting	and	analyzing	new	baseline	data:	

 Unendorsed	roadside	parking	causes	resource	impacts	and	creates	visitor	safety	risks.	

 Extreme	crowding	occurs	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt	during	peak	use	periods.	

 Off‐trail	trampling	of	vegetation	and	soils	affects	resource	conditions	in	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness.	

 Visitor	use	exceeds	the	physical	capacity	of	parking	at	GP	and	the	Wilderness	resource‐

related	capacity	on	the	Mt.	Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.	

GP Recommendations

GP	recommendations	are	organized	into	three	phases	of	implementation,	together	providing	short‐

term	and	long‐term	approaches	to	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	according	to	the	

physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	at	GP	and	the	Wilderness	resource‐based	capacity	of	the	Mt.	

Bierstadt	Trail	and	summit.	The	recommendations	and	rough	order	of	magnitude	cost	for	

implementation	are	summarized	in	Table	9‐2	and	described	in	more	detail	in	the	following	

subsections.	

 Phase	1	recommendations	seek	to	reduce	unendorsed	roadside	parking	and	set	the	stage	

for	active	parking	management;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	is	also	

recommended.	

 Phase	2	recommendations	focus	on	implementing	a	Wilderness	permit	system	and	quota,	

and	deploying	an	onsite	parking	management	and	permit	enforcement	team.	

 Phase	3	recommendations	present	three	long‐term	management	options	for	maximizing	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	access	under	the	managed‐use	permit	system	while	balancing	

parking	constraints	and	protecting	resource	and	Wilderness	values.	

An	adaptive	strategy	for	management	consideration	is	included	after	presentation	of	the	phased	

recommendations.	This	strategy	should	be	considered	if	substantial	changes	to	visitor	use	of	GP	

occur	over	the	next	five	to	ten	years.	

																																																													

75 See Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site for a more detailed description of need identification for GP.
555

Table 9‐2. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management Recommendations, GP

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Phase 1 Capital   Operating &

Maintenance

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $8,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders ($5,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends ‐  ($14,000)

2.

Coordinate parking enforcement with Clear Creek County through Memorandum of

Understanding ‐  Included in 1

3. Deploy variables message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions   $80,000 $2,000

4. Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website and smartphone apps*   $200,000 $54,000

Updating and Maintenance of ARNF Website ‐  ($14,000)

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $288,000 $76,000

Phase 2    

5. Implement a managed‐use Wilderness day use permit system and quota for Mount

Bierstadt Trail (300 permits per day) ‐  $71,000

6. Deploy onsite parking management and permit quota team   ‐  $60,000

7. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $11,000  ‐ 

8. Designate parking areas for Mount Bierstadt Trail users (91 spaces) and “other” GP

users (15 spaces) $6,000  ‐ 

Phase 2 ROM** Cost $17,000 $131,000

Phase 3    

9. Option 1: Retain managed‐use permit system and quota at 300 permits per day

without expanding onsite parking as a long‐term solution ‐  Included in 5

10.  

Option 2: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per

day and expand onsite parking at GP to accommodate all permit holders in

designated parking spaces  

$113,000 $88,000

11.

Option 3: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per

day, with shuttle service from Georgetown for those permit holders that cannot

park in a designated space at GP  

$575,000 $159,000

Phase 3 ROM** Cost Dependent on Option

Selected

Adaptive Management

12.

Reduce permit quota for weekday Mount Bierstadt Trail use if demand shifts to

weekdays to preserve a different experience for weekday users N/A N/A

13. Increase transit and/or parking at GP if displacement of other GP users is excessive N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.
556

Phase 1: Short‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

1. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management

In	conjunction	with	the	implementation	of	a	managed‐use	permit	system	and	quota	for	

hiking	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	a	long‐term	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	should	be	

implemented	at	GP,	particularly	focusing	on	use	of	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Changes	to	

visitor	use	can	impact	the	effectiveness	of	the	proposed	day	use	permit	system	and	quota	

and	may	cause	unintended	resource	impacts.	Research	in	other	high‐use	wilderness	areas	

has	shown	that	weekend	and	peak	season	use	limits	can	lead	to	unintended	shifts	in	use	to	

week	days	and	other	nonpeak	periods	increasing	resource	impacts76.	Implementation	of	a	

long‐term	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	will	enable	managers	to	understand	if	resource	

conditions	are	likely	to	be	impacted.	

To	implement	a	long‐term	monitoring	plan,	Automated	Traffic	Recorders	(ATRs)	and	trail	

counters	should	be	deployed	in	some	of	the	same	locations	as	they	were	deployed	during	

the	2012	data	collection.	This	includes	two	ATRs	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	and	trail	counters	

at	the	following	trails:	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	Square	Top	Lakes	Trail,	and	the	Rosalie	Trail	

(Figure	9‐7).	Interim	reports	should	be	issued	on	an	annual	basis,	with	an	in‐depth	

evaluation	every	five	years	to	identify	trends	and	determine	if	adaptive	strategies	for	visitor	

use	management	should	be	considered	(as	described	in	Adaptive Strategy for Long‐Term

Management to	follow).	

																																																													

76 Pettebone, D., Meldrum, B., Leslie, C., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Reigner, N., & Gibson, A. (2013). A visitor use

monitoring approach on the Half Dome cables to reduce crowding and inform park planning decisions in Yosemite

National Park. Landscape and Urban Planning 118: 1‐9.
557

Figure 9‐7. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at GP

(Recommendation 1).
558

2. Coordinate parking enforcement with Clear Creek County through MOU

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	a	county	road	under	the	jurisdiction	of	Clear	Creek	County,	Colorado;	

therefore,	County	cooperation	is	needed	to	reduce	unendorsed	roadside	parking.	USFS	

managers	should	partner	with	Clear	Creek	County	to	enforce	parking	restrictions	at	GP.	

Initial	management	partnerships	could	include	a	cooperative	agreement	to	have	County	law	

enforcement	perform	occasional	patrols	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	on	typically	busy	peak	

season	days	(preferably	weekend	days	and	holidays).	Long‐term,	the	USFS	could	work	to	

establish	a	Memorandum	of	Understanding	with	Clear	Creek	County	to	have	a	designated	

parking	management	team	at	GP	to	manage	parking	to	available	spaces	and	restrict	

unendorsed	roadside	parking	(as	described	in	more	detail	in	Phase 2, Recommendation 8:

Onsite parking management and permit quota team).	

3. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions

Portable	(trailer	style)	variable	message	signs	(VMS;	Figure	9‐2)	should	be	used	on	Guanella	

Pass	Road	to	communicate	GP	parking	restrictions	(and	future	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	permit	

restrictions)	to	arriving	visitors	(Figure	9‐8).	Specifically,	VMS	should	be	used	to	

remind/inform	GP	visitors	that	roadside	parking	is	prohibited	at	GP,	using	a	message	such	

as,	“Roadside	Parking	Prohibited.”	VMS	should	also	be	used	to	communicate	parking	

restrictions	to	inbound	visitors	when	available	designated	parking	spaces	are	full,	using	

messages	such	as,	“No	Parking	Available	at	GP.	Drive	Through	Only,”	or	“Lots	Full	Between	

9:00	AM	and	1	PM,	Pass	Through	Only.”	Using	VMS	in	this	manner	would	communicate	

parking	management	policies,	set	USFS	expectations	of	visitor	parking	behavior,	and	assist	a	

future	parking	management	team	in	directing	visitors	to	available	parking	options.	As	

future	recommendations	are	implemented	at	GP	(such	as	a	managed‐user	permit	system)	

VMS	messaging	should	be	updated	to	reflect	such	changes	to	visitor	accessibility	of	the	site.	

For	example,	VMS	could	be	used	to	inform	visitors	of	future	permit	restrictions	with	

messages	such	as,	“Permit	Required	for	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Must	Have	Permit.”	
559

Figure 9‐8. Phase 1 Recommendation: Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking

conditions (Recommendation 2).
560

4. Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website and smartphone apps

GP	survey	data	show	that	88%	of	visitors	to	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	report	that	they	

would	likely	use	the	ARNF	website	as	a	source	of	information	about	parking	and	crowding	

conditions	at	GP,	if	it	were	available	for	planning	a	future	trip.	The	next	highly	ranked	

information	source	was	a	smartphone	application	(67%),	which	is	the	only	other	

information	source	indicated	by	more	than	50%	of	GP	visitors.	Currently,	ARNF	web	

resources	provide	little	information	about	peak	use	times	and,	when	provided,	the	

information	is	difficult	to	locate.	GP	managers	should	use	USFS	web	resources	to	

communicate	future	permit	requirements	for	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	parking	restrictions	

and	management	policies,	and	peak	use	conditions	to	GP	visitors	before	arrival	at	GP.	

Messages	and	related	content	should	be	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	easily	accessible	

information	about	the	advantages	of	visiting	GP	during	off‐peak	periods	and	to	set	

expectations	about	peak‐period	conditions,	parking	availability,	and	use	limits.	As	future	

recommendations	are	implemented	at	GP	(such	as	a	managed‐user	permit	system)	web	

resources	should	be	updated	to	reflect	such	changes	to	visitor	accessibility	of	the	site.	

Secondarily,	links	to	websites	and	information	about	other	outdoor	recreation	and	tourist	

destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	GP	could	be	provided	to	inform	visitors	of	options	to	consider	

as	alternatives	to	visiting	GP	during	peak	periods.	

Visitors	across	all	three	study	sites	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	use	a	smartphone	

application	to	access	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	if	it	was	available	

for	planning	a	future	trip.	A	smartphone	application	should	be	developed	for	the	ARNF,	

providing	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	specific	to	each	of	the	three	

study	sites.	The	ROM	cost	provided	for	the	smartphone	application	(included	in	Table	9‐2)	

provides	an	estimate	of	the	cost	for	development	of	a	single	application,	rather	than	an	

application	specific	to	GP.		

It	should	be	noted	that	other	methods	of	information	provision	such	as	using	social	media,	

highway	advisory	radio,	telephone	information	lines,	and	text	updates	tended	to	receive	

significantly	less	anticipated	use	than	website	and	smartphone	app	options.	

Phase 2: Midterm Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

5. Implement a managed‐use Wilderness day use permit system and quota for Mount

Bierstadt Trail (300 permits per day)

A	managed‐use	Wilderness	day	use	permit	system	and	quota	should	be	implemented	to	

limit	the	number	of	day	use	visitors	allowed	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	on	weekends	

and	holidays	to	approximately	300	people	per	day	(Figure	9‐9).	Baseline	data	collected	in	

2012	indicate	that	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	extreme	crowding	exists	on	the	

summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	A	majority	of	both	weekday	and	weekend	day	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail	users	indicate	that	they	would	feel	crowded	with	22	people	or	more	in	their	viewscape	

while	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	Incorporating	this	expressed	threshold	for	

crowding,	the	draft	Wilderness	standard	for	experience	quality	that	no	more	than	15%	of	
561

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	hikers	experience	greater	than	22	or	more	people	in	their	viewscape	

while	on	the	summit	at	one	time	was	proposed.	Wilderness	visitor	use	simulation	modeling	

suggests	that	this	standard	can	be	achieved	at	a	use	level	of	approximately	400	hikers	per	

day	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	However,	GP	does	not	currently	have	enough	designated	

parking	spaces	to	accommodate	the	vehicle	volume	that	issuing	400	permits	per	day	would	

generate.	Therefore,	the	number	of	permits	issued	through	the	managed‐use	permit	system	

should	be	limited	to	the	parking	capacity	of	GP	—	approximately	300	permits	per	day.	

Chapter	6:	ARNF	Integrated	User	Capacity	and	Transit	Demand	Analysis	by	Site	provides	a	

detailed	description	of	how	the	standard	and	number	of	permitted	hikers	were	developed.	

The	proposed	wilderness	day	use	permit	system	and	quota	would	require	visitors	to	obtain	

and	display	a	parking	permit	for	a	specific	date	on	which	they	would	be	permitted	to	park	at	

GP	and	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	An	online	permit	system	could	be	used	to	allow	

visitors	to	obtain	their	permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	to	GP;	the	operation	and	

maintenance	cost	estimate	included	for	this	component	is	based	on	an	estimate	of	cost	for	

administering	a	limited‐use	per	quota	system	for	Half	Dome	in	Yosemite	National	Park.	This	

recommendation	should	be	implemented	in	conjunction	with	Recommendation	7:	Deploy	

onsite	parking	management	and	permit	quota	team	(described	below).	

6. Deploy onsite parking management and permit quota team

An	onsite	parking	management	and	permit	quota	team	of	three	people	should	be	deployed	

at	GP	full‐time	during	the	peak	use	season	(Memorial	Day	Weekend	through	Labor	Day)	to	

enforce	roadside	and	onsite	parking,	and	issue	citations	(Figure	9‐9).	The	parking	

management	and	permit	quota	team	would	operate	from	6:00am	to	approximately	2:00pm	

(the	approximate	time	when	visitor	demand	for	parking	does	not	exceed	available	parking	

spaces),	with	staff	members	stationed	at	the	entrance	to	each	parking	area	(one	at	Lower	

Lot	and	one	at	Upper	Lot)	and	one	“roving”	staff	member.	The	two	staff	members	stationed	

at	the	two	designated	parking	areas	would	check	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	permits	upon	entry	

to	the	parking	area,	only	allowing	those	visitors	with	permits	to	enter	and	park	in	the	

designated	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	parking	spaces.	The	parking	staff	member	in	the	Upper	

Lot	would	ensure	that	the	spaces	reserved	for	visitors	not	hiking	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

are	kept	available	for	those	visitors.	The	third	roving	staff	member	would	direct	arriving	

visitors	to	parking	lots	with	available	parking	spaces	and	direct	pass‐through	traffic	on	

Guanella	Pass	Road	when	all	GP	parking	lots	are	full.	The	parking	management	and	permit	

quota	team	would	also	be	responsible	for	enforcing	use	of	designated	parking	only	by	

directing	visitors	to	other	destinations,	and	informing	them	of	options	to	return	during	less	

congested	times	and/or	days.	The	costs	and	associated	procedures	for	getting	a	contract	in	

place	for	the	similar,	currently	functioning,	traffic	and	parking	management	team	at	BLRA	

should	be	used	as	a	model	for	implementing	this	recommendation	at	GP.	

7. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking

Signs	and	barriers	should	be	installed	on	both	sides	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	at	GP	to	prevent	

roadside	parking	from	occurring	(Figure	9‐9).	Historically,	designated	parking	areas	have	

filled	to	capacity	by	early	morning	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	with	unendorsed	
562

roadside	parking	peaking	by	late	morning.	On	the	design	day,	unendorsed	roadside	parking	

reached	its	peak	by	late	morning,	at	which	time	there	were	nearly	twice	as	many	vehicles	

parked	in	unendorsed	roadside	spaces	(approximately	231	vehicles)	than	there	were	

parked	in	designated	spaces	(approximately	106	spaces).	

8. Designate parking areas for Mount Bierstadt Trail users and “other” GP users

Parking	designations	should	be	implemented	for	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	users	and	“other”	GP	

users	(i.e.,	users	that	do	not	intend	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail)	at	GP	when	the	

mandatory	managed‐use	permit	system	and	quota	are	in	use	(Figure	9‐9).	Ninety‐one	

parking	spaces	should	be	designated	for	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	users	to	park,	and	15	parking	

spaces	should	be	reserved	for	“other”	GP	users.	The	proposed	ratio	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

user	parking	spaces	to	“other”	GP	users	was	designed	to	maximize	the	number	of	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	permit	holders	that	would	have	access	to	a	designated	parking	space	at	GP,	

while	retaining	some	parking	access	for	visitors	to	GP	who	are	not	hiking	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail.	Under	this	parking	allocation	scenario,	some	GP	visitors,	primarily	“other”	

GP	users,	will	be	displaced	from	visiting	GP	due	to	a	lack	of	available	designated	parking.	

However,	this	allocation	scenario	ensures	that	parking	spaces	are	available	to	both	GP	

visitor	types.	For	additional	detail	on	the	determination	of	parking	spaces	for	each	GP	user	

group	see	Chapter 6: ARNF Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis, by Site.
563

Figure 9‐9. Phase 2 Recommendations: Active management of onsite parking (Recommendations 5‐8).
564

Phase 3: Options for Long‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

As	previously	noted,	the	parking	allocation	scenario	proposed	in	Recommendation 8: Designate

parking areas for Mount Bierstadt Trail users and “other” GP users,	was	designed	with	the	intention	

of	reducing	unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	GP,	while	also	ensuring	that	designated	parking	spaces	

are	available	for	the	different	visitor	types	arriving	at	GP.	The	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	shows	

that	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	can	accommodate	as	many	as	400	hikers	per	day	while	meeting	the	

draft	Wilderness	crowding	standard	that	no	more	than	15%	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	hikers	

experience	crowding	conditions	on	the	summit	that	exceed	the	visitor‐informed	crowding	indicator	

of	22	people	per	viewscape	on	the	summit.	However,	under	the	proposed	parking	allocation	

scenario	for	the	limited	number	of	physical	parking	spaces	at	GP	about	one‐quarter	of	all	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	permit	holders	would	not	be	able	to	park	at	GP.	Similarly,	approximately	two‐thirds	

of	all	visitors	arriving	at	GP	that	do	not	intend	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	would	not	be	able	

to	park	in	a	designated	parking	space	(approximately	300	visitors).	To	reduce	and	ultimately	

eliminate	unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	GP,	visitors	arriving	when	parking	is	not	available,	both	

permit	holders	and	non‐permit‐holders,	would	have	to	be	turned	away	from	GP.	The	Wilderness	

capacity	analysis	shows	that	even	when	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	is	managed	to	Wilderness	

capacity,	the	overall	site	capacity	at	GP	for	designated	parking	is	still	exceeded.	The	following	

recommendations	provide	three	long‐term	options	for	maximizing	visitor	access	to	GP	while	

protecting	Wilderness	resources	and	values.	

9. Option 1: Retain managed‐use permit system and quota at 300 permits per day without

expanding onsite parking as a long‐term solution

The	implemented	managed‐use	Wilderness	day	use	permit	system	and	quota	could	be	

limited	to	300	permits	per	day	for	the	long	term	(as	outlined	in	Recommendation 6;	Figure	

9‐10).	Under	this	scenario,	the	number	of	allowable	permits	would	be	driven	by	the	

physical	parking	capacity	of	GP	rather	than	the	Wilderness	capacity	of	the	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail.	Limiting	the	number	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	permits	to	300	permits	ensures	that	all	

permit	holders	would	be	able	to	park	in	one	of	the	existing	designated	parking	spaces	at	GP,	

while	still	retaining	approximately	15	parking	spaces	for	other	GP	visitors	that	do	not	

intend	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Therefore,	this	option	would	not	require	expansion	

of	the	onsite	infrastructure	at	GP	(i.e.	no	expansion	of	parking,	no	construction	of	shuttle	

stops,	etc.)	

While	this	option	would	manage	use	to	the	parking	capacity	of	GP,	it	would	result	in	the	

displacement	of	a	large	number	of	visitors	from	GP.	Under	this	scenario,	Mount	Bierstadt	

Trail	use	would	be	limited	to	less	than	the	allowable	use	that	can	be	accommodated	on	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	while	meeting	visitor‐established	Wilderness	experience	quality	

standards	—	one‐quarter	of	the	allowable	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	users	(as	determined	by	

the	Wilderness	capacity	analysis)	would	not	be	accommodated.	Furthermore,	the	parking	

management	and	permit	quota	team	described	in	Recommendation 7	would	have	to	be	

retained	for	the	long	term	to	limit	parking	to	designated	spaces	only,	turning	away	those	

users	that	arrive	at	GP	without	a	permit	and/or	those	users	that	arrive	when	there	is	no	

available	parking	at	GP.	
565

Figure 9‐10. Phase 3, Option 1: Retain managed‐use permits at 300 per day as a long‐term solution

(Recommendation 9).
566

10. Option 2: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per day

and expand onsite parking at GP to accommodate all permit holders in designated

parking spaces

The	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	indicates	that	up	to	400	hikers	per	day	can	be	

accommodated	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	while	still	meeting	the	Wilderness	experience	

standard	of	no	more	than	15%	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	users	encountering	22	people	or	

more	in	their	viewscape	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	Under	this	management	

scenario,	the	managed‐use	Wilderness	day	use	permit	quota	should	be	increased	to	this	

amount	(from	300	permits	per	day)	to	maximize	visitor	access	to	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

(Figure	9‐11).	

To	accommodate	this	increased	visitor	volume	at	GP,	new	parking	spaces	would	be	added	to	

the	existing	paved	parking	lots	at	GP	to	increase	parking	capacity	and	help	address	parking	

shortages	that	occur	during	peak	use	periods.	Parking	lot	additions	would	be	made	to	

accommodate	the	400	permit	holders	for	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	maximizing	the	

allowable	use	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	while	meeting	the	suggested	crowding‐related	

standard.	Approximately	30	parking	spaces	would	need	to	be	added	to	the	existing	106	

spaces	to	accommodate	all	permitted	users	while	retaining	15	parking	spaces	for	GP	

visitors	that	do	not	intend	to	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	Visitors	that	do	not	intend	to	

hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	(and	do	not	have	a	permit	to	do	so)	arriving	when	the	15	

parking	spaces	reserved	for	“other”	GP	visitors	are	full,	would	be	directed	to	pass	through	

the	area	without	stopping	by	the	onsite	parking	management	and	permit	quota	team	

(described	in	Recommendation 7: Deploy onsite parking management and permit quota

team).	This	option	provides	one	avenue	for	accommodating	the	maximum	allowable	use	on	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	while	still	meeting	the	Wilderness	standard;	however,	the	

recommendation	results	in	significant	displacement	of	visitors	not	hiking	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	and	an	expanded	footprint	at	GP.	Furthermore,	this	option	would	continue	to	

require	a	dedicated	parking	management	and	permit	quota	team	during	peak	use	periods	to	

enforce	parking	restrictions.	
567

Figure 9‐11. Phase 3, Option 2: Increase permit quota to 400 per day and expand onsite parking at GP to

accommodate permitted hikers (Recommendation 10).
568

11. Option 3: Increase the managed‐use permit system and quota to 400 permits per day,

with shuttle service from Georgetown, Colorado, for those permit holders that cannot

park in a designated space at GP.

As	noted	in	Recommendation 10,	the	Wilderness	capacity	analysis	indicates	that	up	to	400	

hikers	per	day	can	be	accommodated	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	while	still	meeting	the	

Wilderness	experience	standard	of	no	more	than	15%	of	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	users	

encountering	22	people	or	more	in	their	viewscape	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Bierstadt.	

Under	this	management	scenario,	the	managed‐use	Wilderness	day	use	permit	quota	would	

be	increased	to	this	amount	(from	300	permits	per	day)	to	maximize	visitor	access	to	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	

To	accommodate	the	additional	demand	for	permit‐holder	parking,	shuttle	buses	would	

provide	direct	service	between	a	designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Georgetown,	Colorado,	and	

the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail,	without	any	additional	en	route	stops	(Figure	9‐12).	Shuttle	

service	would	operate	throughout	the	peak	use	season,	from	Memorial	Day	weekend	

through	Labor	Day,	servicing	the	approximately	100	permit	holders	that	would	not	be	able	

to	park	at	GP.	Other	GP	visitors	not	able	to	park	in	one	of	the	designated	spaces	at	GP	would	

also	have	the	option	of	using	this	shuttle	service	to	access	GP.	An	implementation	plan	with	

updated	visitation	numbers	and	more	specific	costs	should	be	developed	before	the	

recommended	shuttle	service	is	implemented	at	GP.	

To	fully	implement	this	recommendation,	additional	infrastructure	would	be	necessary	at	

GP	and	in	Georgetown,	Colorado.	At	GP,	a	shuttle	drop‐off	and	pick‐up	area	would	need	to	

be	constructed	to	provide	protection	for	visitors	waiting	for	the	shuttle	to	return.	

Additionally,	due	to	the	continued	parking	restrictions,	this	option	would	also	require	

continued	(albeit	reduced)	presence	of	a	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	team	at	

GP	to	enforce	the	parking	allocation	policies,	prevent	unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	GP,	

and	to	ensure	that	only	permit	holders	hike	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail.	In	Georgetown,	a	

park‐and‐ride	lot	would	need	to	be	identified	and	permission	acquired	for	use	of	space.	

Infrastructure	costs	for	parking	in	Georgetown	are	not	included	in	the	rough	order	of	

magnitude	cost	estimate	provided	(see	Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility Analyses and

Recommendations by Site	for	additional	detail	on	cost	estimation	of	assumptions	for	ROM	

costs	for	this	shuttle	service).	

Implementation	of	this	option	would	provide	an	alternative	to	expanding	parking	capacity	

at	GP;	however,	implementation	would	come	with	tradeoffs	to	Wilderness	experience,	

visitor	safety,	and	cost.	For	example,	requiring	offsite	parking	and	use	of	shuttle	service	to	

access	a	Wilderness	area	increases	visitor	burden	by	decreasing	the	convenience	of	

accessing	the	area.	Additionally,	intense	afternoon	thunder	storms	are	known	to	occur	at	

GP,	particularly	in	the	higher	elevations	at	Mount	Bierstadt.	Unsafe	weather	conditions	

could	cause	surges	in	visitor	demand	for	access	to	shuttle	service	when	afternoon	

thunderstorms	hit	quickly,	and	at	times,	unexpectedly.	Shuttle	service	for	hikers	would	have	

to	accommodate	such	surges	in	demand	for	ridership	and	shelter	during	inclement	weather.	

Finally,	the	cost	per	passenger	for	this	shuttle	service	may	be	cost	prohibitive	due	to	the	low	
569

guaranteed	ridership	of	100	passengers	per	day	(those	100	permit	holders	that	cannot	be	

accommodated	by	existing	onsite	GP	parking	spaces).	
570

Figure 9‐12. Phase 3, Option 3: Increase permit quota to 400 per day and provide transit for permit

holders that will not fit in existing designated parking spaces at GP (Recommendation 11).
571

Adaptive Strategy for Long‐Term Management

As	described	in	Recommendation	1:	Implement	visitor	use	monitoring	for	adaptive	management,	a	

long‐term	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	should	be	implemented	at	GP	to	systematically	document	

trends	in	visitor	use.	Implementation	of	a	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	is	critical	to	verifying	that	

visitor	use	levels,	managed	according	to	the	proposed	recommendations,	do	not	increase	to	levels	

that	result	in	unacceptable	resource	conditions,	particularly	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	in	the	

Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	If	results	from	the	monitoring	plan	indicate	that	visitor	use	significantly	

increases	at	GP	in	the	future,	despite	implementation	of	managed‐use	strategies,	a	more	in‐depth	

study	should	be	initiated	at	that	time	to	determine	the	extent	of	increased	use	and	corresponding	

impacts	to	Wilderness	resources.	Such	in‐depth	studies	would	provide	data‐driven	

recommendations	to	evaluate	the	potential	changes	to	the	managed‐use	permit	quota	for	the	Mount	

Bierstadt	Trail	and/or	parking	at	GP.	Two	potential	management	actions	that	could	be	considered	if	

adaptive	management	of	the	implemented	recommendations	is	needed	is	reducing	the	number	of	

permits	available	for	weekday	use	and/or	increasing	the	provision	of	parking	and/or	transit	

services.		

12. Reduce permit quota for weekday Mount Bierstadt Trail use if demand shifts to

weekdays to preserve a different experience for weekday users		

Reducing	the	available	permits	for	weekday	use	may	be	warranted	if	conditions	on	the	

Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	change	significantly	during	the	week	due	to	an	influx	of	weekday	trail	

users	that	have	been	displaced	from	using	the	trail	on	the	weekend	due	to	the	permit	quota.	

Differentiating	the	number	of	available	permits	between	weekday	and	weekend	use	should	

only	be	considered	if	preserving	current	weekday	use	levels	on	the	Mount	Bierstadt	Trail	

(which	the	present	study	found	to	be	lower	than	weekend	use	levels)	is	a	management	

priority.	

13. Increase transit and/or parking at GP if displacement of other GP users is excessive		

Increasing	the	provision	of	parking	and/or	transit	service	to	GP	could	also	be	considered	as	

an	adaptive	management	strategy	if	displacement	of	existing	GP	users	is	excessive	due	to	

the	implementation	of	parking	restrictions	at	GP.	Recommended	actions	may	result	in	an	

unacceptable	level	of	visitor	displacement	from	the	site,	in	which	case	additional	parking	

and/or	transit	would	be	needed	to	increase	access	to	the	site	while	achieving	goals	of	

eliminating	unendorsed	roadside	parking.	
572

Mount Evans Recreation Area Recommendations

Overview of MERA Needs77

The	following	transportation,	recreation,	and	resource	management‐related	needs	were	identified	

at	MERA	through	considering	public	input,	reviewing	previous	studies	and	planning	documents,	

and	collecting	and	analyzing	new	baseline	data:	

 Unendorsed	roadside	parking	causes	resource	impacts	and	visitor	safety	risks.	

 Traffic	congestion	and	gridlock	occur	on	the	road	near	Summit	Lake	and	the	Mount	Evans	

Summit.	

 Conflict	exists	between	bicyclists	and	motor	vehicles	on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	

 Extreme	crowding	occurs	at	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	during	peak	periods.	

 The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	a	steep,	narrow,	and	scenic	roadway,	and	existing	

deterioration	of	the	roadway	causes	driver	safety	risks.	

MERA Recommendations

MERA	recommendations	are	organized	into	two	phases	of	implementation,	providing	short‐term	

and	long‐term	approaches	for	managing	transportation	and	visitor	use	according	to	the	physical	

capacity	of	designated	parking	at	MERA.	The	MERA	recommendations	reflect	the	paramount	

importance	to	visitors	of	scenic	auto	touring	and	need	to	address	congestion‐related	impacts	to	

scenic	driving	experiences.	The	recommendations	further	reflect	the	fact	that	Wilderness	use	at	

MERA	is	relatively	low	and	Wilderness	use	impacts	are	not	pronounced.	The	recommendations	are	

summarized	in	Table	9‐3	and	described	in	more	detail	in	the	following	subsections.	

 Phase	1	recommendations	seek	to	reduce	parking	congestion	and	unendorsed	roadside	

parking	through	active	parking	management;	visitor	use	and	user	capacity	monitoring	is	

also	recommended.	

 Phase	2	provides	three	options	for	limiting	vehicle	access	into	MERA	according	to	the	

physical	capacity	of	designated	parking	spaces,	while	maximizing	overall	visitor	use	via	

transit	and/or	a	reservation	system.	

An	adaptive	strategy	for	management	consideration	is	included	after	presentation	of	the	phased	

recommendations.	The	adaptive	management	strategy	should	be	considered	depending	on	the	

long‐term	option	selected	in	Phase	2	and	the	outcomes	of	implementing	the	selected	long‐term	

option.	

																																																													

77 See Chapter 4: Need Identification by Site for a more detailed description of need identification for MERA.
573

Table 9‐3. Implementation Plan for Transportation and Visitor Use Management Recommendations,

MERA

Recommended Alternatives by Implementation Phase Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) Costs**

Phase 1 Capital   Operating &

Maintenance

1. Deploy onsite traffic and parking management team  ‐  $41,000

2.

Coordinate parking and queuing management with CDOT through Memorandum of

Understanding ‐  $14,000

3. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking $11,000  ‐ 

4. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions $40,000 $1,000

5.

Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info

centers*   $210,000 $54,000

Update and Maintenance of ARNF Website ‐  ($14,000)

Creation and Distribution of Information at Information Centers ($10,000)  ‐ 

Development and Maintenance of Smartphone Application for ARNF ($200,000) ($40,000)

6. Designate dates and/or times for bicycle access  ‐  Included in 2

7. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management* $6,000 $20,000

Automated Traffic Recorders ($3,000) ($3,000)

Trail Counters ($3,000) ($3,000)

Annual Interim Reports and Five‐Year Evaluation for Trends ‐  ($14,000)

Phase 1 ROM** Cost $267,000 $130,000

Phase 2    

8. Option 1: Designate mandatory parking in new overflow parking lot near Welcome

Station when lots are full, and operate van tour service of MERA $1,721,000 $134,000

9. Option 2: Designate mandatory overflow parking in Idaho Springs, Colorado, and

operate transit and van tours of MERA, when lots at MERA are full   $2,475,000 $270,000

10.

Option 3: Implement a managed‐use reservation system (in partnership with

CDOT), with or without overflow parking and transit

(dependent on number and type of reservations available)

‐  $220,000

Phase 2 ROM** Cost Dependent on Option

Selected

Adaptive Management

11. If applicable and needed, move toward implementation of Option 3 (above) N/A N/A

*Recommendations with multiple line items included in cost have been broken out for context. **ROM costs are

adapted from Class C cost estimates for other similar projects and provide only a rough estimate of cost; detailed

cost estimates should be prepared prior to implementation.
574

Phase 1: Short‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

1. Deploy onsite traffic and parking management team

A	four‐person	traffic	and	parking	management	team	should	be	deployed	at	MERA	on	

weekend	days	during	the	peak	season	(approximately	Memorial	Day	Weekend	through	

Labor	Day;	Figure	9‐13)	from	8:00am	–	4:00pm.	One	staff	member	should	be	stationed	at	

each	of	the	designated	parking	lots	(i.e.,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	

summit	of	Mount	Evans).	The	three	parking	management	team	staff	members	deployed	at	

the	individual	parking	areas	inside	MERA	would	be	responsible	for	limiting	parking	to	the	

available	designated	parking	spaces	within	their	respective	parking	areas.	These	team	

members	would	use	two‐way	radios	to	communicate	with	a	fourth	member	of	the	parking	

management	team	and	the	USFS	Welcome	Station	staff	to	signal	when	parking	areas	are	full.	

The	fourth	member	of	the	parking	management	team	would	be	positioned	at	the	Welcome	

Station	to	coordinate	communication	of	parking	conditions	inside	MERA	(received	from	the	

three	other	parking	management	team	members	via	radio)	to	the	Welcome	Station	staff	and	

manage	the	queue	for	vehicle	access	to	MERA.	If	parking	inside	MERA	is	available,	staff	at	

the	Welcome	Station	would	let	arriving	visitors	enter.	If	parking	inside	MERA	is	not	

available	upon	visitor	arrival,	the	Welcome	Station	staff	would	inform	visitors	of	the	option	

to	wait	in	a	vehicle	queue	for	an	available	space	or	to	turn	around	and	leave	MERA.	The	

costs	and	associated	procedures	for	getting	a	contract	in	place	for	the	similar,	currently	

functioning,	traffic	and	parking	management	team	at	BLRA	should	be	used	as	a	model	for	

implementing	this	recommendation	at	MERA.	

2. Coordinate parking and queuing management with CDOT through MOU

Management	of	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway,	particularly	as	it	relates	to	vehicle	access	

and	road	closures,	falls	under	the	jurisdiction	of	the	Colorado	Department	of	Transportation	

(CDOT);	therefore,	CDOT	cooperation	is	needed	to	actively	manage	vehicle	access	to	MERA.	

USFS	managers	should	partner	with	CDOT	to	enforce	parking	restrictions	at	MERA	and	to	

limit	vehicle	access	to	MERA	when	parking	areas	are	full.	A	cooperative	agreement	or	a	

Memorandum	of	Understanding	(MOU)	could	be	used	to	establish	clear	roles	in	the	

jurisdiction	and	responsibility	of	the	USFS	and	CDOT	as	they	relate	to	management	of	

visitor	entry	to	MERA	via	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway.	Specifically,	an	agreement	that	

enables	the	USFS	to	prevent	vehicle	access	to	MERA	when	all	parking	areas	are	full	to	

increase	visitor	safety	and	avoid	reaching	absolute	parking	capacity	should	be	established.	

As	the	MERA	capacity	analysis	indicates,	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days,	gridlock	occurs	

on	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	such	that	vehicles	are,	in	essence,	parked	in	the	roadway.	

This	creates	visitor	safety	concerns	in	the	event	of	a	necessary	rapid	evacuation	due	to	

inclement	weather.	Vehicle	queues	at	the	Welcome	Station	have	historically	impacted	traffic	

flow	on	the	I‐70	corridor,	creating	additional	visitor	safety	concerns.	Through	a	partnership	

enabling	active	management	of	vehicle	entries	and	queuing,	the	USFS	and	CDOT	can	

improve	visitor	safety	and	experience.	
575

3. Install onsite signs and barriers to deter and prevent unendorsed roadside parking

Roadside	signs	and	barriers	should	be	installed	on	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	at	the	

Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	Summit	Lake,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	to	prevent	

roadside	parking	from	occurring	when	parking	lots	in	these	locations	are	full	(Figure	9‐13).	

This	recommendation	should	be	paired	with	a	dedicated	traffic	and	parking	management	

team	in	MERA	to	be	effective	in	preventing	the	occurrence	of	unendorsed	roadside	parking	

(as	described	in	detail	in	Recommendation 1: Deploy onsite traffic and parking management

team).	

4. Deploy variable message signs to communicate traffic and parking conditions

The	MERA	parking	capacity	analysis	indicates	that	parking	capacity	is	exceeded	at	MERA	

such	that	absolute	parking	capacity	is	reached,	creating	gridlock	in	parking	areas	and	on	the	

road	way.	A	portable	(trailer	style)	variable	message	sign	(VMS;	Figure	9‐2)	should	be	

placed	in	an	approved	highway	location	en	route	to	MERA	on	Route	103	near	Idaho	Springs,	

Colorado,	to	provide	arriving	visitors	with	up‐to‐date	parking	and	traffic	information.	

Messages	displayed	on	the	VMS	should	be	used	to	inform	visitors	of	available	parking	and	

scenic	driving	conditions,	using	messages	such	as,	“All	Mount	Evans	Parking	Full,	50	Minute	

Wait	Time,”	or,	“Congested	Road	Conditions,	Consider	Alternate	Route	for	Scenic	Driving.”	

Alternative	VMS	messages	for	other	MERA	parking	conditions	include,	“All	Mount	Evans	

Parking	Open,”	or	“Use	Mount	Goliath	Parking	Area.”	Using	VMS	in	this	manner	would	assist	

the	parking	management	team	in	1)	directing	visitors	to	available	parking	options,	and	2)	

restricting	unendorsed	parking	through	setting	visitor	expectations	about	available	parking	

options	before	arrival	at	the	Welcome	Station	(Figure	9‐13).		
576

Figure 9‐13. Phase 1 Recommendations: Onsite parking management within MERA and VMS

(Recommendations 1‐4)
577

5. Provide pre‐trip information through ARNF website, smartphone apps, and info centers

MERA	survey	data	show	that	83%	of	visitors	to	MERA	report	that	they	would	likely	use	the	

ARNF	website	as	a	source	of	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	at	MERA,	if	

it	was	available	for	planning	a	future	trip.	Other	sources	of	information	that	ranked	highly	

among	MERA	visitors	include	tourist	information	centers	(65%)	and	smartphone	

applications	(64%).	Currently,	detailed	information	about	peak	use	times	and	parking	

conditions	at	MERA	is	not	readily	available	on	the	ARNF	website.	Pre‐trip	information	

should	be	made	available	to	MERA	visitors	via	web	resources	and	tourist	information	

centers	with	messages	and	related	content	designed	to	provide	visitors	with	information	

about	peak‐period	conditions	and	parking	availability.	Additionally,	messaging	encouraging	

visitation	during	off‐peak	periods	may	also	be	useful	to	visitor	planning.	Links	to	websites	

and	information	about	other	outdoor	recreation	and	tourist	destinations	in	the	vicinity	of	

MERA,	particularly	other	scenic	driving	areas,	could	also	be	provided	to	inform	visitors	of	

options	to	consider	as	alternatives	to	visiting	MERA	during	peak	periods.	This	component	

could	be	coupled	with	one	or	more	future	transit	components	to	provide	pre‐trip	

information	about	shuttle	service	and	parking	options	to	visitors.	

Paper	brochures	should	be	made	available	at	tourist	information	centers	to	distribute	

information	about	parking	management	practices	and	policies,	maps	of	alternative	parking	

locations	and	connector	trails,	and	information	about	peak	use	times	and/or	recreation	

alternatives.		

Visitors	across	all	three	study	sites	indicated	that	they	would	be	likely	to	use	a	smartphone	

application	to	access	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	if	it	was	available	

for	planning	a	future	trip.	A	smartphone	application	should	be	developed	for	the	ARNF,	

providing	information	about	parking	and	crowding	conditions	specific	to	each	of	the	three	

study	sites.	The	ROM	cost	provided	for	the	smartphone	application	(included	in	Table	9‐3)	

provides	an	estimate	of	the	cost	for	development	of	a	single	application,	rather	than	an	

application	specific	to	GP.		

It	should	be	noted	that	other	methods	of	information	provision	such	as	using	social	media,	

highway	advisory	radio,	telephone	information	lines,	and	text	updates	tended	to	receive	

significantly	less	anticipated	use	than	website,	tourist	information	center,	and	smartphone	

app	options	for	communicating	pre‐trip	information.	

6. Designate dates and/or times for bicycle access

Specific	days	of	the	week	and/or	times	of	day	should	be	designated	for	bicycle	access	on	the	

Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	between	the	Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

Under	this	management	action,	cyclists	would	be	allowed	access	to	MERA	only	during	

designated	periods.	Managers	could	consider	limiting	or	prohibiting	motor	vehicle	access	

during	periods	of	designated	bicycle	access	to	reduce	conflicts	between	bicycles	and	motor	

vehicles.	
578

7. Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive management

A	long‐term	plan	for	visitor	use	monitoring	should	be	implemented	to	gauge	the	impact	of	

visitor	use	on	resource	conditions	at	MERA.	The	MERA	capacity	analysis	suggests	that	

parking	capacity	is	exceeded	at	current	visitor	use	levels.	Results	from	the	visitor	survey	

also	suggest	that	scenic	driving	is	the	primary	visitor	activity	at	MERA,	and	that	a	small	

proportion	of	visitors	that	hike	to	the	true	summit	of	MERA	do	not	feel	crowded	on	the	

summit.	These	conclusions	about	capacity	and	visitor	use	are	derived	from	baseline	

measurements	of	use	under	current	visitor	use	and	transportation	management	strategies.	

Through	the	implementation	of	a	long‐term	visitor	use	management	plan,	managers	will	be	

able	to	identify	trends	in	visitor	use	that	can	be	used	to	understand	if	resource	conditions	

are	likely	to	be	impacted	by	changes	in	visitor	use	levels	and	patterns.	

To	implement	a	long‐term	monitoring	plan,	one	Automated	Traffic	Recorder	(ATR)	and	

three	trail	counters	should	be	deployed	in	the	same	locations	as	they	were	deployed	during	

the	2012	baseline	data	collection.	This	includes	an	ATR	on	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	

and	trail	counters	at	each	the	following	trails:	to	the	Mount	Evans	Trail	(Summit	Lake	area),	

the	Overlook	Trail	(Summit	Lake	area),	and	Summit	Trail	(Mount	Evans	summit;	Figure	

9‐14).	Interim	visitor	use	monitoring	reports	should	be	issued	on	an	annual	basis,	with	an	

in‐depth	evaluation	every	five	years	to	identify	trends	and	determine	if	adaptive	strategies	

for	visitor	use	management	should	be	considered.		
579

Figure 9‐14. Phase 1 Recommendation: ATRs and trail counters for visitor use monitoring at MERA

(Recommendation 7).
580

Phase 2: Options for Long‐Term Visitor Use, Parking, and Traffic Management Components

As	indicated	by	results	of	the	MERA	capacity	analysis,	visitor	demand	for	parking	in	MERA	exceeds	

available	parking	capacity.	In	fact,	baseline	data	collection	of	traffic	and	parking	conditions	from	

2012	show	that	MERA	reaches	absolute	capacity	on	typically	busy	peak	season	days.	Data	from	the	

visitor	survey	also	suggest	that	scenic	driving	is	the	primary	visitor	activity	at	MERA,	and	that	

crowding	on	the	“true”	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	not	a	concern	for	visitors	who	make	it	there.	

These	data	together	suggest	that	parking	capacity,	rather	than	Wilderness	capacity,	is	the	limiting	

factor	at	MERA.	The	recommendations	included	in	Phase	1	are	anticipated	to	only	partially	reduce	

unendorsed	roadside	parking	at	MERA	because	the	recommended	actions	do	not	reduce	and/or	

actively	manage	visitor	demand	for	access	into	MERA.	The	three	Phase	2	options	for	visitor	use	and	

transportation	management	included	in	the	section	to	follow	seek	to	build	upon	the	progress	

generated	through	implementation	of	Phase	1	recommendations	to	manage	visitor	demand	and	

access	to	MERA	such	that	parking	capacity	is	not	exceeded.	

8. Option 1: Designate mandatory parking in new overflow parking lot near Welcome

Station when lots are full, and operate a circulator shuttle service of MERA

A	new	overflow	parking	lot	would	be	constructed	near	the	MERA	Welcome	Station	(Figure	

9‐15).	When	all	available	parking	lots	in	MERA	are	full,	USFS	staff	members	at	the	Welcome	

Station	would	not	allow	visitors	to	continue	entering	MERA.	Instead,	arriving	vehicles	

would	be	directed	to	park	in	the	newly	constructed	overflow	parking	area	by	a	member	of	

the	parking	and	traffic	management	team.	When	all	available	overflow	parking	is	full,	

arriving	visitors	would	be	turned	away	at	the	Welcome	Station	in	order	to	prevent	unsafe	

traffic	conditions	within	MERA	and	on	the	surrounding	roadways.

Onsite	scoping	suggests	that	there	are	limited	opportunities	for	constructing	a	new	parking	

area	near	the	MERA	Welcome	Station.	The	new	parking	area	would	need	to	accommodate	

120	vehicles	in	order	to	accommodate	current	visitor	demand	for	access	to	MERA.	The	

following	two	potential	options	for	overflow	vehicle	parking	were	identified	through	the	

transit	feasibility	analysis:	1)	a	property	adjacent	to	Echo	Lake	Lodge	and	Campground,	and	

2)	the	old	Echo	Lake	Ski	Area.	To	date,	contact	with	land	owners	has	not	be	made	to	

determine	feasibility	of	actually	developing	such	options.	

A	circulator	shuttle	between	the	proposed	overflow	parking	lot	near	the	Welcome	Station	

and	MERA	destinations	would	have	to	be	implemented	in	conjunction	with	mandatory	

parking	in	the	overflow	lot	to	provide	site	access	to	visitors	from	this	lot.	The	transit	

demand	analysis	for	this	shuttle	service	option	estimates	that	approximately	552	

passengers	per	day	would	use	the	service.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	between	the	newly	

constructed	overflow	parking	area	near	the	Welcome	Station	and	the	summit	of	Mount	

Evans,	with	en	route	shuttle	stops	at	Echo	Lake	Campground,	Mount	Goliath	Natural	Area,	

and	Summit	Lake.	Shuttle	service	would	operate	on	weekends	and	holidays	from	Memorial	

Day	weekend	through	Labor	Day,	running	from	10:00	am	to	7:30	pm	to	accommodate	

visitor	demand.	The	proposed	service	route	would	run	on	a	20‐minute	loop,	with	wait	times	

decreasing	during	peak	periods	with	the	addition	of	extra	shuttles	servicing	the	route.	The	
581

parking	capacity	and	transit	ridership	demand	analyses	are	reported	in	Chapter 6: ARNF

Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis, by Site,	and	the	estimated	costs	and	

proposed	schedule	and	operation	details	are	described	in	Chapter 7: Transit Feasibility

Analyses and Recommendations by Site.	An	implementation	plan	with	updated	visitation	

numbers	and	more	specific	costs	should	be	developed	before	the	recommended	shuttle	

service	is	implemented	at	MERA.	
582

Figure 9‐15. Phase 2, Option 1: Overflow parking at Welcome Station with shuttle to Mount Evans

Summit (Recommendation 8).
583

9. Option 2: Designate mandatory overflow parking in Idaho Springs, Colorado, and

operate transit and van tours of MERA, when lots at MERA are full

When	parking	lots	inside	MERA	are	filled	to	capacity,	arriving	visitors	would	not	be	allowed	

to	enter	MERA.	En	route	VMS	on	I‐70	(before	Idaho	Springs)	and	on	Highway	103	would	be	

updated	with	messaging	to	indicate	that	all	MERA	visitors	must	park	in	Idaho	Springs	and	

take	a	shuttle	to	access	MERA	(Figure	9‐16).	Shuttle	service	would	operate	between	a	

designated	park‐and‐ride	lot	in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado,	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	En	

route	shuttle	stops	would	occur	at	Echo	Lake,	Echo	Lake	Campground,	Mount	Goliath	

Natural	Area,	and	Summit	Lake.	The	transit	demand	analysis	for	this	shuttle	service	option	

estimates	that	approximately	211	passengers	per	day	would	use	this	service	if	it	was	their	

only	option	for	visiting	MERA.	Shuttle	service	would	run	from	10:00	a.m.	to	approximately	

8:00	p.m.	The	parking	capacity	and	transit	ridership	demand	analyses	are	reported	in	

Chapter 6: ARNF Integrated User Capacity and Transit Demand Analysis, by Site.	The	

estimated	costs,	proposed	schedule,	and	operation	details	are	described	in	Chapter 7:

Transit Feasibility Analyses and Recommendations by Site.	An	implementation	plan	with	

updated	visitation	numbers	and	more	specific	costs	should	be	developed	before	the	

recommended	shuttle	service	is	implemented	at	MERA.	

This	potential	option	for	accommodating	visitor	demand	for	access	while	managing	to	

parking	capacity	has	tradeoffs	that	impact	the	effectiveness	of	this	option.	First,	in	order	to	

fully	implement	this	recommendation,	a	park‐and‐ride	location	would	have	to	be	identified	

in	Idaho	Springs,	Colorado.	Onsite	scoping	suggests	that	potential	options	for	parking	in	

Idaho	Springs	include	the	Idaho	Springs	High	School,	USFS	Visitor	Center,	and	the	

fairgrounds/rodeo	located	along	I‐70.	At	this	time,	these	options	have	not	been	explored	for	

feasibility,	and	land	owners	have	not	been	contacted.	Additionally,	cost	per	passenger	for	

this	option	is	estimated	to	range	from	approximately	$29.00	to	$33.00	per	passenger	

depending	on	vehicle	acquisition	by	the	USFS	—	implementation	of	this	option	may	be	cost	

prohibitive	due	to	high	cost	per	passenger.	Finally,	estimated	ridership	was	determined	

through	asking	MERA	visitors	if	they	would	be	likely	to	use	the	shuttle	service	if	it	was	their	

only	option	for	visiting	MERA	on	a	future	trip.	Only	23%	of	respondents	indicated	that	they	

would	be	likely	to	use	the	shuttle	service.	It	was	assumed	that	the	remaining	66%	would	

choose	to	go	somewhere	else.	Due	to	the	primacy	of	scenic	driving	as	an	activity	and	the	

longer	shuttle	ride	between	Mount	Evans	and	Idaho	Springs,	it	is	not	anticipated	that	this	

shuttle	service	would	be	fully	utilize.	
584

Figure 9‐16. Phase 2, Option 2: Overflow parking at Welcome Station with shuttle to Mount Evans

summit (Recommendation 9)
585

10. Option 3: Implement a managed‐use reservation system (in partnership with CDOT),

with or without overflow parking and transit

A	managed‐use	reservation	system	and	quota	would	be	implemented	to	manage	the	

number	and	arrival	pattern	of	day	use	visitors	in	MERA	(Figure	9‐17).	Under	such	a	system,	

all	visitors	would	be	required	to	obtain	and	display	a	permit	for	a	specific	date	and	time	

period	during	which	they	would	be	allowed	to	enter	MERA.	Through	stratifying	

reservations	by	date	and	time	of	day,	the	permit	system	could	maximize	the	number	of	

individuals	able	to	access	MERA	while	ensuring	that	parking	capacity	is	not	exceeded	at	

approximately	620	vehicles	per	day.	An	online	reservation	system	should	be	used	to	allow	

visitors	to	obtain	their	permits	in	advance	of	their	trip	to	MERA.	The	number	and	

distribution	of	day	use	permits	would	be	based	on	the	parking	capacity	of	MERA.	This	

option	could	be	implemented	with	or	without	overflow	parking	and/or	transit	service.	
586

Figure 9‐17. Phase 2, Option 3: Day use reservation system for access to MERA (Recommendation 11).
587

11. Adaptive Strategy for Long‐Term Management

As	described	in	Recommendation 7: Implement visitor use monitoring for adaptive

management,	a	long‐term	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	should	be	implemented	at	MERA	to	

identify	trends	in	visitor	use.	Implementation	of	a	visitor	use	monitoring	plan	is	critical	to	

verifying	that	visitor	use	levels,	managed	according	to	the	proposed	recommendations,	do	

not	increase	to	levels	that	result	in	unacceptable	resource	conditions.	This	is	particularly	

important	for	conditions	on	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	which	were	show	to	be	acceptable	

under	current	use	by	visitor	survey	results.	If	results	from	the	monitoring	plan	indicate	that	

visitor	use	significantly	increases	at	MERA	in	the	future,	despite	implementation	of	

managed‐use	strategies,	a	more	in‐depth	study	should	be	undertaken	at	that	time	to	

determine	the	extent	of	increased	use	and	corresponding	impacts	to	scenic	driving	and	

Wilderness	resources	in	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness.	Such	in‐depth	studies	would	provide	

data‐driven	recommendations	to	evaluate	the	potential	changes	to	visitor	use	and	

transportation	management	strategies	at	MERA.	

A	potential	management	action	that	could	be	considered	if	adaptive	management	of	the	

implemented	recommendations	is	needed,	and	dependent	on	which	long‐term	management	

option	is	selected	for	initial	implementation,	is	moving	from	a	scenario	that	relies	on	

overflow	parking	and/or	provision	of	transit	to	manage	visitor	use	and	access	to	moving	

toward	implementation	of	a	managed‐use	reservation	system	(described	in	

Recommendation 10).	This	action	could	be	considered	if	the	addition	on	overflow	parking	

and/or	shuttle	service	(if	Options	1	or	2	are	chosen)	are	insufficient	to	meet	the	demand	for	

visitor	access	to	MERA.	
APPENDIX A. BLRA INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS VISITOR SURVEY

INSTRUMENT   













APPENDIX B. BLRA DAY USE AREA VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT










APPENDIX C. BLRA GATEWAY TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT VISITOR

SURVEY INSTRUMENT   











APPENDIX D. BLRA INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS VISITOR SURVEY

CODE BOOK
Variable Name Description Question Values

ID Survey ID number Front page #

Date Date of survey Front page mm/dd/yyyy

Weekend Whether or not survey was administered on a weekend day or weekday Front page 0 = Weekday 1 = Weekend

Time Time at which respondent began survey Front page hh:mm AM/PM

ShuttleCar Whether or not the respondent used a shuttle car Front page

0 = No

1 = Yes

Respondent Whether the respondent was a driver or passenger Front page

1 = Driver

2 = Passenger

Motorcycle Whether or not the respondent drove in on a motorcycle Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Weather Weather conditions at the start of the survey Front page

1 = Sunny

2 = Partly

3 = Overcast4 = Raining

CampPawnee Whether or not respondent camped at Pawnee Campground Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

SpecialEvent Whether or not there was a special event at the survey site that day Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Event_Text Description of the special event Front page text

Q1_GroupSize Number of people in respondent's personal group Q1 #

Q1_GroupSizeCat Number of people in group, categorized Q1

1 = 1 Person

2 = 2 People

3 = 3 or 4 People5 = 5 or more Peop
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q2_ChildrenInGroup Presence of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q2_NumChild Number of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 #

Q2_NumChildCat Number of children in group, categorized Q2

1 = 1 Child

2 = 2 Children3 = 3 or 4 Children5 = 5 or more Child

Q3_DayVsOvernight Whether respondent's hike was a day‐hike or part of an overnight hike Q3 1 = Day hike 2 = Overnight backp

Q3_NumberNights Number of nights of overnight backpacking Q3 #

Q4_OvernightTrailhead Trailhead that respondent began overnight hike Q4

1 = Mitchell Lake Tr

2 = Long Lake Trailh

3 = Other Trailhead

Q4_OtherSpecify Description of other trailhead respondent began overnight hike Q4 text

Q5A_HoursHiked Approximate number of hours respondent hiked in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Q5 99 = Don't know/No

Q5A_HoursHikedCat Approximate number of hours respondent hiked in the Indian Peaks Wilderness, categorized Q5

1 = 1 hour

2 = 2‐3 hours4 = 4‐5 hours6 = 6‐7 hours8 = 8 or more hours

99 = Don't know/No

Q5C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of time spent hiking in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Q5 99 = Don't know/No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q6A_StartedHike Location of where respondent started their hike in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Q6

1 = Day Use Parking 

Brainard Lake

2 = Mitchell Lake Tr

3 = Long Lake Trailh

4 = Pawnee Campg5 = Backcountry cam

6 = Other99 = Don't know/No

Q6A_StartedHike_Recode

Location of where respondent started their hike in

the Indian Peaks Wilderness, recoded depending on

their Q7_Location responses

Q6

1 = Day Use Parking 

Brainard Lake

2 = Mitchell Lake Tr

3 = Long Lake Trailh

4 = Pawnee Campg5 = Backcountry cam

6 = Other99 = Don't know/No

Q6A_Specify Description of where respondent started their hike Q6 text

Q6B_EndedHike Location of where respondent ended their hike in the Indian Peaks Wilderness Q6

1 = Day Use Parking 

Brainard Lake

2 = Mitchell Lake Tr

3 = Long Lake Trailh

4 = Pawnee Campg5 = Backcountry cam

6 = Other99 = Don't know/No

Q6B_Specify Description of where respondent ended their hike Q6 text

Q7_LongLakeRecode Whether or not respondent has hiked near the Long Lake recreation area Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7_MitchellLakeRecode Whether or not respondent has hiked near the Mitchell Lake recreation area Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7A_MitchellLake Q7 0 = No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed

through: Mitchell Lake 1 = Yes

Q7B_BlueLake Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Blue Lake Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7C_LongLake Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Long Lake Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7D_LakeIsabelle Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Lake Isabelle Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7E_IsabelleGlacier Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Isabelle Glacier Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7F_ShoshoniPeak Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Shoshoni Peak Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7G_PawneePass Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Pawnee Pass Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7H_PawneePeak Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Pawnee Peak Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7I_PaiutePeak Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Paiute Peak Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7J_MtToll Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Mt. Toll Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7K_MtAudubon Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Mt. Audubon Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7L_ApachePeak Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Apache Peak Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7M_Other Whether or not respondent has hiked to or passed through: Other locations Q7 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q7M_OtherSpecify Description of other locations respondent has hiked to or passed through Q7 text
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q8_PrimaryDestination Respondent's primary destination for this trip Q8

1 = Mitchell Lake2 = Blue Lake

3 = Long lake

4 = Lake Isabelle

5 = Isabelle Glacier

6 = Shoshoni Peak

7 = Pawnee Pass8 = Pawnee Peak

9 = Paiute Peak

10 = Mt. Toll

11 = Mt. Audubon12 = Apache Peak

13 = Other

99 = Did not have a 

Q9A_YesTrailCrowd Whether or not respondent felt crowded in the Indian Peaks Wilderness trails Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q9B_YesDestinations Whether or not respondent felt crowded at the Indian Peaks Wilderness destinations Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q9C_No Whether or not respondent did NOT feel crowded during his/her hike Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10_RushedSlow

Whether or not presence respondent felt rushed or

was slowed down by presence of other people on

trails

Q10

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11_MaxNumPeople

Maximum number of people respondent could

pass/be passed by during hike and NOT feel

crowded

Q11

# of people (0‐40)41 = >40 people

98 = The number of 

encounter doesn't 

not I feel crowded

99 = Don't know/No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q11_MaxNumPeopleCat

Maximum number of people respondent could

pass/be passed by during hike and NOT feel

crowded, categorized

Q11

0 = 0 People

1 = 1 to more than 

98 = Number of oth

encounter doesn't 

not I feel crowded

99 = Don't know/No

Q11_MaxNumPeopleCat_Buckets

Maximum number of people respondent could

pass/be passed by during hike and NOT feel

crowded, categorized

Q11

0 = 0 People

1 = 1 Person2 = 2 to 9 People10 = 10 to 19 Peopl

20 = 20 to 29 Peopl

30 = 30 to 39 Peopl

40 = 40 or more Pe98 = Number of oth

encounter doesn't 

not I feel crowded

99 = Don't know/No

Q12A_VisitorsExperience

Whether or not respondent believes the number of

people hiking in Indian Peaks Wilderness should belimited to: Protect the quality of visitors'

experiences (i.e., to prevent crowding)

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes99 = Don't know/No

Q12B_EnvImpacts

Whether or not respondent believes the number of

people hiking in Indian Peaks Wilderness should belimited to: Reduce environmental impacts

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes99 = Don't know/No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q13_RouteComplete Which routes respondent used to travel to and from BLRA Q13

1 = Route #1 to BLR

BLRA2 = Route #1 to BLR

BLRA3 = Route #1 to BLR

BLRA4 = Route #1 to BLR

BLRA5 = Route #2 to BLRBLRA6 = Route #2 to BLRBLRA7 = Route #2 to BLRBLRA8 = Route #2 to BLRBLRA9 = Route #3 to BLR

BLRA10 = Route #3 to BL

BLRA11 = Route #3 to BL

BLRA12 = Route #3 to BL

BLRA13 = Route #4 to BL

BLRA14 = Route #4 to BL

BLRA15 = Route #4 to BL

BLRA16 = Route #4 to BL

BLRA
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q13_RouteToBLRA Which route respondent used to travel to BLRA Q13

1 = Route #1 on rou

2 = Route #2 on rou

3 = Route #3 on rou

4 = Route #4 on rou

5 = Other99 = Don't know/No

Q13_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route to BLRA Q13 text

Q14_RouteHome Which route respondent will use to travel when they leave BLRA Q14

1 = Route #1 on rou

2 = Route #2 on rou

3 = Route #3 on rou

4 = Route #4 on rou

5 = Other99 = Don't know/No

Q14_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route leaving BLRA Q14 text

Q15A_ArrivalTime Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today Q15 hh:mm AM/PM

Q15A_ArrivalTimeCat Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today, categorized Q15

5 = Before 7 AM

7 = 7 AM to 8:59 AM

9 = 9 AM to 10:59 A

11 = 11 AM to 12:513 = 1 PM to 2:59 P

15 = After 3 PM

Q15B_DifferentDay Whether or not respondent arrived at BLRA on a different day Q15

0 = Respondent ind

time today

1 = Respondent arr

day

Q15B_Specify Date of respondent's arrival, if on a different day Q15 mm/dd/yyyy

Q15C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of arrival time at BLRA Q15 0 = Respondent ind

BLRA today, OR resBLRA on a different 
Variable Name Description Question Values

1 = Respondent doe

of arrival time at BL

Q16A_NumVehicles Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to BLRA Q16 #

Q16A_NumVehiclesCat Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to BLRA, categorized Q16

1 = 1 car

2 = 2 cars3 = 3 or more cars

Q17_WherePark Where respondent parked in BLRA Q17

1 = Day Use Parking 

Brainard Lake

2 = Long Lake Trailh

3 = Mitchell Lake Tr

4 = Along the Roads5 = Pawnee Campg6 = Other

Q17_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's alternate parking location

Q17

text

Q17_WherePark_DayUseVsTrailhead Whether respondent parked in the Day Use Parking lot or one of the Trailhead Parking lots 1 = Day Use Parking 

2 = Long Lake or M

Parking Lot

Q18A_Safe Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Safe Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q18B_Convenient Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Convenient Q18

1 = Strongly Agree2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q18C_EasyToFind Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Easy to find Q18 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q18D_CloseToDestination Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Close to destination(s) Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q18E_WellMarked Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Well marked (e.g., paint striping) Q18

1 = Strongly Agree2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q18F_Uncongested Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Uncongested Q18

1 = Strongly Agree2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q19_HowMuchParkingCong How much parking congestion there was when respondent parked Q19

1 = No Parking Con

2 = Slight Parking C345 = Moderate Parki6789 = Extreme Parking 

Q20_LotNearEnt Did respondent know that parking in Gateway Lot doesn't require a fee Q20

1 = Yes, and we dro

more cars there

2 = Yes, but nobody parked there
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = No, but I would 

there anyway

4 = No, and I would 

if I knew

Q21A_ParkInLotNearEnt

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and

walk/hike about 3 miles on a trail to where he/she

started hiking

Q21

1 = Would be likely 

2 = Probably would

Q21B_10minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and take a

10 minute shuttle bus ride to where he/she started

hiking

Q21

1 = Would be likely 

2 = Probably would

Q21C_40minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in town and take a 40

minute shuttle bus ride to where he/she started

hiking

Q21

1 = Would be likely 

2 = Probably would

Q22A_DriveParkWherever

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA

are full, people should be: Allowed to enter BLRAand drive around until a parking space opens up

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q22B_StoppedEntStation

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA

are full, people should be: Stopped at the entrancestation until some parking spaces open up and only

then allowed to enter

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q22C_GatewayHike

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA

are full, people should be: Directed to park at thelot near Gateway Lot and walk/hike about 3 miles

on a trail to their destination(s) in BLRA

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q22D_10MinShuttle Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full, people should be: Directed to park at the Q22 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree
Variable Name Description Question Values

lot near Gateway Lot and take a 10 minute shuttle

bus ride to their destination(s) in BLRA

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q22E_40MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA

are full, people should be: Directed to park in townand take a 40 minute shuttle bus ride to their

destination(s) in BLRA

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q22F_OtherRecAreas

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA

are full, people should be: Directed to other

recreation areas instead of visiting BLRA that day

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree n4 = Disagree5 = Strongly Disagre

Q23_DecideToTakeTrip How long ago respondent decided to visit BLRA Q23

1 = Sometime today

2 = Yesterday

3 = In the last week

4 = More than a we

a month ago

5 = A month or mor

Q24_DifficultParking

Whether or not respondent thought that it might

be difficult to find parking in BLRA, when they

planned their trip

Q24

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q25A_DidNotAffect The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA: Did not affect respondent's plans Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25B_VisitedTimeOfDay

The possibility that it might be difficult to find

parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Visit at a

time of day they thought would be less crowded

Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q25C_VisitedDayOfWeek

The possibility that it might be difficult to find

parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Visit on a

day of the week they thought would be less

crowded

Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q25D_AvoidedPlaces

The possibility that it might be difficult to find

parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Avoid places

in BLRA they thought would be crowded

Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q25E_Other

The possibility that it might be difficult to find

parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Take other

action

Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q25E_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other action Q25 text

Q26A_Website

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Website

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26B_Smartphone

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Smartphone app

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26C_SocialMedia

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26D_TextUpdates

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Text updates on cell phone/smartphone

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26E_AMRadio

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding: AM

radio station

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26F_TelephoneMessage

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Telephone info line w/ message update daily

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26G_TelephonePerson

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Telephone info line w/ live person

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26H_TouristCenter Q26

1 = Likely2 = Not likely
Variable Name Description Question Values

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Tourist info center

99 = Don't know/No

Q26I_Other

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use

this source for info about parking and crowding:

Other info source

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/No

Q26I_OtherSpecify Description of other info source respondent would use Q26 text

Q27_Gender Respondent's gender Q27

1 = Male

2 = Female

Q28_YearBorn Respondent's year of birth Q28 ####

Q28_Age Respondent's age Q28 #

Q28_AgeCat Respondent's age, categorized Q28

18 = 18 to 24

25 = 25 to 3435 = 35 to 44

45 = 45 to 54

55 = 55 to 64

65 = 65 and older

Q29_LiveInUS Whether or not respondent lives in the United States Q29 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q29_ZipCode Respondent's zip code, if a resident of the US Q29 #####

Q29_Country Respondent's country of residence Q29 text

Q29_State Respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the US Q29 text

Q29_County Respondent's county of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q29 text

Q29_MetroArea Respondent’s metropolitan area of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q29 text

Q30_Education Highest level of formal education that respondent has completed Q30

1 = Some high scho

2 = High school gra

3 = Some college, bschool
Variable Name Description Question Values

4 = College, busines

graduate

5 = Some graduate 6 = Master's, docto

degree

Q31_Hispanic Whether or not respondent is Hispanic or Latino Q31

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q32A_AmericanIndian Whether or not respondent's race is: American Indian or Alaska Native Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32B_Asian Whether or not respondent's race is: Asian Q32

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q32C_Black Whether or not respondent's race is: Black of African American Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32D_NativeHawaiian Whether or not respondent's race is: Native Hawaiian Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32E_PacificIslander Whether or not respondent's race is: Pacific Islander other than Native Hawaiian Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32F_White Whether or not respondent's race is: White Q32

0 = No

1 = Yes
APPENDIX E. BLRA DAY USE AREA VISITOR SURVEY CODE BOOK
Variable Name Description Question Values

ID Survey ID number Front page #

Date Date of survey Front page mm/dd/yyyy

Weekend Whether or not survey was administered on a weekend day or weekday Front page 0 = Weekday 1 = Weekend

Time Time at which respondent began survey Front page hh:mm AM/PM

Respondent Whether the respondent was a driver or passenger Front page

1 = Driver

2 = Passenger

Weather Weather conditions at the start of the survey Front page

1 = Sunny

2 = Partly

3 = Overcast4 = Raining

Motorcycle Whether or not the respondent drove in on a motorcycle Front page

0 = No

1 = Yes

SpecialEvent Whether or not there was a special event at the survey site that day Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Event_Text Description of the special event Front page text

Q1_GroupSize Number of people in respondent's personal group Q1 #

Q1_GroupSizeCat Number of people in group, categorized Q1

1 = 1 Person

2 = 2 People3 = 3 or 4 People5 = 5 or more Pe

Q2_ChildrenInGroup Presence of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q2_NumberChild Number of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 #
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q2_NumChildCat Number of children in group, categorized Q2

1 = 1 Child

2 = 2 Children3 = 3 or 4 Childr

5 = 5 or more Ch

Q3A_BrainardLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Brainard Lake Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3B_RedRockLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Red Rock lake Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3C_LongLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Long Lake Trail Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3D_MitchellLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Mitchell Lake Trail Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3E_PawneeCG Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Pawnee Campground Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3F_LeftHandPark Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Left Hand Park Reservoir Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3G_Other Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Other location Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3G_OtherSpecify Description of other location respondent has visited/will visit Q3 text

Q4_PrimaryDestination Respondent's primary destination for this trip Q4

1 = Brainard Lak

2 = Red Rock Lak3 = Long Lake Tr

4 = Mitchell Lake 

5 = Pawnee Cam

6 = Left Hand Pa

7 = Other99 = I do not hav

on this trip to BL

Q5A_Walking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Walking/Short hike (less than 1 hour) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q5B_DayHiking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Day hiking (more than 1 hour) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5C_Backpacking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Backpacking Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5C_Nights Number of nights respondent backpacked in BLRA Q5 #

Q5D_CampingPawnee Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Camping in Pawnee Campground Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5D_Nights Number of nights respondent camped in Pawnee Campground Q5 #

Q5D_NightsCat Number of nights respondent camped in Pawnee Campground, categorized Q5

1 = 1 night

2 = 2 nights3 = 3 or more ni

Q5E_Picnicking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Picnicking Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5F_Swimming Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Swimming Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5G_Boating Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Boating Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5H_Fishing Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Fishing Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5I_MountainBiking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Mountain biking Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5J_CreativeArts Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Creative arts (photography/drawing/painting/writing) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5K_Other Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Other activity Q5

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5K_OtherSpecify Description of other activity respondent has done/will do Q5 text

Q6_PrimaryActivity Respondent's primary activity for this trip Q6

1 = Walking/Sho

hour)

2 = Day hiking (m
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Backpacking

4 = Camping in P

5 = Picnicking

6 = Swimming7 = Boating8 = Fishing9 = Mountain bi10 = Creative art(photography/d11 = Other

99 = Did not hav
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7_RouteComplete Which routes respondent used to travel to and from BLRA Q7

1 = Route #1 to BLRA2 = Route #1 to BLRA3 = Route #1 to BLRA4 = Route #1 to 

BLRA5 = Route #2 to BLRA6 = Route #2 to BLRA7 = Route #2 to BLRA8 = Route #2 to BLRA9 = Route #3 to 

BLRA10 = Route #3 to BLRA11 = Route #3 to BLRA12 = Route #3 to BLRA13 = Route #4 to BLRA14 = Route #4 to 

BLRA15 = Route #4 to BLRA16 = Route #4 to BLRA
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7_RouteToBLRA Which route respondent used to travel to BLRA Q7

1 = Route #1 on 

2 = Route #2 on 

3 = Route #3 on 

4 = Route #4 on 

5 = Other99 = Don't know

Q7_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route to BLRA Q7 text

Q8_RouteHome Which route respondent will use to travel when they leave BLRA Q8

1 = Route #1 on 

2 = Route #2 on 

3 = Route #3 on 

4 = Route #4 on 

5 = Other99 = Don't know

Q8_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route leaving BLRA Q8 text

Q9A_ArrivalTime Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today Q9 hh:mm AM/PM

Q9A_ArrivalTimeCat Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today, categorized Q9

5 = Before 7 AM

7 = 7 AM to 8:59 

9 = 9 AM to 10:5

11 = 11 AM to 1

13 = 1 PM to 2:5

15 = After 3 PM

Q9B_DifferentDay Whether or not respondent arrived at BLRA on a different day Q9

0 = Respondent 

time today

1 = Respondent 

day

Q9B_Specify Date of respondent's arrival, if on a different day Q9 mm/dd/yyyy

Q9C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of arrival time at BLRA Q9

0 = Respondent 

BLRA today, OR BLRA on a differ

1 = Respondent 

of arrival time at 
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q10_NumVehicles Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to BLRA Q10 #

Q10_NumVehiclesCat Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to BLRA, categorized

Q10 1 = 1 car

2 = 2 cars

3 = 3 or more ca

Q11A_DayUse Whether or not respondent parked in: Day Use Parking Lot next to Brainard Lake Q11 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11B_LongLake Whether or not respondent parked in: Long Lake Trailhead Parking Lot Q11 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11C_MitchellLake Whether or not respondent parked in: Mitchell Lake Trailhead Parking Lot Q11 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11D_Roadside Whether or not respondent parked in: Along the Roadside Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11E_PawneeCG Whether or not respondent parked in: Pawnee Campground Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11F_Other Whether or not respondent parked in: Other location Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11F_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's alternate parking location Q11 text

Q12A_Safe Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Safe Q12

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q12B_Convenient Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Convenient Q12

1 = Strongly Agr2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q12C_EasyToFind Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Easy to find Q12

1 = Strongly Agr2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q12D_CloseToDestination Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Close to destination(s) Q12

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q12E_WellMarked Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Well marked (e.g., paint striping) Q12

1 = Strongly Agr2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q12F_Uncongested Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Uncongested Q12

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q13_HowMuchParkingCong How much parking congestion there was when respondent parked Q13

1 = No Parking C2 = Slight Parkin345 = Moderate Pa

6789 = Extreme Par
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q14_LotNearEnt Did respondent know that parking in Gateway Lot doesn't require a fee Q14

1 = Yes, and we 

more cars there

2 = Yes, but nob

there3 = No, but I wothere anyway

4 = No, and I wo

I knew

Q15A_ParkInGatwayLot

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their only

option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and walk/hike about 2

miles on a trail to my destination(s) in BLRA.

Q15

1 = Would be lik

2 = Probably wo

Q15B_10minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their only

option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and take a 10 minute

shuttle bus ride to my destination(s) in BLRA.

Q15

1 = Would be lik

2 = Probably wo

Q15C_40minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their only

option were to: Park in town and take a 40 minute shuttle bus

ride to my destination(s) in BLRA.

Q15

1 = Would be lik

2 = Probably wo

Q16A_DriveParkWherever

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Allowed to enter BLRA and drive around

until a parking space opens up

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q16B_StoppedEntStation

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Stopped at the entrance station until some

parking spaces open up and only then allowed to enter

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q16C_GatewayHike

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Directed to park at the lot near Gateway Lot

and walk/hike about 3 miles on a trail to their destination(s) in

BLRA

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q16D_10MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Directed to park at the lot near Gateway Lotand take a 10 minute shuttle bus ride to their destination(s) in

BLRA

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q16E_40MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Directed to park in town and take a 40

minute shuttle bus ride to their destination(s) in BLRA

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q16F_OtherRecAreas

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full,

people should be: Directed to other recreation areas instead of

visiting BLRA that day

Q16

1 = Strongly Agr

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agre4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disa

Q17_DecideToTakeTrip How long ago respondent decided to visit BLRA Q17

1 = Sometime to

2 = Yesterday

3 = In the last w

4 = More than a 

a month ago

5 = A month or m

Q18_DifficultParking Whether or not respondent thought that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA, when they planned their trip Q18 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19A_DidNotAffect The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA: Did not affect respondent's plans Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19B_VisitedTimeOfDay

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA

caused respondent to: Visit at a time of day they thought

would be less crowded

Q19

0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q19C_VisitedDayOfWeek

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA

caused respondent to: Visit on a day of the week they thought

would be less crowded

Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19D_AvoidedPlaces

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA

caused respondent to: Avoid places in BLRA they thought

would be crowded

Q19

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q19E_Other The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Take other action Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19E_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other action Q19 text

Q20A_Website Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Website Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20B_Smartphone Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Smartphone app Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20C_SocialMedia

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Social media (e.g.,

Facebook, Twitter)

Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20D_TextUpdates

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Text updates on cell

phone/smartphone

Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20E_AMRadio Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: AM radio station Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20F_TelephoneMessage

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Telephone info line w/

message update daily

Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20G_TelephonePerson

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Telephone info line w/

live person

Q20

1 = Likely2 = Not likely99 = Don't know
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q20H_TouristCenter Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Tourist info center Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20I_Other Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Other info source Q20

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know

Q20I_OtherSpecify Description of other info source respondent would use Q20 text

Q21_Gender Respondent's gender Q21

1 = Male

2 = Female

Q22_YearBorn Respondent's year of birth Q22 ####

Q28_Age Respondent's age Q28 #

Q28_AgeCat Respondent's age, categorized Q28

18 = 18 to 24

25 = 25 to 34

35 = 35 to 44

45 = 45 to 54

55 = 55 to 64

65 = 65 and olde

Q23_LiveInUS Whether or not respondent lives in the United States Q23

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q23_ZipCode Respondent's zip code, if a resident of the US Q23 #####

Q23_Country Respondent's country of residence, if not the US Q23 text

Q23_State Respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the US Q23 text

Q23_CO_or_Not Whether or not respondent resides in the state of Colorado Q23

0 = Other

1 = Colorado

Q23_County Respondent's county of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q23 text

Q23_MetroArea Respondent’s metropolitan area of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q23 text

Q24_Education Highest level of formal education that respondent has completed Q24 1 = Some high sc

2 = High school g
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Some collegeschool

4 = College, busi

graduate5 = Some gradua6 = Master's, do

degree

Q25_Hispanic Whether or not respondent is Hispanic or Latino Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q26A_AmericanIndian Whether or not respondent's race is: American Indian or Alaska Native Q26 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q26B_Asian Whether or not respondent's race is: Asian Q26

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q26C_Black Whether or not respondent's race is: Black of African American Q26

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q26D_NativeHawaiian Whether or not respondent's race is: Native Hawaiian Q26

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q26E_PacificIslander Whether or not respondent's race is: Pacific Islander other than Native Hawaiian Q26 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q26F_White Whether or not respondent's race is: White Q26

0 = No

1 = Yes
APPENDIX F. BLRA GATEWAY TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT VISITOR

SURVEY CODE BOOK
Variable Name Description Question Values

ID Survey ID number Front page #

Date Date of survey Front page mm/dd/yyy

Weekend Whether or not survey was administered on a weekend day or weekday Front page 0 = Weekd

1 = Weeke

Time Time at which respondent began survey Front page hh:mm AM

Respondent Whether the respondent was a driver or passenger Front page

1 = Driver

2 = Passeng

Weather Weather conditions at the start of the survey Front page

1 = Sunny

2 = Partly

3 = Overcas4 = Raining

Motorcycle Whether or not the respondent drove in on a motorcycle Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

SpecialEvent Whether or not there was a special event at the survey site that day Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Event_Text Description of the special event Front page text

Q1_GroupSize Number of people in respondent's personal group Q1 #

Q1_GroupSizeCat Number of people in group, categorized Q1

1 = 1 Perso

2 = 2 Peopl

3 = 3 or 4 P5 = 5 or mo

Q2_ChildrenInGroup Presence of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q2_NumChild Number of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 #

Q2_NumChildCat Number of children in group, categorized Q2 1 = 1 Child
Variable Name Description Question Values

2 = 2 Childr

3 = 3 or 4 C

5 = 5 or mo

Q3A_Walking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Walking/Short hike (less than 1 hour) Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3B_DayHiking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Day hiking (more than 1 hour) Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3C_Backpacking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Backpacking Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3C_Nights Number of nights respondent backpacked in BLRA Q3 #

Q3D_CampingPawnee Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Camping in Pawnee Campground Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3D_Nights Number of nights respondent camped in Pawnee Campground Q3 #

Q3E_Picnicking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Picnicking Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3F_Swimming Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Swimming Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3G_Boating Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Boating Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3H_Fishing Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Fishing Q3

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q3I_MountainBiking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Mountain biking Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3J_CreativeArts Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Creative arts (photography/drawing/painting/writing) Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3K_Other Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Other activity Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q3K_OtherSpecify Description of other activity respondent has done/will do Q3 text

Q4_PrimaryActivity Respondent's primary activity for this trip Q4

1 = Walkinghour)

2 = Day hik

3 = Backpa4 = Campin

5 = Picnicki

6 = Swimm7 = Boating8 = Fishing9 = Mounta10 = Creati

(photograp11 = Other

99 = Did no

Q5_Route Which route respondent used to travel through BLRA Q5

1 = Brainar

2 = Brainar

trails and r

3 = Trails ge

IPW and no

Lake)4 = IPW via 

roads5 = IPW via 

6 = To Lefth

Lake

Q5_RouteRecode Which route respondent used to travel through BLRA Q5 2 = Brainar
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Trails ge

IPW and no

Lake)

4 = IPW via 

6 = To Lefth

Lake

Q6A_PrimaryDestination Respondent's primary destination for this trip Q6 text

Q6B_PrimaryDestination Whether or not respondent has a primary destination Q6

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q6_PrimaryDestination_Recode Respondent's primary destination for this trip, recoded Q6

1 = Brainar

2 = Indian P

3 = Gatewa4 = Lefthan

Lake5 = Otrher99 = Did no
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7_RouteComplete Which routes respondent used to travel to and from BLRA Q7

1 = Route #

BLRA2 = Route #

BLRA3 = Route #

BLRA4 = Route #

BLRA5 = Route #

BLRA6 = Route #

BLRA7 = Route #

BLRA8 = Route #

BLRA9 = Route #

BLRA10 = Route 

BLRA11 = Route 

BLRA12 = Route 

BLRA13 = Route 

BLRA14 = Route 

BLRA15 = Route 

BLRA16 = Route 

BLRA
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7_RouteToBLRA Which route respondent used to travel to BLRA Q7

1 = Boulde

2 = Rt. 1193 = Peak to 

4 = Left Ha

5 = Other99 = Don't 

Q7_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route to BLRA Q7 text

Q8_RouteHome Which route respondent will use to travel when they leave BLRA Q8

1 = Boulde

2 = Rt. 1193 = Peak to 

4 = Left Ha

5 = Other99 = Don't 

Q8_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route leaving BLRA Q8 text

Q9A_ArrivalTime Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today Q9 hh:mm AM

Q9A_ArrivalTimeCat Respondent's approximate arrival time at BLRA today, categorized Q9

5 = Before 

7 = 7 AM to 

9 = 9 AM to 

11 = 11 AM 

13 = 1 PM t15 = After 3 

Q9B_DifferentDay Whether or not respondent arrived at BLRA on a different day Q9

0 = Respon

time today

1 = Respon

day

Q9B_Specify Date of respondent's arrival, if on a different day Q9 mm/dd/yyy

Q9C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of arrival time at BLRA Q9

0 = Respon

BLRA todayBLRA on a d

1 = Respon

of arrival ti

Q10_NumVehicles Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to BLRA Q10 #
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q11A_Safe Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Safe Q11

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q11B_Convenient Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Convenient Q11

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q11C_EasyToFind Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Easy to find Q11

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q11D_CloseToDestination Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Close to destination(s) Q11

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q11E_WellMarked Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Well marked (e.g., paint striping) Q11

1 = Strongl2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q11F_Uncongested Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at BLRA was: Uncongested Q11 1 = Strongl

2 = Agree
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Neither 

4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q12A_No Respondent's opinion ‐ parking did NOT interfere with their plans Q12 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q12B_YesHikeMitchell

Respondent's opinion ‐ they were planning to hike on

the Mitchell Lake Trail, but didn't because they had topark here

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q12C_YesHikeLong

Respondent's opinion ‐ they were planning to hike on

the Long Lake Trail, but didn't because they had to park

here

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q12D_YesPlanningVisit Respondent's opinion ‐ they were planning to visit Brainard Lake, but didn't because they had to park here Q12 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q12E_Other Respondent's opinion ‐ other explanation Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q12E_Specify Description of respondent's other explanation regarding parking in the Gateway Lot Q12 text

Q13A_Hiked

Respondent's opinion ‐ Because the parking in the

Gateway Lot interfered with their plans, they chose to:

Hike on trails from the Gateway Trailhead

Q13

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q13B_MountainBiked

Respondent's opinion ‐ Because the parking in theGateway Lot interfered with their plans, they chose to:

Mountain bike on trails from the Gateway Trailhead

Q13

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q13C_Biked

Respondent's opinion ‐ Because the parking in theGateway Lot interfered with their plans, they chose to:

Bike on Brainard Lake Road

Q13

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q13D_Walked

Respondent's opinion ‐ Because the parking in theGateway Lot interfered with their plans, they chose to:

Walk, hike, or bike to Left Hand Reservoir

Q13

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q13E_Other

Respondent's opinion ‐ Because the parking in theGateway Lot interfered with their plans, they chose to:

Do an alternate activity

Q13

0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q13E_Specify Description of respondent's alternate activity due to parking interfering with their plans Q13 text

Q14A_KnewWouldntPay

Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot

because: They knew they wouldn't have to pay the fee

to visit BLRA if they parked here.

Q14

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q14B_WantedParkCloser

Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot

because: They wanted to park closer to their

destination, but closer parking lots were full.

Q14

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q14C_WantedToHike

Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot

because: They wanted to hike or bike from this parkinglot to their destination.

Q14

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q14D_ThisParkingLot

Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot

because: This parking lot is the closest parking to their

destination.

Q14

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q14E_HikingOrBiking

Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot

because: Hiking or biking on trails from this parking lot

was their primary reason for visiting BLRA.

Q14

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q14F_Other Respondent's opinion ‐ They parked in the Gateway Lot because: Other reason Q14 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q14F_Specify Description of respondent's other reason for why they parked in the Gateway Lot Q14 text

Q15_HowMuchParkingCong How much parking congestion there was when respondent parked Q15

1 = No Park

2 = Slight P

345 = Modera6789 = Extrem

Q16A_ItsWorthIt Respondent's opinion ‐ It's worth it to park in the Gateway Lot to avoid paying the entrance fee. Q16

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 
Variable Name Description Question Values

4 = Disagre

5 = Strongl

Q16B_IWouldNot

Respondent's opinion ‐ They would not have come

here, if they knew they would park this far from their

destination(s) in BLRA.

Q16

1 = Strongl2 = Agree3 = Neither 

4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q17A_ParkInGatwayLot

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and walk/hike

about 2 miles on a trail to their destination(s) in BLRA.

Q17 1 = Would 

2 = Probab

Q17B_10minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in Gateway Lot and take a 10

minute shuttle bus ride to their destination(s) in BLRA.

Q17 1 = Would 

2 = Probab

Q17C_40minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit BLRA if their

only option were to: Park in town and take a 40 minute

shuttle bus ride to their destination(s) in BLRA.

Q17 1 = Would 

2 = Probab

Q18A_DriveParkWherever

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are

full, people should be: Allowed to enter BLRA and drivearound until a parking space opens up

Q18

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q18B_StoppedEntStation

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are

full, people should be: Stopped at the entrance station

until some parking spaces open up and only then

allowed to enter

Q18

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q18C_GatewayHike Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are full, people should be: Directed to park at the lot near Q18

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 
Variable Name Description Question Values

Gateway Lot and walk/hike about 2 miles on a trail to

their destination(s) in BLRA

4 = Disagre

5 = Strongl

Q18D_10MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are

full, people should be: Directed to park at the lot near

Gateway Lot and take a 10 minute shuttle bus ride to

their destination(s) in BLRA

Q18

1 = Strongl2 = Agree3 = Neither 

4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q18E_40MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are

full, people should be: Directed to park in town and

take a 40 minute shuttle bus ride to their destination(s)

in BLRA

Q18

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q18F_OtherRecAreas

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots in BLRA are

full, people should be: Directed to other recreationareas instead of visiting BLRA that day

Q18

1 = Strongl

2 = Agree3 = Neither 4 = Disagre5 = Strongl

Q19_DecideToTakeTrip How long ago respondent decided to visit BLRA Q19

1 = Someti

2 = Yesterd

3 = In the la

4 = More th

a month ag

5 = A mont

Q20_DifficultParking

Whether or not respondent thought that it might be

difficult to find parking in BLRA, when they planned

their trip

Q20

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q21A_DidNotAffect The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA: Did not affect respondent's plans Q21 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q21B_VisitedTimeOfDay

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

BLRA caused respondent to: Visit at a time of day they

thought would be less crowded

Q21

0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q21C_VisitedDayOfWeek

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

BLRA caused respondent to: Visit on a day of the week

they thought would be less crowded

Q21 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q21D_AvoidedPlaces

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

BLRA caused respondent to: Avoid places in BLRA they

thought would be crowded

Q21

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q21E_Other The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in BLRA caused respondent to: Take other action Q21 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q21E_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other action Q21 text

Q22A_Website Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Website Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22B_Smartphone

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding:

Smartphone app

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22C_SocialMedia

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Social

media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

Q22

1 = Likely2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22D_TextUpdates

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Text

updates on cell phone/smartphone

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22E_AMRadio

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: AM radio

station

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22F_TelephoneMessage

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Telephone

info line w/ message update daily

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q22G_TelephonePerson

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Telephone

info line w/ live person

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22H_TouristCenter

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Tourist info

center

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22I_Other

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Other info

source

Q22

1 = Likely

2 = Not like

99 = Don't 

Q22I_OtherSpecify Description of other info source respondent would use Q22 text

Q23_Gender Respondent's gender Q23

1 = Male

2 = Female

Q24_YearBorn Respondent's year of birth Q24 ####

Q28_Age Respondent's age Q28 #

Q28_AgeCat Respondent's age, categorized Q28

18 = 18 to 2

25 = 25 to 3

35 = 35 to 4

45 = 45 to 5

55 = 55 to 6

65 = 65 and 

Q25_LiveInUS Whether or not respondent lives in the United States Q25

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q25_ZipCode Respondent's zip code, if a resident of the US Q25 #####

Q25_Country Respondent's country of residence, if not the US Q25 text

Q25_State Respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the US Q25 text

Q25_CO_or_Not Whether or not respondent resides in the state of Colorado Q25 0 = Other 1 = Colorad

Q25_County Respondent's county of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q25 text
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q25_MetroArea Respondent’s metropolitan area of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q25 text

Q26_Education Highest level of formal education that respondent has completed Q26

1 = Some h

2 = High sc

3 = Some cschool4 = College

graduate5 = Some g6 = Master

degree

Q27_Hispanic Whether or not respondent is Hispanic or Latino Q27

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q28A_AmericanIndian Whether or not respondent's race is: American Indian or Alaska Native Q28 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q28B_Asian Whether or not respondent's race is: Asian Q28

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q28C_Black Whether or not respondent's race is: Black of African American Q28 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q28D_NativeHawaiian Whether or not respondent's race is: Native Hawaiian Q28

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q28E_PacificIslander Whether or not respondent's race is: Pacific Islander other than Native Hawaiian Q28 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q28F_White Whether or not respondent's race is: White Q28

0 = No

1 = Yes
APPENDIX G. BLRA INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS VISITOR SURVEY

“OTHER” RESPONSES   
Table 1. List of backcountry campsites where respondent started their hike

Backcountry campsite Frequency (n=4)

Buchanan Pass 25%

Fox Park‐Buchanan Creek 25%

Goned Lake 25%

Near Trail Jet Cascade 25%

Table 2. List of other locations where respondent started their hike

Other Location

Frequency

(n=19)

Niwot Picnic Area 84%

Gateway Lot 5%

South St Vrain 5%

West side of Brainard Lake 5%

Table 3. List of backcountry campsites where respondent ended their hike

Backcountry Campsite Frequency (n=1)

Niwot Picnic Area 100%

Table 4. List of other locations where respondent ended their hike

Other Location Frequency (n=18)

Niwot Picnic Area 83%

Audobon Saddle 6%

Gateway Lot 6%

West side of Brainard Lake 6%

Table 5. List of other locations respondent hiked or passed through

Other Location

Frequency

(n=15)

Niwot Ridge 33%

Buchanan Pass 20%

Brainard Lake 13%

Jean Lunning Trail 13%

Cirque N of Isabelle 7%

Day picnic 7%

Little Pawnee 7%
Table 6. List of other routes taken by respondents to travel to or from BLRA

Country Frequency (n=23)

Coal Creek Canyon 22%

Nederland 13%

Route 7 13%

South St. Vrain 13%

Jamestown 9%

Route 7 via Lyons 9%

Longmont‐Lyons 4%

Nederland Rt. 72 4%

Route 72 4%

Route 72 to Denver 4%

Sugarloaf Road 4%

Table 7. List of other locations where respondents parked

Other Location Frequency (n=20)

Niwot Picnic Area 85%

CMC cabin lot 5%

Gateway Lot 5%

Other side of Brainard Lake 5%

Table 8. List of other effects that parking had on trip  plans

Other affects of plans Frequency (n=4)

I arrived Thursdat, hiked Friday and Saturday 25%

My husband dropped me off till space opened 25%

Planned for August. 25%

We carpooled. 25%

Table 9. List of other sources for information about parking and crowding

Other Sources Frequency (n=7)

Word of mouth 29%

Giant sign at entrance 14%

Phone Library 14%

Show up and see 14%

Shuttle 14%

Telepathy 14%

Table 10. List of respondent's country of residence

Country Frequency (n=275)
United States 96.7%

United Kingdom 1.1%

Anatolia 0.4%

France 0.4%

Germany 0.4%

Poland 0.4%

Sweden 0.4%

Switzerland 0.4%

Table 11. List of respondent's state of resident, if a resident of the United States

State Frequency (n=229)

Colorado 81.2%

Texas 2.2%

California 1.7%

Illinois 1.7%

Ohio 1.7%

Arizona 1.3%

Massachusetts 1.3%

Missouri 1.3%

Kansas 0.9%

Minnesota 0.9%

New Jersey 0.9%

Connecticut 0.4%

Hawaii 0.4%

Iowa 0.4%

Michigan 0.4%

North Carolina 0.4%

Nebraska 0.4%

New Mexico 0.4%

New York 0.4%

South Carolina 0.4%

Virginia 0.4%

Vermont 0.4%
Table 12. List of respondent's ZIP code of residence, if a resident of Colorado

ZIP Code Frequency (n=186)

80304 10.8%

80301 6.5%

80302 5.9%

80503 5.4%

80305 4.3%

80027 3.8%

80026 3.2%

80517 3.2%

80501 2.7%

80504 2.7%

80303 2.2%

80020 1.6%

80209 1.6%

80210 1.6%

80211 1.6%

80235 1.6%

80401 1.6%

80481 1.6%

80525 1.6%

80538 1.6%

80004 1.1%

80013 1.1%

80015 1.1%

80122 1.1%

80207 1.1%

80466 1.1%

80516 1.1%

80534 1.1%

80537 1.1%

80540 1.1%

80601 1.1%

80002 0.5%

80003 0.5%

80005 0.5%

80010 0.5%

80011 0.5%

80012 0.5%

80014 0.5%

80023 0.5%

80030 0.5%
ZIP Code Frequency (n=186)

80111 0.5%

80128 0.5%

80200 0.5%

80203 0.5%

80205 0.5%

80206 0.5%

80212 0.5%

80214 0.5%

80215 0.5%

80220 0.5%

80228 0.5%

80229 0.5%

80230 0.5%

80231 0.5%

80233 0.5%

80234 0.5%

80236 0.5%

80241 0.5%

80260 0.5%

80306 0.5%

80308 0.5%

80343 0.5%

80403 0.5%

80509 0.5%

80510 0.5%

80521 0.5%

80526 0.5%

80634 0.5%

80642 0.5%

80829 0.5%

80831 0.5%

80904 0.5%

80908 0.5%

89127 0.5%
APPENDIX H. BLRA DAY USE AREA VISITOR SURVEY “OTHER”

RESPONSES   
Table 13. List of other locations respondents visited on their trip to BLRA

Other Location Frequency (n=13)

Lake Isabelle 38%

Lake Isabelle and Blue Lake 15%

Blue Lake 8%

Lake Isabelle Glacier 8%

Lake Isabelle and Lake Isabelle Glacier 8%

Little Raier 8%

Niwot Picnic Area 8%

Rainbow Lakes 8%

Table 14. List of other activities respondents have done on their trip to BLRA

Other Activities Frequency (n=19)

Driving 32%

Check out the area 16%

Moose watching 11%

Reading 11%

Wildlife viewing 11%

Dog walking 5%

Kite Flying 5%

Mushroom hunting 5%

Niwot Picnic Area 5%

Table 15. List of other routes taken by respondents to travel to or from BLRA

Country Frequency (n=12)

Coal Creek Canyon 17%

Gold Hill Rd 8%

Liallan 8%

Lyons Rte 7 8%

Lyons South St. Vrain 8%

Nederland 8%

Rte 7 8%

Rte 7 from Lyons 8%

Rte 72 8%

Rte 72 Coal Creek Canyon 8%

South St. Vrain 8%
Table 16. List of other locations where respondents parked in BLRA

Other Location Frequency (n=14)

Niwot Picnic Area 50%

Did not park 29%

Brainard lake 7%

Pauite Picnic Ground 7%

Red Rock Lake 7%

Table 17. List of other effects parking had on trip plans

Other affects on plans Frequency (n=4)

I got here early 25%

Longer with little kids 25%

My husband drove up on a weekday to get a camp

spot a I met him later which is why we had 2 cars then. 25%

Was flexible 25%

Table 18. List of respondent's country of residence

Country

Frequency

(n=128)

United States 98%

United Kingdom 2%

Table 19. List of respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the United States

State Frequency (n=104)

Colorado 85%

Pennsylvania 3%

Arkansas 2%

Nebraska 2%

California 1%

Illinois 1%

Maryland 1%

Michigan 1%

New Jersey 1%

New Mexico 1%

New York 1%

Ohio 1%

Oklahoma 1%
Table 20. List of respondent's ZIP code of residence, if a resident of Colorado

ZIP Code Frequency (n=88)

80233 5%

80303 5%

80305 5%

80503 5%

80304 3%

80022 2%

80026 2%

80027 2%

80031 2%

80123 2%

80127 2%

80212 2%

80238 2%

80301 2%

80302 2%

80501 2%

80504 2%

80516 2%

80014 1%

80016 1%

80017 1%

80020 1%

80028 1%

80033 1%

80112 1%

80113 1%

80129 1%

80130 1%

80205 1%

80221 1%

80228 1%

80234 1%

80237 1%

80247 1%

80249 1%

80307 1%

80317 1%

80403 1%

80405 1%

80421 1%
ZIP Code Frequency (n=88)

80422 1%

80439 1%

80465 1%

80467 1%

80474 1%

80481 1%

80514 1%

80526 1%

80536 1%

80537 1%

80538 1%

80540 1%

80544 1%

80550 1%

80602 1%

80634 1%

80904 1%

80906 1%

80918 1%

80929 1%
APPENDIX I. BLRA GATEWAY TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT VISITOR

SURVEY “OTHER” RESPONSES   
Table 21. List of other activities respondents have done during their trip to BLRA

Other Activity Frequency (n=5)

Running 60%

Bike Patrol 20%

Geocaching 20%

Table 22. List of other primary destinations

Other Activity

Frequency

(n=4)

All of it 25%

Beane Pond 25%

Pawnee Campground 25%

Wandering/familiarization with trails 25%

Table 23. List of other routes taken to get to or from BLRA

Other Activity Frequency (n=14)

Rte 72 29%

Coal Creek Canyon 14%

Rte 7 14%

From/to Ward 7%

Rte 7 Lyons 7%

Rte 7 South St. Vrain 7%

Rte 7 to Rte 72 7%

Rte 72 Coal Creek Canyon 7%

Sugarloaf Rd 7%

Table 24. List of other ways parking in the Gateway Lot inferred with respondents plans

Other Plans

Frequency

(n=1)

Pay for wilderness not expected 100%
Table 25. List of other activities respondents did because parking interfered with their plans

Other Plans

Frequency

(n=5)

Did what I inteded to do anyway 20%

Hitch hiked to trail head 20%

Short hike 20%

Walked road to Long Lake 20%

Walked to Red Rock Lake 20%

Table 26. List of other reasons respondent parked in the Gateway Lot

Other Reasons Frequency (n=18)

BLRA full 6%

Bumper to bumper traffic ahead 6%

Couldn't drive because of 1‐in‐1‐out 6%

Decided to hike from here instead 6%

Dogs 6%

First to turn in 6%

Line to get past fee station 6%

Missed Sourdough trailhead 6%

More convenient 6%

Never parked here before 6%

No parking at Long Lake trailhead 6%

Other lot full 6%

Shorter drive 6%

The one we found 6%

There was a line at the other 6%

To avoid paying 6%

Traffic stopped into park 6%

Walking here first then on to the lake 6%

Table 27. List of other sources for information about parking and crowding

Other Sources Frequency (n=3)

Info in Nederland 33%

Just come 33%

Sign at Peak to Peak 33%
Table 28. List of respondent's country of residence

Country Frequency (n=84)

United States 99%

Canada 1%

Table 29. List of respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the United States

State Frequency (n=73)

Colorado 90%

California 3%

Connecticut 1%

Idaho 1%

Minnesota 1%

Missouri 1%

New York 1%

Table 30. List of respondent's ZIP code of residence, if a resident of Colorado

ZIP Code Frequency (n=66)

80301 9%

80302 9%

80026 6%

80027 6%

80305 6%

80513 6%

80031 5%

80206 5%

80304 5%

80504 5%

80205 3%

80218 3%

80303 3%

80501 3%

80503 3%

80003 2%

80005 2%

80023 2%

80112 2%

80207 2%

80209 2%

80222 2%

80230 2%
ZIP Code Frequency (n=66)

80237 2%

80306 2%

80401 2%

80403 2%

80465 2%

80537 2%

80540 2%

80631 2%
APPENDIX J. GP VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT












APPENDIX K. GP VISITOR SURVEY CODE BOOK
Variable Name Description Question Values

ID Survey ID number Front page #

Date Date of survey Front page mm/dd/yyyy

Weekend Whether or not survey was administered on a weekend day or weekday Front page 0 = Weekday 1 = Weekend

Time Time at which respondent began survey Front page hh:mm AM/PM

Binder Number of binder used for survey Front page

1 = Binder 1

2 = Binder 2

3 = Binder 3

4 = Binder 4

5 = Binder 5

Respondent Whether the respondent was a driver or passenger Front page 1 = Driver 2 = Passenger

Weather Weather conditions at the start of the survey Front page

1 = Sunny2 = Partly

3 = Overcast4 = Raining

SpecialEvent Whether or not there was a special event at the survey site that day Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Event_Text Description of the special event Front page text

Q1A_GroupSize Number of people in respondent's personal group Q1 #

Q1B_GroupSizeCategory Number of people in personal group by size category Q1

1 = 1 person

2 = 2 people3 = 3 or 4 people4 = 5 or more people

Q2_ChildrenInGroup Presence of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 0 = No 1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q2_NumChild Number of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 #

Q2_NumChildCat Number of children in personal group by size category Q2

1 = 1 person

2 = 2 people3 = 3 or 4 people4 = 5 or more people

Q3A_HikeBierstadt Whether or not respondent: Has hiked/will hike on Mt Bierstadt Trail Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3B_HikeSquareTop Whether or not respondent: Has hiked/will hike on Square Top Lakes Trail Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3C_HikeRosalie Whether or not respondent: Has hiked/will hike on Rosalie Trail Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3D_Walk Whether or not respondent: Has done/will do walking/short hike less than 1 hr Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3E_Backpack Whether or not respondent: Has done/will do overnight backpacking Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3E_Nights Number of nights of overnight backpacking Q3 #

Q3E_NightsCat Number of nights of overnight backpacking, categorized Q3

1 = 1 night

2 = 2‐3 nights

4 = 4 or more nights

Q3F_PIcnicking Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Picnicking in the GP area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3G_ScenicDriving Whether or not respondent was done/will do: Scenic driving in the GP area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3H_Fishing Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Fishing in the GP area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3I_Horseback Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Horseback riding in the GP area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3J_RoadBiking Q3 0 = No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Road

biking in the GP area 1 = Yes

Q3K_Other Whether or not respondent has done/will do: Other activities in the GP area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3K_OtherSpecify Description of other activities respondent has done/will do in the GP area Q3 text

Q4_PrimaryActivity Respondent's primary activity of this trip Q4

1 = Hiking on Mt Biersta

2 = Hiking on Square To

3 = Hiking on Rosalie Tra4 = Walking/short hike (

5 = Overnight backpacki6 = Picnicking in the GP 

7 = Scenic driving in the 

8 = Fishing in the GP are

9 = Horseback riding in t

10 = Road biking in the G

11 = Other activities in t

99 = No primary activity 

Q5A_HikeSilverDollar

Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Hiking

trails at Silver Dollar Lake Q5 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5B_HikeSilverdale Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Hiking trails at Silverdale Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5C_HikeAbyssLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Hiking trails at Abyss Lake Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5D_PicnicArea Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: The picnic area Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5E_ClearLake Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Clear Lake Campground Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5E_ClearLake_Nights Number of nights at Clear Lake Campground Q5 #
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q5E_ClearLake_NightsCat Number of nights at Clear Lake Campground, categorized Q5

1 = 1 night

2 = 2‐3 nights

4 = 4 or more nights

Q5F_RoadsideCampsite Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Roadside campsites Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5F_Roadside_Nights Number of nights at roadside campsites Q5 #

Q5F_Roadside_NightsCat Number of nights at roadside campsites, categorized Q5

1 = 1 night

2 = 2 nights3 = 3 or more nights

Q5G_Other Whether or not respondent has visited/will visit: Other locations on Guanella Pass Road Q5 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q5G_OtherSpecify Description of other locations respondent has visited/will visit Q5 text

Q6_HikeToSummit Whether or not respondent hiked part or all the way to the summit of Mt. Bierstadt Q6

1 = Hiked part way to th

2 = Hiked all the way to 

3 = Hiked neither part n

Q7A_HoursHiked Approximate number of hours respondent hiked on the Mt. Bierstadt Trail Q7 #

Q7A_HoursHikedCat Approximate number of hours respondent hiked on the Mt Bierstadt Trail, categorized Q7

0 = Less than 1 hour

1 = 1 hour2 = 2‐3 hours

4 = 4‐5 hours

6 = 6‐7 hours

8 = 8 or more hours99 = Greater than 1 hou

Q7B_LessThan1Hour Whether or not respondent hiked less than one hour on the Mt. Bierstadt Trail Q7

0 = Respondent hiked m

know/isn't sure how lon

1 = Respondent hiked le

Bierstadt Trail
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of time spent hiking on Mt. Bierstadt Trail Q7

0 = Respondent indicate

the Mt. Bierstadt Trail, O

hour

1 = Respondent doesn't 

hiking on Mt. Bierstadt T

Q8A_YesTrailCrowd Whether or not respondent felt crowded on Mt. Bierstadt Trail Q8 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q8B_YesSummitCrowd Whether or not respondent felt crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt Q8 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q8C_No Whether or not respondent did NOT feel crowded during hike Q8 0 = Respondent felt crow

1 = Respondent did NOT 

Q9A_YesTrailRisk Whether or not respondent felt like crowding increased the risk of injuries on the trail Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q9B_YesSummitRisk Whether or not respondent felt like crowding increased the risk of injuries on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q9C_No Whether or not respondent did NOT feel like crowding increased the risk of injuries during hike Q9

0 = Respondent felt like 

injuries at some point d

1 = Respondent did NOT 

risk of injuries at any po

Q10_RushedSlow Whether or not the presence of others on the trail made respondent feel rushed or slowed down at any point Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11A_Photo1 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 1 Q11 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11B_Photo2 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 2 Q11 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11C_Photo3 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 3 Q11 0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q11D_Photo4 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 4 Q11 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11E_Photo5 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 5 Q11 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11F_Photo6 Whether or not respondent would feel crowded on the summit of Mt. Bierstadt in: Photo 6 Q11 0 = No

1 = Yes

Q11A_Photo1_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #

Q11A_Photo2_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #Q11A_Photo3_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #Q11A_Photo4_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #Q11A_Photo5_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #Q11A_Photo6_NumPeople Number of people in photo Q11 #

Q12A_VisitorsExperience

Whether or not respondent believes the number of

people hiking on Mt. Bierstadt Trail should be limited to:

Protect the quality of visitors' experiences (i.e., to

prevent crowding)

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes99 = Don't know/Not su

Q12B_VisitorsSafety

Whether or not respondent believes the number of

people hiking on Mt. Bierstadt Trail should be limited to:

Protect visitors' safety

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes99 = Don't know/Not su

Q12C_EnvImpacts

Whether or not respondent believes the number of

people hiking on Mt. Bierstadt Trail should be limited to:

Reduce environmental impacts

Q12

0 = No

1 = Yes99 = Don't know/Not su

Q13_RouteToGP Which route respondent used to travel to GP Q13

1 = From Georgetown

2 = From Grant3 = Other
Variable Name Description Question Values

99 = Don't know/Not su

Q13_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route to GP Q13 text

Q14_RouteHome Which route respondent will use to travel when they leave GP Q14

1 = Toward Georgetown

2 = Toward Grant

99 = Don't know/Not su

Q14_RouteComplete Which route respondent will use to travel to GP and when they leave GP Q13 and Q14

1 = From Georgetown, t

2 = From Georgetown, t

3 = From Grant, to Gran4 = From Grant, to Geor

Q15A_ArrivalTime Respondent's approximate arrival time at GP today Q15 hh:mm AM/PM

Q15A_Recode Recode of respondent's approximate arrival time at GP today Q15

1 = Before 5:00 AM

2 = Between 5 and 6 AM

3 = Between 6 and 7 AM

4 = Between 7 and 8 AM

5 = Between 8 and 9 AM

6 = Between 9 and 10 A

7 = Between 10 AM and 

8 = After noon (12 PM)

Q15B_DifferentDay Whether or not respondent arrived at GP on a different day Q15

0 = Respondent indicate

doesn't know/isn't sure 

1 = Respondent arrived 

Q15B_Specify Date of respondent's arrival, if on a different day Q15 text

Q15C_DontKnow Whether or not respondent doesn't know/isn't sure of arrival time at GP Q15

0 = Respondent indicate

respondent arrived at G

1 = Respondent doesn't 

GP today

Q16A_NumVehicles Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to GP Q16 #

Q16A_NumVehiclesCat Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to GP, categorized Q16 1 = 1 car
Variable Name Description Question Values

2 = 2 cars

3 = 3 or more cars

Q16B_Bicycled Whether or not respondent and personal group bicycled to GP Q16 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q17_WherePark Where respondent parked at GP Q17

1 = Lower parking lot (M

2 = Upper parking lot (S

3 = Along the roadside o

4 = Other

Q17_WherePark_LotVsRoad Whether respondent parked in a parking lot or along the roadside Q17 1 = Parking lot 2 = Along the roadside

Q17_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's alternate parking location Q17 text

Q18A_Safe Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at GP was: Safe Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q18B_Convenient Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at GP was: Convenient Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree or Dis4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q18C_EasyToFind Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at GP was: Easy to find Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q18D_WellMarked Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at GP was: Well marked (e.g., paint striping) Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D
Variable Name Description Question Values

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q18E_Uncongested Respondent's opinion ‐ where they parked at GP was: Uncongested Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q19_HowMuchParkingCong How much parking congestion there was when respondent parked Q19

1 = No Parking Congesti

2 = Slight Parking Conge345 = Moderate Parking C

6789 = Extreme Parking Con

Q20A_30minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit GP if their only

option were to: Park at a designated lot in town and take

a 30 min shuttle bus ride to GP

Q20

1 = Would be like to do 

2 = Probably wouldn't v

Q20B_15minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit GP if their only

option were to: Park at a designated lot in on GP Road

and take a 15 min shuttle bus ride to GP

Q20

1 = Would be likely to d

2 = Probably wouldn't v

Q21A_DriveParkWherever

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at GP are full,

people should be: Allowed to park wherever they can,including on the roadside

Q21

1 = Strongly Agree2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree Nor D

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q21B_DriveLookForParking

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at GP are full,

people should be: Allowed to look for parking, but not

allowed to park on the roadside

Q21

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = Neither Agree nor D

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q21C_30MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at GP are full,

people should be: Directed to park at a designated lot intown and take a 30 min shuttle bus ride to GP

Q21

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q21_15MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at GP are full,

people should be: Directed to park at a designated lot on

GP Road and take a 15 min shuttle bus ride to GP

Q21

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q21_OtherRecAreas

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at GP are full,

people should be: Directed to other recreation areas

instead of visiting GP

Q21

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree3 = Neither Agree nor D4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

Q22_DecideToTakeTrip How long ago respondent decided to visit GP Q22

1 = Sometime today

2 = Yesterday

3 = In the last week

4 = More than a week a

5 = A month or more be

Q23_DifficultParking_Orig

Whether or not respondent thought that it might be

difficult to find parking at GP, when they planned their

trip

Q23

0 = No

1 = Yes
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q23_Recode

Whether or not respondent thought that it might be

difficult to find parking at GP, when they planned their

trip ‐ RECODE

Q23

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q24A_DidNotAffect The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking at GP: Did not affect respondent's plans Q24 0 = It may have affected 

1 = It did not affect resp

Q24B_VisitedTimeOfDay

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking at

GP caused respondent to: Visit at a time of day they

thought would be less crowded

Q24

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q24C_VisitedDayOfWeek

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking at

GP caused respondent to: Visit on a day of the week they

thought would be less crowded

Q24

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q24D_AvoidedPlaces

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking at

GP caused respondent to: Avoid places at GP they

thought would be crowded

Q24

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q24E_Other The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking at GP caused respondent to: Take other action Q24 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q24E_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other action Q24

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25A_Website Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Website Q25 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25B_Smartphone

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Smartphone

app

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25C_SocialMedia

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Social media

(e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely
Variable Name Description Question Values

99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25D_TextUpdates

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Text updates

on cell phone/smartphone

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25E_AMRadio

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: AM radio

station

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25F_TelephoneMessage

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Telephone

info line w/ message update daily

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25G_TelephonePerson

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Telephone

info line w/ live person

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25H_TouristCenter

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Tourist info

center

Q25

1 = Likely2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25I_Other

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this

source for info about parking and crowding: Other infosource

Q25

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely99 = Don't know/Not su

Q25I_OtherSpecify Description of other info source respondent would use Q25 text

Q26_Gender Respondent's gender Q26

1 = Male

2 = Female

Q27A_YearBorn Respondent's year of birth Q27 yyyy

Q27B_Age Respondent's age Q27 #

Q27C_AgeCategory Respondent's age category Q27

1 = 18‐24

2 = 25‐34
Variable Name Description Question Values

3 = 35‐44

4 = 45‐54

5 = 55‐64

6 = 65 or older

Q28_LiveInUS Whether or not respondent lives in the United States Q28

1 = Yes

2 = No

Q28_ZipCode Respondent's zip code, if a resident of the US Q28 #####

Q28_State Respondent’s state of residence, if a resident of the US Q28 text

Q28_CO_or_Not Whether or not respondent resides in the state of Colorado Q28 0 = Other 1 = Colorado

Q28_County Respondent's county of residence, if a resident of Colorado Q28 text

Q28_MetroArea Respondent’s metropolitan area, if a resident of Colorado Q28 text

Q28_Country Respondent's country of residence, if not the US Q28 text

Q29_Education Highest level of formal education that respondent has completed Q29

1 = Some high school2 = High school graduat

3 = Some college, busine4 = College, business or 5 = Some graduate scho6 = Master's, doctoral o

Q30_Hispanic Whether or not respondent is Hispanic or Latino Q30

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q31A_AmericanIndian Whether or not respondent's race is: American Indian or Alaska Native Q31 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q31B_Asian Whether or not respondent's race is: Asian Q31

0 = No

1 = Yes

Q31C_Black Whether or not respondent's race is: Black of African American Q31 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q31D_NativeHawaiian Whether or not respondent's race is: Native Hawaiian Q31 0 = No
Variable Name Description Question Values

1 = Yes

Q31E_PacificIslander Whether or not respondent's race is: Pacific Islander other than Native Hawaiian Q31 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q31F_White Whether or not respondent's race is: White Q31

0 = No

1 = Yes
APPENDIX L. GP VISITOR SURVEY PHOTO SIMULATIONS
0 People

1 Person
4 People

7 People
10 People

13 People
16 People

19 People
22 People

30 People
45 People

60 People
APPENDIX M. GP VISITOR SURVEY “OTHER” ACTIVITIES REPORTED

BY RESPONDENTS
Table 31. List of other activities respondents have done/will do during their trip to GP

Other Activities Frequency (n=47)

Camping 34%

Mt. Evans 13%

Sawtooth and Mt. Evans 9%

Eating 4%

Sawtooth 4%

Climbing 2%

Dining 2%

Dispersed camping Saturday night 2%

Konnig 2%

Monnhann Dike/Canoeing 2%

Mountain biking 2%

Mt. Evans via Spalding Gulch 2%

Painting 2%

Rehab a knee 2%

Running, skiing 2%

RV camping 2%

Silver Dollar Lake Trail 2%

Silverdale site 2%

Surviving early morning storms 2%

Train from Georgetown 2%

White Water Rafting 2%

Wildflowers 2%
APPENDIX N. GP VISITOR SURVEY “OTHER” LOCATIONS REPORTED

BY RESPONDENTS    
Table 32. List of other locations on GP Road that respondents have visited/will visit during their trip to GP

Other Location

Frequency

(n=9)

Guanella Pass Campground 44%

Beaver Ponds Fishing 11%

Biking 11%

Burning Bear campsite 11%

Falls west side of pass 11%

Mt. Evans 11%
APPENDIX O. GP VISITOR SURVEY “OTHER” INFORMATION

SOURCES REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS    
Table 33. List of other information sources that respondents would likely use to access information about

parking and crowding conditions at GP when planning a future trip

Other Information Source Frequency (n=4)

14ers.com 50%

I don't really think about parking 25%

Variable message sign at I/70 Georgetown

exit 25%
APPENDIX P. GP VISITOR SURVEY COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE

REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS    
Table 34. List of respondent's country of residence

Country Frequency (n=394)

United States 99.2%

Germany 0.3%

Italy 0.3%

Slovenia 0.3%
APPENDIX Q. GP VISITOR SURVEY STATES OF RESIDENCE

REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS    
Table 35. List of respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the United States

State Frequency (n=339)

CO 76%

MN 2%

IA 2%

CA 1%

KS 1%

MO 1%

TX 1%

OH 1%

FL 1%

GA 1%

IL 1%

MI 1%

NE 1%

PA 1%

MD 1%

NC 1%

OR 1%

RI 1%

SD 1%

VA 1%

AR 0%

AZ 0%

DC 0%

DE 0%

IN 0%

MA 0%

ME 0%

NJ 0%

NV 0%

NY 0%

OK 0%

WA 0%

WI 0%

WV 0%
APPENDIX R. GP VISITOR SURVEY ZIP CODES REPORTED BY

RESPONDENTS WHO RESIDE IN COLORADO   
Table 36. List of respondent's ZIP code of residence, if a resident of Colorado

ZIP code

Frequency

(n=257)

80211 3.1%

80027 2.3%

80134 2.3%

80209 2.3%

80210 2.3%

80401 2.3%

80521 2.3%

80014 1.9%

80220 1.9%

80403 1.9%

80439 1.9%

80015 1.6%

80108 1.6%

80120 1.6%

80123 1.6%

80125 1.6%

80126 1.6%

80205 1.6%

80206 1.6%

80212 1.6%

80302 1.6%

80919 1.6%

80003 1.2%

80013 1.2%

80020 1.2%

80021 1.2%

80026 1.2%

80033 1.2%

80112 1.2%

80113 1.2%

80121 1.2%

80124 1.2%

80129 1.2%

80203 1.2%

80218 1.2%

80246 1.2%

80303 1.2%

80305 1.2%

80465 1.2%

80110 0.8%
ZIP code

Frequency

(n=257)

80118 0.8%

80127 0.8%

80204 0.8%

80219 0.8%

80226 0.8%

80227 0.8%

80228 0.8%

80241 0.8%

80301 0.8%

80421 0.8%

80433 0.8%

80501 0.8%

80524 0.8%

80526 0.8%

80534 0.8%

80542 0.8%

80904 0.8%

80918 0.8%

80002 0.4%

80004 0.4%

80005 0.4%

80006 0.4%

80011 0.4%

80012 0.4%

80016 0.4%

80017 0.4%

80018 0.4%

80022 0.4%

80045 0.4%

80107 0.4%

80109 0.4%

80111 0.4%

80115 0.4%

80116 0.4%

80122 0.4%

80136 0.4%

80202 0.4%

80207 0.4%

80214 0.4%

80222 0.4%

80223 0.4%
ZIP code

Frequency

(n=257)

80224 0.4%

80229 0.4%

80230 0.4%

80231 0.4%

80232 0.4%

80233 0.4%

80234 0.4%

80237 0.4%

80238 0.4%

80304 0.4%

80424 0.4%

80435 0.4%

80466 0.4%

80477 0.4%

80505 0.4%

80507 0.4%

80513 0.4%

80525 0.4%

80532 0.4%

80547 0.4%

80549 0.4%

80550 0.4%

80601 0.4%

80603 0.4%

80631 0.4%

80702 0.4%

80720 0.4%

80903 0.4%

80905 0.4%

80920 0.4%

80922 0.4%

80923 0.4%

81212 0.4%

81506 0.4%

81601 0.4%

81615 0.4%

81620 0.4%
APPENDIX S. MERA VISITOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT













APPENDIX T. MERA VISITOR SURVEY PHOTO SIMULATIONS
0 People

1 Person
4 People

7 People
10 People

13 People
16 People

19 People
22 People

30 People
45 People

60 People
APPENDIX U. MERA VISITOR SURVEY CODE BOOK
Variable Name Description Question Values

ID Survey ID number Front page #

Date Date of survey Front page mm/dd/yyyy

Weekend Whether or not survey was administered on a weekend day

or weekday Front page 0 = Weekday 1 = Weekend

Time Time at which respondent began survey Front page hh:mm AM/PM

Binder Binder Front page

1 = Binder 1

2 = Binder 2

3 = Binder 3

4 = Binder 4

5 = Binder 5

Respondent Whether the respondent was a driver or passenger Front page 1 = Driver 2 = Passenger

Motorcycle Whether or not the respondent drove in on a motorcycle Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Weather conditions at the start of the survey Front page

1 = Sunny

2 = Partly

3 = Overcast

4 = Raining Weather

SpecialEvent Whether or not there was a special event at the survey site that day Front page 0 = No 1 = Yes

Event_Text Description of the special event Front page text

Q1_GroupSize Number of people in respondent's personal group Q1 #

Q1_GroupSizeCat Number of people in group, categorized Q1

1 = 1 Person

2 = 2 People

3 = 3 or 4 People

5 = 5 or more Peop

Q2_ChildrenInGroup Presence of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q2_NumChild Number of children under 16 in respondent's personal group Q2 #
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q2_NumChildCat Number of children in group, categorized Q2

1 = 1 Child

2 = 2 Children

3 = 3 or 4 Children

5 = 5 or more Child

Q3A_MountEvansSummit Whether or not respondent has visited: Mount Evans Summit Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3B_SummitLake Whether or not respondent has visited: Summit Lake Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3C_MountGoliath Whether or not respondent has visited: Mount Goliath Natural Area Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3D_Other Whether or not respondent has visited: Other Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q3D_OtherSpecify Description of other location respondent has visited Q3 text

Q3E_DidNotStop Whether or not respondent stopped to visit any of the above locations Q3 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q4_PrimaryDestination Respondent's primary destination for this trip Q4

1 = Mount Evans S

2 = Summit Lake

3 = Mount Goliath 

4 = Other

99 = Did not have a 

Q5A_ScenicDriving Whether or not respondent has done: Scenic driving Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5B_Walking Whether or not respondent has done: Walking/Short hike (less than 1 hour) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5C_DayHiking Whether or not respondent has done: Day hiking (more than 1 hour) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5D_Backpacking Whether or not respondent has done: Overnight backpacking Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5D_NumNights Number of nights respondent spent backpacking Q5 #
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q5E_Picnicking Whether or not respondent has done: Picnicking Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5F_RoadBiking Whether or not respondent has done: Road biking Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5G_WildlifeViewing Whether or not respondent has done: Wildlife viewing Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5H_RangerProgram Whether or not respondent has done: Attend ranger program Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5I_Fishing Whether or not respondent has done: Fishing Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5J_CreativeArts Whether or not respondent has done: Creative arts (photography/drawing/painting/writing) Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5K_Other Whether or not respondent has done: Other Q5 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q5K_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other activity at MERA Q5 text

Q6_PrimaryActivity Respondent's primary activity at MERA Q6

1 = Scenic driving

2 = Walking/Short 

3 = Day hiking (mo

4 = Overnight back

5 = Picnicking

6 = Road biking

7 = Wildlife viewing

8 = Attend ranger p

9 = Fishing

10 = Creative arts

(photography/draw11 = Other

99 = Did not have a 

Q7_HikeToSummit Whether or not respondent walked/hiked to the summit of Mt. Evans, and from where Q7

1 = Yes, I walked fr

the summit2 = Yes, I hiked from 

3 = Yes, I hiked from 

4 = No
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q7_OtherLocationSpecify Description of other location respondent hiked from Q7 text

Q8_CrowdedSummit Whether or not respondent thought it was crowded on the summit of Mt. Evans Q8 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q9_SummitRisk

Whether or nor respondent felt like crowding on the summit

of Mt. Evans increased your risk or other people's risk of

being injured at any point

Q9 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10A_Photo1

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10B_Photo2

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10C_Photo3

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10D_Photo4

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10E_Photo5

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q10F_Photo6

Whether or not respondent would feel crowded if they were

on the summit of Mt. Evans with the number of people

depicted in the photograph

Q10 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q11A_VisitorsExperience

Whether or not respondent believes the number of people

allowed to visit Mt. Evans should be limited to: Protect the

quality of visitors' experiences (i.e., to prevent crowding)

Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

99 = Don't know/N

Q11B_VisitorsSafety

Whether or not respondent believes the number of people

allowed to visit Mt. Evans should be limited to: Protect

visitors' safety on the summit

Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

99 = Don't know/N

Q11C_EnvImpacts

Whether or not respondent believes the number of people

allowed to visit Mt. Evans should be limited to: Reduce

environmental impacts on the summit

Q11

0 = No

1 = Yes

99 = Don't know/N
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q12_RouteToME Which route respondent used to travel to MERA Q12

1 = Route #1 on ro

2 = Route #2 on ro

3 = Other

99 = Don't know/N

Q12_RouteSpecify Description of respondent's alternate route to MERA Q12 text

Q13_RouteHome Which route respondent will use to travel when they leave MERA Q13 1 = Rte. 103 toward 

2 = Rte. 103 toward 

99 = Don't know/N

Q14A_ArrivalTime Respondent's approximate arrival time at MERA today Q14 hh:mm AM/PM

Q14A_ArrivalTimeCat Respondent's approximate arrival time at MERA today, categorized Q14

5 = Before 7 AM

7 = 7 AM to 8:59 A

9 = 9 AM to 10:59 A

11 = 11 AM to 12:5

13 = 1 PM to 2:59 P

15 = After 3 PM

Q14B_DifferentDay Whether or not respondent arrived at MERA on a different day Q14 0 = Respondent ind

1 = Respondent arr

Q14B_Specify Date of respondent's arrival, if on a different day Q14 text

Q15A_NumVehicles Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to MERA Q15 #

Q15A_NumVehiclesCat Number of vehicles in which respondent and personal group traveled to MERA, categorized Q15 1 = 1 car 2 = 2 cars 3 = 3 or more cars

Q16_CongEntranceStation Whether or not respondent experienced traffic congestion at the entrance station to enter MERA Q16 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q17_CongRoad Whether or not respondent experienced traffic congestion while driving on the Mt. Evans Road Q17 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q18A_NumCarsRoad Respondent's opinion ‐ The number of cars on the Mt. Evans Road made driving conditions unsafe. Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q18B_EnjoyedDriving Respondent's opinion ‐ I enjoyed driving on the Mt. Evans Road today. Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q18C_PreferShuttle Respondent's opinion ‐ I would prefer to tour MERA by shuttle bus or can than drive on the Mt. Evans Road myself. Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q18D_NumBicycles Respondent's opinion ‐ The number of bicycles on the Mt. Evans Road made driving conditions unsafe. Q18

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q19_Visit_MountEvans Whether or not respondent visited Mount Evans Summit Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19A_Safe_MountEvans Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Safe Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19B_Designated_MountEvans Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: In a designated parking lot Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19C_NotActual_MountEvans Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Not an actual parking space (e.g., on road shoulder) Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Convenient_MountEvans Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Convenient Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Uncongested_MountEvans Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Uncongested Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19_Visit_SummitLake Whether or not respondent visited Summit Lake Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19A_Safe_SummitLake Q19
Variable Name Description Question Values

Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today

was: Safe

1 = Agree

2 = Disagree

Q19B_Designated_SummitLake Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: In a designated parking lot Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19C_NotActual_SummitLake Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Not an actual parking space (e.g., on road shoulder) Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Convenient_SummitLake Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Convenient Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Uncongested_SummitLake Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Uncongested Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19_Visit_MountGoliath Whether or not respondent visited Mount Goliath Natural Area Q19 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q19A_Safe_MountGoliath Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Safe Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19B_Designated_MountGoliath Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: In a designated parking lot Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19C_NotActual_MountGoliath Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Not an actual parking space (e.g., on road shoulder) Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Convenient_MountGoliath Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Convenient Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19D_Uncongested_MountGoliath Respondent's opinion ‐ where I parked at this location today was: Uncongested Q19 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

Q19_DidNotStop Respondent did not stop to visit any of these locations today. Q19 99 = Did not stop t

today.

Q20_HowMuchParkingCong How much parking congestion there was when respondent parked Q20

0 = No parking con

1 = Slight parking c

2345 = Moderate park

67
Variable Name Description Question Values

89 = Extreme parkin

Q21A_ParkNearEntrance

Whether or not respondent would visit MERA if their only

option were to: Park near the MERA entrance station and

tour MERA by shuttle bus or van

Q21 1 = I'd be likely to d

2 = I'd probably cho

Q21B_15minShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit MERA if their only

option were to: Park at a designated lot outside of MERA, ride

a shuttle bus (less than 15 minutes) to MERA, and tour MERA

by shuttle bus or van

Q21 1 = I'd be likely to d

2 = I'd probably cho

Q21C_1hourShuttle

Whether or not respondent would visit MERA if their only

option were to: Park at a designated lot outside of MERA, ride

a shuttle bus (up to 1 hour) to MERA, and tour MERA by

shuttle bus or van

Q21 1 = I'd be likely to d

2 = I'd probably cho

Q22A_DriveParkWherever

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at MERA are full,

people should be: Allowed to enter MERA and drive around

until a parking space opens up

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q22B_StoppedEntrance

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at MERA are full,

people should be: Stopped at the entrance station until some

parking spaces open up and only then allowed to enter

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q22C_15MinShuttle

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at MERA are full,

people should be: Directed to park at a designated lot outside

of MERA, ride a shuttle bus (Less than 15 minutes) to MERA,

and tour MERA by shuttle bus or van.

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q22D_OtherRecAreas

Respondent's opinion ‐ when parking lots at MERA are full,

people should be: Directed to other recreation areas instead

of visiting MERA that day

Q22

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Neither Agree n

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagr

Q23_DecideToTakeTrip How long ago respondent decided to visit MERA Q22
Variable Name Description Question Values

1 = Sometime toda

2 = Yesterday

3 = In the last week

4 = More than a we

ago5 = A month or mo

Q24_DifficultParking Whether or not respondent thought that it might be difficult to find parking in MERA, when they planned their trip Q24 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25A_DidNotAffect The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in MERA: Did not affect respondent's plans Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25B_VisitedTimeOfDay

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

MERA caused respondent to: Visit at a time of day they

thought would be less crowded

Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25C_VisitedDayOfWeek

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

MERA caused respondent to: Visit on a day of the week they

thought would be less crowded

Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25D_AvoidedPlaces

The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in

MERA caused respondent to: Avoid places in MERA they

thought would be crowded

Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25E_Other The possibility that it might be difficult to find parking in MERA caused respondent to: Take other action Q25 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q25E_OtherSpecify Description of respondent's other action Q25 text

Q26A_Website Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Website Q26 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/N

Q26B_Smartphone Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Smartphone app Q26 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/N

Q26C_SocialMedia

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Social media (e.g.,

Facebook, Twitter)

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely

99 = Don't know/N

Q26D_TextUpdates

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Text updates on cell

phone/smartphone

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely

99 = Don't know/N
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q26E_AMRadio Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: AM radio station Q26 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/N

Q26F_TelephoneMessage

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Telephone info line w/

message update daily

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely

99 = Don't know/N

Q26G_TelephonePerson

Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source

for info about parking and crowding: Telephone info line w/

live person

Q26

1 = Likely

2 = Not likely

99 = Don't know/N

Q26H_TouristCenter Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Tourist info center Q26 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/N

Q26I_Other Whether or not respondent would be likely to use this source for info about parking and crowding: Other info source Q26 1 = Likely 2 = Not likely 99 = Don't know/N

Q26I_OtherSpecify Description of other info source respondent would use Q26 text

Q27_Gender Respondent's gender Q27 1 = Male 2 = Female

Q28_YearBorn Respondent's year of birth Q28 yyyy

Q28_Age Respondent's age Q28 #

Q28_AgeCat Respondent's age, categorized Q28

18 = 18 to 24

25 = 25 to 3435 = 35 to 44

45 = 45 to 5455 = 55 to 64

65 = 65 and older

Q29_LiveInUS Whether or not respondent lives in the United States Q29 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q29_ZipCode Respondent's zip code, if a resident of the US Q29 #####
Variable Name Description Question Values

Q29_State Respondent's state, if a resident of the US Q29 text

Q29_County Respondent's county, if a resident of Colorado Q29 text

Q29_MetroArea Respondent’s metropolitan area, if a resident of Colorado Q29 text

Q29_Country Respondent's country of residence, if not the US Q29 text

Q30_Education Highest level of formal education that respondent has completed Q30

1 = Some high scho

2 = High school gra

3 = Some college, b

4 = College, busine

5 = Some graduate 

6 = Master's, docto

Q31_Hispanic Whether or not respondent is Hispanic or Latino Q31 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32A_AmericanIndian Whether or not respondent's race is: American Indian or Alaska Native Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32B_Asian Whether or not respondent's race is: Asian Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32C_Black Whether or not respondent's race is: Black of African American Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32D_NativeHawaiian Whether or not respondent's race is: Native Hawaiian Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32E_PacificIslander Whether or not respondent's race is: Pacific Islander other than Native Hawaiian Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

Q32F_White Whether or not respondent's race is: White Q32 0 = No 1 = Yes

		

APPENDIX V. MERA VISITOR SURVEY “OTHER” INFORMATION

SOURCES REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS   
		

Table 37. List of other information sources that respondents would likely use to access information about

parking and crowding conditions at MERA when planning a future trip

Other Source Frequency (n=9)

Word of mouth 22%

Advisory signs at entrance 11%

Books, been here before 11%

Gate 11%

Go and see 11%

Predictive time that parking will fill based on time, day, and

month 11%

Road Signs 11%

Talk to hikers 11%
		

APPENDIX W. MERA VISITOR SURVEY COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE

REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS    
		

Table 38. List of respondent's country of residence

Country Frequency (n=450)

United States 97%

Canada 1%

United Kingdom 1%

Denmark 0%

Finland 0%

Germany 0%

Italy 0%

New Zealand 0%

Scotland 0%

Sweden 0%
		

APPENDIX X. MERA VISITOR SURVEY STATES OF RESIDENCE

REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS    
		

Table 39. List of respondent's state of residence, if a resident of the United States

State Frequency (n=382)

Colorado 49.2%

Kansas 4.7%

Texas 4.5%

Florida 4.2%

Illinois 3.1%

Nebraska 2.6%

Oklahoma 2.6%

Pennsylvania 2.6%

Wisconsin 2.6%

Iowa 2.1%

Missouri 2.1%

Virginia 1.8%

Minnesota 1.3%

Ohio 1.3%

Georgia 1.0%

Indiana 1.0%

New York 1.0%

Washington 1.0%

Kentucky 0.8%

Maryland 0.8%

New Jersey 0.8%

New Mexico 0.8%

Tennessee 0.8%

Alabama 0.5%

Arkansas 0.5%

Arizona 0.5%

California 0.5%

District of Columbia 0.5%

Louisiana 0.5%

Michigan 0.5%

New Hampshire 0.5%

Idaho 0.3%

Massachusetts 0.3%

Maine 0.3%

Mississippi 0.3%

North Carolina 0.3%

North Dakota 0.3%

Nevada 0.3%

Oregon 0.3%

Rhode Island 0.3%

South Carolina 0.3%

Utah 0.3%
		

APPENDIX Y. MERA VISITOR SURVEY ZIP CODES REPORTED BY

RESPONDENTS WHO RESIDE IN COLORADO   
		

Table 40. List of respondent's ZIP code of residence, if a resident of Colorado

ZIP Code Frequency (n=188)

80003 3%

80439 3%

80016 3%

80112 2%

80122 2%

80129 2%

80210 2%

80211 2%

80220 2%

80231 2%

80237 2%

80452 2%

80002 2%

80013 2%

80015 2%

80104 2%

80126 2%

80223 2%

80227 2%

80228 2%

80233 2%

80004 1%

80014 1%

80017 1%

80022 1%

80023 1%

80026 1%

80111 1%

80123 1%

80125 1%

80127 1%

80130 1%

80134 1%

80202 1%

80209 1%

80214 1%

80222 1%

80232 1%

80301 1%

80302 1%
		

ZIP Code Frequency (n=188)

80501 1%

80503 1%

80538 1%

80601 1%

80602 1%

80005 1%

80007 1%

80011 1%

80012 1%

80021 1%

80027 1%

80031 1%

80033 1%

80109 1%

80110 1%

80113 1%

80124 1%

80128 1%

80132 1%

80137 1%

80138 1%

80203 1%

80204 1%

80205 1%

80206 1%

80207 1%

80215 1%

80217 1%

80221 1%

80224 1%

80226 1%

80229 1%

80235 1%

80239 1%

80279 1%

80304 1%

80421 1%

80435 1%

80437 1%

80446 1%

80470 1%
		

ZIP Code Frequency (n=188)

80474 1%

80497 1%

80504 1%

80514 1%

80526 1%

80535 1%

80537 1%

80549 1%

80603 1%

80612 1%

80631 1%

80642 1%

80643 1%

80701 1%

80817 1%

80903 1%

80906 1%

80916 1%

80918 1%

80919 1%

80921 1%

80923 1%

81507 1%

81647 1%
		

APPENDIX Z. ECOLOGICAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT MAPPING OF

VISITOR‐CREATED RESOURCE IMPACTS AT GP AND MERA
		

Figure	1:	Large	informal	trail	from	near	Summit	Lake	to	the	parking	area	at	the	summit	of	Mt.	Evans.	

Route	cuts	through	both	tundra	and	rock;	expanding	into	a	route	when	cutting	through	rock	area.	

	 	
		

Figure	2:	Pull‐off	near	Mt.	Evans	summit	parking	and	informal	trails	used	to	access	designated	trail	

to	summit.	

	 	
		

Figure	3:		Informal	route	from	pull‐off	area	on	Mt.	Evans	road	used	to	access	the	Abyss	Lake	trail.	

	 	
		

Figure	4:	Borrow	pit	east	of	Summit	Lake;	possible	location	for	future	parking.	

	 	
		

Figure	5:	Unattended	parking	at	terminus	of	informal	trail	through	tundra	to	Lincoln	Lake	

bouldering	area.	

	 	
		

Figure	6:	Other	unattended	parking	area	that	is	presumed	to	be	used	by	individuals	using	Lincoln	

Lake.	

	 	
		

Figure	7:	Area	of	dispersed	visitor	use	at	Upper	Goliath	trailhead	and	directly	adjacent	to	parking	

area.	

	 	
		

Figure	8:	Borrow	pit	near	Nature	Center;	possible	location	for	future	parking.	

	 	
		

Figure	9:	Visitor‐created	impacts	at	the	trailhead	of	Mt.	Bierstadt	trail	

	 	
		

Figure	10:	Visitor‐created	impacts	between	boardwalk	area	of	Mt.	Bierstadt	trail	

	 	
		

Figure	11:	Visitor‐created	impacts	near	river‐crossing	on	Mt.	Bierstadt	trail;	including	beginning	of	

long,	informal	trail	to	access	Mt.	Evans.	
		

Figure	12:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	set	of	switchbacks	to	Mt.	Bierstadt	summit.	

	 	
		

Figure	13:	Visitor‐created	impacts	through	second	section	of	switchbacks	(through	mostly	tundra)	

to	Mt.	Bierstadt	summit.	

	 	
		

Figure	14:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	Mt.	Bierstadt	trail.	

	 	
		

Figure	15:	Visitor‐created	impacts	through	straight	section	of	trail	through	tundra	to	Mt.	Bierstadt	

summit.	

	 	
		

Figure	16:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	Mt.	Bierstadt	trail;	this	section	of	trail	is	beginning	to	climb	

the	slope	to	the	summit	of	Mt.	Evans	and	begins	to	become	more	rocky.	
		

Figure	17:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	the	summit	of	Mt.	Bierstadt;	final	section	of	trail	before	

reaching	the	final	climb	to	the	summit.	
		

Figure	18:	Visitor‐created	impacts	for	the	final	section	of	trail	to	the	summit	of	Mt.	Bierstadt	

	 	
		

Figure	19:	Visitor‐created	impacts	at	the	Square	Top	Lakes	trailhead.	

	 	
		

Figure	20:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	the	first	section	of	the	Square	Top	Lakes	trail.	

	 	
		

Figure	21:	Visitor‐create	impacts	along	the	Square	Top	Lakes	trail.	

	 	
		

Figure	22:	Visitor‐created	impacts	along	the	first	section	of	switch	backs	to	Square	Top	Lakes.	

	 	
		

Figure	23:	Visitor‐created	impacts	around	the	lower	lake	on	the	Square	Top	Lakes	trail.	

	 	
		

Figure	24:	Visitor‐created	impacts	around	the	upper	lake	on	the	Square	Top	Lake	trail.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page i

APPENDIX AA. TRANSIT IN PARKS PROJECT ANALYSIS: DATA

ASSESSMENT REPORT   
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page ii

Transit in Parks Project Analysis: Data

Assessment Report

Submitted to:

US	Department	of	Agriculture	

US	Forest	Service	

Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forests

Submitted by:

Steve	Lawson,	Ph.D.	

Beth	Isler,	P.E.	

Brett	Kiser,	M.S.	

Resource	Systems	Group	Inc.	

55	Railroad	Row	

White	River	Junction,	VT	05001	

PLANNING

 ENGINEERING

 DESIGN
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0........................................................................................................................ Introduction and

Purpose .........................................................................................................1

1.1	 Introduction	 1	

1.2	 Purpose	and	Organization	of	This	Report	 2	

2.0..................................................................................................... Forest‐Wide and Regional

Context..........................................................................................................4

2.1	 Forest‐Wide	Context	 4	

‐ 1997	Revision	of	the	Land	and	Resource	Management	Plan:	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	

National	Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland	(USFS,	1997)	.............................................	4

‐ The	National	Visitor	Use	Monitoring	Program	................................................................................	5

‐ The	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland	

Interpretive	Strategy	(USFS,	2005)	......................................................................................................	6

2.2	 Regional	Context	 7	

‐ Colorado	Statewide	Comprehensive	Outdoor	Recreation	Plan	(Colorado	State	Parks,	

2008)	.................................................................................................................................................................	8

‐ 2030	Mountains	and	Plains	Transportation	Plan	(DRCOG,	2005)	..........................................	9

‐ I‐70	Mountain	Corridor	Draft	Programmatic	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(CDOT	

&	FHWA,	2004)	..........................................................................................................................................	10

2.3	 Alternative	Transportation	Studies	on	Public	Lands	 12	

‐ Federal	Lands	Alternative	Transportation	Systems	Study	(FHWA/FTA,	2001)	............	12

‐ Federal	Lands	Alternative	Transportation	Systems	Study:	Summary	of	Forest	Service	

ATS	Needs	(FHWA/FTA,	2004)	...........................................................................................................	12

‐ Arapaho‐Roosevelt	National	Forest	Field	Report	(FHWA/FTA,	Date	unknown)	..........	13

‐ Transportation	Observations,	Considerations,	and	Recommendations	relative	to	the	

Colorado	Front	Range	(TAG/ATPPL,	2007)	...................................................................................	13

2.4	 Regional	Stakeholders	and	Potential	Partners	14	

3.0.......................................................................................................... Recreation Site‐Specific

Sections....................................................................................................... 17

3.1	 Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	 17	

‐ Location	.........................................................................................................................................................	17

‐ Visitor	Use	and	Recreation‐related	Issues	......................................................................................	18

‐ Transportation	Systems,	Infrastructure,	and	Issues	..................................................................	26

‐ Summary	.......................................................................................................................................................	32

3.2	 Guanella	Pass	 34	

‐ Location	.........................................................................................................................................................	34

‐ Visitor	Use	and	Recreation‐related	Issues	......................................................................................	35

‐ Transportation	Systems,	Infrastructure,	and	Issues	..................................................................	43
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page iv

‐ Summary	.......................................................................................................................................................	49

3.3	 Mount	Evans	 50	

‐ Location	.........................................................................................................................................................	50

‐ Visitor	Use	and	Recreation‐related	Issues	......................................................................................	51

‐ Transportation	Systems,	Infrastructure,	and	Issues	..................................................................	58

‐ Summary	.......................................................................................................................................................	63

4.0.....................................................................................................................................Conclusion

65

Appendix A Other Colorado Front Range Regional Transportation Planning

Studies 66

‐ Rocky	Mountain	Rail	Authority	High‐Speed	Rail	Feasibility	Study	(Transportation	

Economics	&	Management	Systems,	Inc.,	2010)	..........................................................................	67

‐ Front	Range	Travel	Counts	Survey	(North	Front	Range	MPO,	DRCOG,	Pikes	Peak	Area	

Council	of	Governments,	Pueblo	Area	Council	of	Governments,	CDOT,	RTD	&	FHWA;	

in	progress)	.................................................................................................................................................	67

‐ I‐70	Mountain	Corridor	Collaborative	Effort	Consensus	Recommendation	(The	

Collaborative	Effort,	2008)	...................................................................................................................	67

‐ I‐70	Coalition	Land	Use	Planning	Study	for	Rail	Transit	Alignment	throughout	the	I‐70	

Corridor	(I‐70	Coalition,	2009)	...........................................................................................................	69

Appendix B 2005 NVUM Survey Instrument............................................... 72

Appendix C 2000 and 2005 NVUM List of Specific Activities....................... 76

Appendix D 1999 Mount Evans Scenic Byway visitor Survey....................... 79

Appendix E List of Acronyms...................................................................... 82
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Study Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Population in Colorado, by County (source: Colorado State Demography Office, 2007, excerpted from

2008 Colorado SCORP) ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3. Projected Population Growth in Colorado, by Region of the State (source: Colorado State

Demography Office, 2007, excerpted from 2008 Colorado SCORP) ................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4. Monthly Distribution of Traffic Volumes on Mountainous Roadways in 2003 (source: DRCOG 2030

Mountains and Plains Transportation Plan, 2005) ....................................................................................... 10

Figure 5. Possible Changes to Forest Destination Trips, Winter 2025 (source: I‐70 DPEIS, 2004) ...................... 11

Figure 6. Possible Changes to Forest Destination Trips, Summer 2025 (source: I‐70 DPEIS, 2004).................... 11

Figure 7. BLRA ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 8. BLRA ‐ Average Monthly Visitation (2001‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)................................ 21

Figure 9. BLRA ‐ Annual Visitation During Fee Collection Period (2001‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data).. 22

Figure 10. BLRA ‐ Lake NVUM Site Locations....................................................................................................... 23

Figure 11. BLRA ‐ Existing Facilities (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005) .......Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Figure 12. BLRA ‐ Overflow Parking on Roadside (September 2009) .................................................................. 28

Figure 13. BLRA ‐ Proposed Facilities (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005) ......... 30

Figure 14. BLRA ‐ Transit Service Evaluated by FHWA (source: FHWA Field Report).......................................... 32

Figure 15. Guanella Pass ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 16. Guanella Pass ‐ Average Daily Trailhead Counts (~September 2008 to Early October 2008; source:

USFS trail counters) ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 17. Guanella Pass Area ‐ NVUM Study Sites............................................................................................. 39

Figure 18. Guanella Pass Road ‐ 1995 Seasonal Traffic Volumes (source: Guanella Pass Road Year 2025 Traffic

Projections, 2002)......................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 19. Guanella Pass Road ‐ Projected Summer ADT (source: Guanella Pass Road Year 2025 Traffic

Projections, 2002)......................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 20. Travel Time Comparisons of Alternative Routes (source: Guanella Pass Surface Evaluation: Effect to

Traffic Volumes and Speeds Technical Memo, 2009)................................................................................... 48

Figure 21. Mount Evans ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities.......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 22. Mount Evans ‐ Annual Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)........................ 53

Figure 23. Mount Evans ‐ Average Monthly Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data) ....... 54

Figure 24. Mount Evans ‐ Average Daily Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)............. 54

Figure 25. Mount Evans ‐ NVUM Site Locations.................................................................................................. 55

		

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. BLRA ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)........................................ 23

Table 2. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)........................................................... 24

Table 3. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)................................................... 24

Table 4. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM) ............................................................................. 24

Table 5. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM) ..................................................................... 24

Table 6. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)................................................................................... 25
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page vi

Table 7. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)........................................................................... 25

Table 8. BLRA ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM) ........................................................................... 25

Table 9. BLRA ‐ Distance Traveled from Home (miles; source: NVUM)............................................................... 26

Table 10. BLRA ‐ Parking Capacity (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005) .............. 28

Table 11. Guanella Pass ‐ Recreation Sites and Facilities (source: CMS, 2001)................................................... 36

Table 12. Guanella Pass ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)........................ 40

Table 13. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Activity Type During Visit (source: NVUM) ................................. 40

Table 14. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Activity Type During Visit (source: NVUM) .................... 40

Table 15. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)............................................ 41

Table 16. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)............................... 41

Table 17. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM) ................................................. 41

Table 18. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM) .................................... 42

Table 19. Guanella Pass Area ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM)................................................... 42

Table 20. Guanella Pass Area ‐ Distance Traveled from Home (miles; source: NVUM) ...................................... 43

Table 21. Guanella Pass ‐ Recreation Sites and Capacities (source: CMS, 2001)................................................. 45

Table 22. Mount Evans ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)......................... 55

Table 23. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)............................................ 56

Table 24. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM) .............................................................. 56

Table 25. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM).................................................................... 57

Table 26. Mount Evans ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM) ............................................................ 57

Table 27. Mount Evans ‐ Distance Traveled (miles; source: NVUM) ................................................................... 57

Table 28. Mount Evans ‐ Vehicle and Visitor Counts 1996‐2006 (source: Mount Evans Business Plan/Recreation

Enhancement Act Project, 2007).................................................................................................................. 59
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 1

1.0 Introduction and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

In	February	2009,	the	Arapaho‐Roosevelt	National	Forest	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland	(ARNF‐

PNG)	submitted	a	proposal	to	the	Paul	S.	Sarbanes	Transit	in	Parks	(TRIP)	Program	to	support	

coordinated,	multi‐agency	transportation	planning	in	the	Colorado	Rockies.	This	action	grew	out	of	

recommendations	from	the	2007	Front	Range	Interagency	Transportation	Assistance	Group	(TAG)	

report.	The	proposed	project	is	to	consider	potential	alternative	transportation	solutions	to	reduce	

traffic	and	parking	congestion	at	three	high‐use,	Front	Range	US	Forest	Service	(USFS)	recreation	

destinations;	Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	(BLRA),	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans	(Figure	25).	

The	proposed	TRIP	project	would	evaluate	each	site	using	an	integrated	modeling	system	that	

incorporates	USFS	management	objectives	and	corresponding	acceptable	use	and	carrying‐capacity	

policies.	The	decision	whether	to	fund	the	proposed	TRIP	project	will	be	made	in	FY2010.		

In	the	interim,	the	USFS	has	initiated	a	project	with	Resource	Systems	Group	Inc.	(RSG)	entitled	

“Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forests	Transit	in	Parks	Project	Analysis”.	The	project	has	three	

integrated	components:		

1. Perform	an	assessment	of	existing	literature/studies	on	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	

Evans,	and	then	prepare	a	data	assessment	report	of	existing	information,	data	gaps,	and	

management	conflicts	in	preparation	of	implementation	of	the	TRIP	study.	

2. Produce	a	preliminary	scope	of	work,	in	collaboration	with	the	USFS,	Colorado	State	

University,	and	Utah	State	University	for	the	TRIP	study,	which	is	the	next	phase	of	this	

project.		

3. Present	the	data	assessment	report	to	ARNF‐PNG	staff.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 2

Figure 25. Study Sites

1.2 Purpose and Organization of This Report

This	report	constitutes	the	data	assessment	report	noted,	and	has	been	compiled	to	document	

current	transportation,	visitor	use,	and	resource	conditions	at	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	

Evans,	based	on	a	review	of	existing	information	and	an	onsite	scoping	trip	in	September,	2009.	

This	report	supports	the	work	necessary	for	successful	implementation	of	the	proposed	TRIP	

project	by	locating,	summarizing,	and	consolidating	past	studies	and	research	at	the	three	USFS	

sites.	This	literature	review	identifies	and	summarizes	existing	data	and	gaps	that	will	be	critical	to	

the	TRIP	project	planning.		

Even	if	the	TRIP	funding	is	not	awarded,	this	report	will	help	the	USFS	better	understand:	existing	

traffic	numbers,	types,	and	peak	times;	visitor	numbers,	origins,	destinations,	activities,	and	peak	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 3

times;	and	baseline	resource	data.	This	data	assessment	will	assist	the	USFS	in	developing	

management	prescriptions	for	these	areas	that	could	better	protect	Forest	resources	and	improve	

the	visitor	experience.		

The	report	is	organized	in	the	following	manner.	Section	1	serves	to	introduce	the	project	and	

establish	the	purpose	and	organization	of	this	report.	Section	2	summarizes	key	elements	of	

planning	documents	and	existing	information	that	are	forest‐wide	and/or	regional	in	scope,	and	

therefore	apply	to	all	three	recreation	sites	considered	in	this	project.	Section	3	reviews	and	

synthesizes	information	from	the	documents	and	data	that	were	included	in	the	literature	review	

for	each	of	the	three	specific	study	sites	for	this	project	(Section	3.1‐BLRA;	Section	3.2‐Guanella	

Pass;	and	Section	3.3‐Mount	Evans).	Each	recreation	site‐specific	section	(Section	3.1‐Section	3.3)	is	

organized	into	sub‐sections	to	describe	each	site’s:	

 Location	

 Visitor	Use	and	Recreation‐related	Issues	

 Transportation	Systems,	Infrastructure,	and	Issues	

Further,	each	site‐specific	section	concludes	with	a	summary	of	key	issues	and	associated	data	gaps.	

Section	4	provides	a	summary	of	issues	and	themes	that	are	common	across	the	three	study	sites	

and	consequently	serve	as	potential	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 4

2.0 Forest‐Wide and Regional Context

While	many	of	the	documents	reviewed	for	this	project	focus	specifically	on	the	BLRA,	Guanella	

Pass,	or	Mount	Evans,	several	provide	a	Forest‐wide	and/or	regional	perspective.	These	broader‐

scoped	documents	provide	insights	regarding	visitor	use,	transportation,	and	resource	conditions	

in	the	ARNF‐PNG	that	apply	across	the	three	study	areas	for	this	project;	information	from	them	is	

reviewed	in	this	section.	It	should	be	noted	that	a	small	number	of	the	regional	context‐oriented	

documents	reviewed	for	this	project	provide	less	directly	relevant	information	for	the	proposed	

TRIP	project	and	are	consequently	not	directly	referenced	in	this	section.	However,	abstracts	

summarizing	key	information	from	these	documents	are	contained	in	0.	

2.1 Forest‐Wide Context

1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan: Arapaho and Roosevelt National

Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (USFS, 1997)

Among	the	documents	that	provide	a	Forest‐wide	perspective	is	the	1997	Revision	of	the	Land	and	

Resource	Management	Plan:	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forests	and	Pawnee	National	

Grassland	(hereafter	referred	to	as	the	Forest	Plan).	The	Forest	Plan	serves	as	a	foundational	

planning	document	designed	to	provide	guidance	on	the	management	of	the	ARNF‐PNG	over	a	10‐

15	year	period.	The	Forest	Plan	documents	the	resources	of	the	ARNF‐PNG,	establishes	goals	and	

objectives	for	the	Forest,	and	defines	prescriptive	management	zones	that	specify	desired	resource,	

social,	and	management	conditions	of	specific	land	units	within	the	Forest.	Thus,	the	Forest	Plan	

provides	a	framework	for	this	project	to	understand	and	evaluate	visitor	use,	transportation,	and	

resource	conditions	at	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans.	Key	elements	of	the	Forest	Plan,	

with	respect	to	this	project,	are	reviewed	in	the	following	paragraphs.	

The	ARNF‐PNG	are	a	single	administrative	unit	of	the	USFS	and	part	of	the	USFS’s	Region	2,	with	

headquarters	in	Lakewood,	CO;	headquarters	of	the	ARNF‐PNG,	itself,	are	in	Fort	Collins,	CO.	The	

ARNF‐PNG	is	nearly	1.5	million	acres	in	size,	comprised	of	the	foothills	and	most	of	the	high	

mountain	country	along	the	Colorado	Front	Range,	from	west	of	Denver	north	to	the	Wyoming	

border.	Much	of	the	ARNF	is	above	12,000	feet	elevation,	and	includes	three	peaks	above	14,000	

feet,	including	Mt.	Bierstadt	at	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans.		

The	ARNF	is	referred	to	in	the	Forest	Plan	as	an	“urban	National	Forest,”	due	to	its	close	proximity	

to	the	Front	Range	metro	area	population	of	nearly	3	million	people.	As	a	result	of	the	urban‐

proximate	nature	of	the	Forest,	coupled	with	Colorado’s	longstanding	popularity	for	nature‐based	

tourism,	the	ARNF	ranks	among	the	top	National	Forests	in	the	country,	in	terms	of	year‐round	

recreational	use.	Thus,	there	are	often	competing	interests	at	play	among	residents	of	the	local	

mountain	communities	and	recreationists	visiting	the	Forest,	as	well	as	significant	recreation	

pressures	on	Forest	resources	and	visitor	experiences.		

The	challenges	of	recreation‐related	issues	in	the	ARNF	are	underscored	by	the	fact	that	they	are	

among	the	topics	of	focus	in	the	Forest	Plan.	A	number	of	specific	recreation‐related	issues	are	

noted	within	the	Forest	Plan	that	are	of	particular	relevance	to	this	project	and	are	outlined	here.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 5

 Intensive	visitation	and	inadequate	or	deteriorating	facilities	due	to	budget	limitations	in	

developed	recreation	areas,	like	the	BLRA.		

 Recreation	impacts	to	Forest	resources	and	visitor	experiences	attributed	to	rapidly	

growing	visitation	in	dispersed	recreation	areas.	Visitor	use	in	dispersed	recreation	areas	

account	for	the	majority	of	recreational	use	on	the	ARNF	and	is	growing	to	the	point	that	it	

may	double	every	8	or	9	years.	All	three	study	sites	for	this	project	provide	direct	access	to	

and	contain	dispersed	recreation	areas.		

 Increasing	conflict	among	different	recreational	user	groups	(e.g.,	motorized	vs.	non‐

motorized,	wilderness	vs.	frontcountry	recreationists,	etc.).		

The	Forest	Plan	specifies	goals,	standards,	and	guidelines	to	provide	direction	for	addressing	

recreation‐related	and	other	issues	at	a	general	level.	With	respect	to	this	project,	the	most	salient	

goals	(GO),	standards	(ST),	and	guidelines	(GL)	noted	in	the	Forest	Plan	include:	

 (GO)	Ensure	that	all	management	activities	are	consistent	with	the	adopted	Recreation	

Opportunity	Spectrum	(ROS)	class	as	shown	on	the	ROS decision map.	

 (GO)	Encourage	outfitters	and	guides	to	provide	desired	recreational	experiences	within	the	

resource	capacity	of	the	area.	

 (ST)	Make	facilities	provided	at	trailheads	consistent	with	the	recreational	settings	and	

provide	for	parking,	trail	information,	and	appropriate	sanitation	facilities.	

 (GL)	Close,	rehabilitate,	or	otherwise	mitigate	dispersed	sites	when:	

- Campsite	condition	reaches	Frissell	class	4	(heavy)	or	5	(severe)	

- Site	occupancy	exceeds	the	adopted	visual	quality	objective	

- There	are	social	use	conflicts	

- Unacceptable	environmental	damage	is	occurring,	per	Frissell	(1978)	

The	Forest	Plan	also	provides	the	framework	for	addressing	recreation‐related	and	other	issues	in	

the	ARNF	at	a	more	focused	level	by	prescribing	Management	Areas	to	specific	land	units	within	the	

Forest.	The	Forest	Plan	includes	26	prescriptive	Management	Areas	that	range	from	totally	natural	

conditions	(1.1	Wilderness)	to	extensive	human‐use	and	modifications	(8.22	ski‐based	resorts).	By	

allocating	prescriptive	Management	Areas	to	land	units	within	the	ARNF,	the	USFS	specifies	the	

types	of	recreational	activities	and	other	uses/values	that	will	be	given	priority	in	various	areas	of	

the	Forest.	Therefore,	an	understanding	of	the	prescriptive	Management	Areas	for	each	of	the	three	

study	sites	in	this	project	is	necessary;	this	is	addressed	in	the	site‐specific	sections	of	the	report.		

The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program		

The	National	Visitor	Use	Monitoring	Program	(NVUM)	is	a	national	program	of	the	USFS	designed	

to	collect	information	about	visitor	use	and	satisfaction	in	National	Forests	on	a	five‐year	cycle.	In	

the	ARNF,	NVUM	studies	have	been	conducted	in	2000	and	2005,	and	a	third	NVUM	study	is	

planned	for	the	ARNF	in	2010.	Data	from	the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	studies	were	compiled,	

reviewed,	and	synthesized	as	part	of	the	background	information	review	for	this	project,	results	of	

which	provide	Forest‐wide	and	site‐specific	information	about	recreational	use	in	the	ARNF.	Site‐

specific	findings	from	the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	studies	are	presented	in	each	of	the	site‐specific	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 6

sections	of	the	report,	while	Forest‐wide	findings	from	the	2000	NVUM	study	(Forest‐wide	findings	

from	2005	were	not	available	for	review	in	this	project)	are	summarized	here:		

 Approximately	2,390	recreational	users	in	the	ARNF	participated	in	the	2000	NVUM	study.	

 During	the	2000	calendar	year,	there	were	an	estimated	6.2	million	recreational	visits	to	the	

ARNF,	including	approximately	0.4	million	Wilderness	visits.	

 About	two‐thirds	of	ARNF	visitors	during	2000	were	male;	about	one‐quarter	were	

between	31	and	40	years	of	age;	and	almost	94%	classified	their	race/ethnicity	as	“White”.	

 The	average	length	of	stay	for	a	Forest	visit	during	2000	was	24	hours,	and	about	15%	of	

visitors	reported	an	overnight	stay	on	the	Forest.		

 ARNF	visitors,	on	average,	went	to	1.3	recreation	sites	within	the	Forest	during	their	visit	in	

2000,	and	generally	spent	about	9	hours	at	each	site	they	visited.		

 The	five	most	popular	activities	reported	by	visitors	to	the	ARNF	during	2000	include:	

- Wildlife	viewing	(78%)	

- General	use/relaxation	(74%)	

- Hiking/walking	(55%)	

- Viewing	of	natural	features	(48%)	

- Pleasure	driving	(39%)	

 The	facilities	and	specially	designated	areas	in	the	ARNF	most	frequently	used	by	

recreational	visitors	in	2000	included:	

- Hiking/biking/horseback	trails	(41%)	

- Scenic	byways	(38%)	

- Other	forest	roads	(28%)	

The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Interpretive

Strategy (USFS, 2005)

Additional	Forest‐wide	perspectives	regarding	recreational	use	in	the	ARNF	are	provided	by	The	

Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland	Interpretive	Strategy	

(USFS, 2005),	which	was	reviewed	as	part	of	this	project.	In	developing	the	10‐year	interpretive	

strategy,	the	ARNF	conducted	an	“audience	inventory	and	analysis”	in	2004,	results	of	which	

suggest:	

 The	most	striking	and	recurrent	theme	in	the	studies	reviewed	for	the	audience	inventory	

and	analysis	relates	to	the	rapid	growth	of	the	Front	Range	population	and	recreational	

users	in	the	ARNF.		

 The	availability	of	information	about	recreation	and	adequacy	of	signs	is	important	to	ARNF	

visitors,	but	only	marginally	satisfactory.	The	issue	is	found	to	be	particularly	pronounced	

for	wilderness	visitors.	

 The	majority	of	recreational	users	get	their	information	about	the	ARNF	from	friends	and	

family	(87%)	or	from	newspapers	(64%),	but	an	increasing	number	are	obtaining	

information	from	the	internet	(45%).	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 7

 The	greatest	growth	in	Rocky	Mountain	recreation	is	in	active	sports	such	as	kayaking	and	

mountain	biking,	and	in	snow/ice	recreation	such	as	snowboarding	and	snowmobiling.	

Specifically,	each	of	these	four	activities	has	increased	over	100%	since	1995.	

 Colorado	attracts	the	most	hunters	and	anglers	of	any	of	the	8	Rocky	Mountain	states,	and	

the	ARNF	is	a	popular	destination	for	these	activities.		

 For	Colorado	residents,	open	space	and	natural	areas	play	significantly	into	what	they	value	

about	their	state.	For	example,	90%	of	Colorado	state	residents	report	using	recreation	

trails.	

 ARNF	visitors	know	very	little	about	the	National	Forest	System	and	cannot	distinguish	the	

national	forests	from	national	parks	and	other	public	lands.	

In	addition	to	describing	the	ARNF	audiences	for	interpretive	messages	and	services,	the	

interpretive	strategy	provides	an	inventory	of	existing	interpretive	and	information	services.	The	

inventory	includes	information	regarding	existing	conditions	of:	

 Signs	and	kiosk	structures	

 Sign	message	content	

 Forest	and	grassland	interpretive	trails	

 Interpretive	programs	

 Public	Affairs	Key	Messages	and	Communication	Strategies	

 Internet	information	

Finally,	and	importantly	for	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project,	the	interpretive	strategy	provides	

recommendations	and	action	items	to	meet	the	needs	for	interpretive	and	information	services.	The	

document	suggests	that	the	ARNF	should	seek	opportunities	for	collaborating	with	research	

stations,	tourism	entities,	and	educational	institutions	to	support	and	use	visitor	studies	to	address	

the	following	types	of	questions:	

 What	interests,	opinions,	and	knowledge	do	ARNF	visitors	have?	What	do	they	want	to	

know	and	what	do	they	need	to	know?	

 What	perceptions	do	ARNF	visitors	have	about	Forest	recreation	or	Forest	issues?	

 What	expectations	do	ARNF	visitors	have	for	their	Forest	visit?

 What	and	how	do	ARNF	visitors	learn	from	their	forest	experiences?	

 What	specific	outcomes	are	realized	by	the	USFS	as	a	result	of	visitors’	encounters	with	

Forest	information	and	interpretive	media?	

 What	venues	and	media	are	the	most	effective	in	different	settings	and	situations?	

While	not	all	of	these	questions	are	directly	related	to	the	objectives	of	the	proposed	TRIP	project,	

many	of	them	could	potentially	be	addressed	with	data	collection	efforts	that	would	likely	be	

included	in	the	study,	if	funded.		

2.2 Regional Context

Regional	factors	play	an	important	contributing	role	to	many	of	the	Forest‐wide	issues	noted	in	the	

preceding	paragraphs.	Several	of	the	documents	included	in	the	background	information	review	for	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 8

this	project	provide	insights	about	population	trends	and	transportation	conditions	in	the	Colorado	

Front	Range	region	that	are	relevant	to	this	project;	these	are	reviewed	in	the	following	paragraphs.		

Colorado Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Colorado State Parks, 2008)

Perhaps	the	most	noteworthy	regional	trend	is	the	dramatic	rate	of	population	growth	in	the	

Colorado	Front	Range.	The	Colorado	Statewide	Comprehensive	Outdoor	Recreation	Plan	(SCORP)	

includes	population	growth	projections	for	various	regions	of	the	state,	which	indicate	particularly	

pronounced	population	growth	in	the	Denver	metro	area	to	the	east	of	the	ARNF	(Error!

Reference source not found.	and	Error! Reference source not found.).			

Figure 26. Population in Colorado, by County (source: Colorado State Demography Office, 2007,

excerpted from 2008 Colorado SCORP)
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 9

Figure 27. Projected Population Growth in Colorado, by Region of the State (source: Colorado State

Demography Office, 2007, excerpted from 2008 Colorado SCORP)

2030 Mountains and Plains Transportation Plan (DRCOG, 2005)

The	burgeoning	Front	Range	population	is	a	significant	contributing	factor	to	the	outdoor	

recreation	pressures	in	the	ARNF	as	noted.	Furthermore,	population	growth	in	the	region	has	

resulted	in	significant	transportation	issues	throughout	the	region,	with	particularly	congested	

conditions	in	the	I‐70	corridor.	However,	I‐70	traffic	congestion	can	be	attributed	not	only	to	

population	growth	in	the	region,	but	also	to	recreation‐related	travel.	In	particular,	traffic	data	

collected	by	the	Colorado	Department	of	Transportation	(CDOT)	and	reported	in	the	2030

Mountains and Plains Transportation Plan	suggest	that	recreation	trips	comprise	the	majority	of	

traffic	on	I‐70	and	that	this	results	in	significant	impacts	for	local	residents	(Figure	28).	The	traffic	

data	also	suggest	that	the	summer	months	of	July	and	August	have	the	highest	traffic	volumes	at	

about	35,000	vehicles	per	day,	while	the	skiing	months	of	December	through	March	generally	see	

about	30,000	vehicles	per	day.	Furthermore,	traffic	projections	for	the	I‐70	corridor	suggest	

congestion	will	worsen	over	the	next	decade.	For	example,	recreation	trips	on	I‐70	in	the	

Georgetown	area	in	2025	are	projected	to	be	about	80%	above	their	2000	levels.	In	addition,	

summer	weekday	traffic	volumes	in	2025	are	projected	to	surpass	2000	winter	weekend	volumes	

(I‐70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 2004).	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 10

Figure 28. Monthly Distribution of Traffic Volumes on Mountainous Roadways in 2003 (source: DRCOG

2030 Mountains and Plains Transportation Plan, 2005)

I‐70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (CDOT &

FHWA, 2004)

In	response	to	traffic	congestion	and	related	transportation	issues	in	the	I‐70	corridor,	the	Federal	

Highway	Administration	(FHWA),	Colorado	Department	of	Transportation	(CDOT),	and	regional	

transportation	planning	authorities	are	engaged	in	long	range	planning	initiatives.	Most	notably,	

perhaps,	is	the	I‐70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (I‐70	

DPEIS),	which	was	initiated	by	FHWA	and	CDOT	in	2000.	The	purpose	of	the	I‐70	DPEIS	is	to	

develop	and	evaluate	alternatives	for	addressing	traffic	congestion	in	the	I‐70	corridor,	resulting	in	

the	selection	of	a	Preferred	Alternative.	The	alternatives	included	in	the	I‐70	DPEIS	are	broadly	

categorized	into	those	that	have	a	transit	orientation	(e.g.,	rail,	bus)	and	those	that	have	a	highway	

orientation	(e.g.,	additional	traffic	lanes)	to	solving	traffic	congestion	and	related	transportation	

issues	on	the	I‐70	corridor.	Within	the	DPEIS,	the	alternatives	are	evaluated	with	respect	to	a	

number	of	factors,	including	the	potential	effects	on	recreation	travel	and	trips	to	the	ARNF;	these	

recreation‐related	effects	are	outlined	in	the	following	paragraphs.		

Results	of	the	I‐70	DPEIS	alternatives	analysis	suggest	that	recreational	use	of	the	ARNF	would	

likely	be	affected	to	different	degrees,	depending	on	the	Preferred	Alternative	selected	in	the	I‐70	

DPEIS	process	(Figure	29	and	Figure	30).	In	particular,	transit	alternatives	are	expected	to	

encourage	increased	use	of	developed	recreation	areas	in	the	ARNF	and	related	activities	such	as	

downhill	skiing/resort	use.	Highway	alternatives	are	expected	to	encourage	increased	use	of	

dispersed	recreation	areas	in	the	ARNF	and	related	activities	such	as	camping,	mountain	biking,	

and	ATV	use.	Thus,	the	I‐70	DPEIS	process	and	outcomes	are	highly	relevant	to	this	and	the	

proposed	TRIP	project.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 11

Figure 29. Possible Changes to Forest Destination Trips, Winter 2025 (source: I‐70 DPEIS, 2004)

Figure 30. Possible Changes to Forest Destination Trips, Summer 2025 (source: I‐70 DPEIS, 2004)

While	the	I‐70	DPEIS	analysis	concludes	that	transit	alternatives	would	generally	encourage	

increased	use	of	developed	areas	in	the	ARNF	and	related	activities	such	as	downhill	skiing/resort	

use,	it	is	suggested	that	transit	linkages	could	be	developed	to	support	transit	use	by	visitors	to	

dispersed	recreation	areas	in	the	Forest.	These	“feeder‐system”	transit	services	could,	in	turn,	be	

connected	to	transit	systems/service	in	the	ARNF	to	deliver	visitors	to	trailheads	and	other	

destinations	for	dispersed	recreation	activities.	Thus,	an	integral	component	of	such	a	system	

would	involve	transit	service	in	the	ARNF.		

Possible Change in 2025 Winter Forest Destination Trips by Alternative

2025 projected skier visits=2.37 million; 2025 projected winter

RVDs=2.05 million

(I‐70 Districts)

‐0.45

‐0.35

‐0.25

‐0.15

‐0.05

0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

No Action Minimal Action Transit Highway Combination Highway‐

Transit

Forest Destination Trips (millions)

Possible Change in 2025 Summer Forest Destination Trips by Alternative

2025 projected summer RVDs = 4.32 million (I‐70 Districts)

‐0.45

‐0.35

‐0.25

‐0.15

‐0.05

0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

No Action Minimal Action Transit Highway Combination Highway‐

Transit

Forest Destination Trips (millions)

1	RVDs	are	Recreational	Visitor	Days	which	are	defined	as	recreation	use	of	

National	Forest	land	or	water	that	aggregates	to	12	visitor‐hours	

1

1	RVDs	are	Recreational	Visitor	Days	which	are	defined	as	recreation	use	of	

National	Forest	land	or	water	that	aggregates	to	12	visitor‐hours	

1
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 12

2.3 Alternative Transportation Studies on Public Lands

A	series	of	three	interrelated	studies	concerning	the	need	for	and	feasibility	of	ATS	on	public	lands	

was	reviewed	for	this	project.	The	studies	were	conducted	by	FHWA	and	the	Federal	Transit	

Administration	(FTA)	and	are	summarized	in	the	following	paragraphs.	

Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study (FHWA/FTA, 2001)

The	first	of	the	three	FHWA/FTA	studies	was	designed	to	quantify	the	extent	and	costs	of	transit	

needs	at	sites	managed	by	the	National	Park	Service	(NPS),	the	Bureau	of	Land	Management	(BLM),	

and	the	US	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS).	The	study	identified	benefits	and	barriers	to	

implementing	transit	on	federally‐managed	lands.	Specifically,	the	study	results	suggest	transit	can	

help	achieve	the	following	goals:	

 Relieve	traffic	congestion	and	parking	shortages.	

 Enhance	visitor	mobility	and	accessibility.	

 Preserve	sensitive	natural,	cultural,	and	historic	resources.	

 Provide	improved	interpretation,	education	and	visitor	information	services.	

 Reduce	pollution.	

 Improve	economic	development	opportunities	for	gateway	communities.	

Barriers	to	successful	implementation	of	transit	on	federally‐managed	sites	include:	

 Lack	 of	 a	 dedicated	 funding	 source	 for	 developing,	 implementing,	 and	 operating	 and	

maintaining	transit	systems.	

 Difficulty	in	selecting	appropriate	equipment.	

 Lack	of	support	for	transit	systems	by	certain	gateway	communities.	

 Inadequate	marketing	and	public	information.	

 Technical	challenges.

Thus,	this	study	provides	a	potential	framework	to	evaluate	benefits	and	barriers	for	ATS	options	at	

the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and/or	Mount	Evans.	However,	the	framework	should	be	

expanded/adapted	to	incorporate	user	capacity	considerations.	

Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study: Summary of Forest Service ATS

Needs (FHWA/FTA, 2004)

The	second	of	the	three	FHWA/FTA	studies	discusses	the	ATS	needs	of	USFS	lands	and	includes	the	

ARNF	Peak‐to‐Peak	Transit	Service	proposals	for	the	BLRA	and	Mount	Evans.	The	study	identified	

several	potential	issues	and	opportunities	relevant	to	implementation	of	ATS	systems	at	USFS	

recreation	sites,	as	follows:	

 The	study	found	that	the	majority	of	USFS	recreation	sites	evaluated	have	relatively	modest	

transit	needs	that	can	be	served	by	a	small	number	of	vehicles	operating	on	a	seasonal	basis.		

 At	some	sites,	there	appear	to	be	opportunities	to	recover	at	least	a	portion	of	operations	and	

maintenance	costs	through	fares.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 13

 The	study	recommends	that	for	USFS	sites	considering	ATS	solutions,	opportunities	should	

be	sought	to	expand	or	connect	with	existing	transit	systems	that	serve	other	nearby	federal	

lands	or	urban	areas.		

 The	study	further	notes	that	one	promising	characteristic	of	partnerships	with	urban	transit	

systems	is	that	the	peak	usage	of	their	vehicles	occurs	on	weekdays,	while	peak	demand	in	

national	forest	recreation	areas	generally	occurs	on	weekends.	However,	there	are	

challenges	in	developing	partnerships.	Urban	transit	operating	costs,	even	in	small	

communities,	can	be	very	high,	and	available	vehicles	may	not	be	suitable	for	areas	with	

steep	terrain	and	narrow	roadways.		

 Given	the	seasonal	nature	of	most	services,	contracting	with	private	providers	can	be	a	cost‐

effective	strategy.	

 Finally,	the	study	suggests	that	in	many	USFS	recreation	areas,	additional	visitors	can	be	

accommodated	without	unacceptable	resource	and	experiential	impacts,	but	additional	

automobiles	cannot.	Further,	environmental	concerns,	as	well	as	topography,	make	

roadway	and	parking	lot	expansion	more	costly	and	less	desirable	than	ATS	solutions	in	

some	USFS	recreation	areas.	Thus,	many	site	managers	contacted	in	the	study	believe	that	

ATS	can	serve	as	a	cost‐effective	method	of	accommodating	additional	visitor	demand,	

while	at	the	same	time	protecting	resources	and	the	quality	of	visitor	experiences.	The	

proposed	TRIP	project	would	be	designed	to	systematically	evaluate	these	assumptions.	

Arapaho‐Roosevelt National Forest Field Report (FHWA/FTA, Date unknown)

The	third	of	the	three	FHWA/FTA	studies	includes	an	evaluation	of	a	potential	ATS	that	would	

provide	access	to	hiking	trails	and	bicycling	routes	in	the	BLRA	area	and	to	the	Peak‐to‐Peak	and	

Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byways.	Discussion	of	the	proposed	systems,	potential	benefits,	and	challenges	

of	implementation	are	discussed	in	the	respective	site‐specific	sections	of	the	report	(i.e.,	Section	3‐

1‐BLRA	and	Section	3‐3‐Mount	Evans).	The	study	suggests	that	additional	work	is	needed	to	

finalize	routes	and	schedules	and	develop	funding	strategies.	The	study	further	suggests	that	an	

evaluation	of	parking	demand	and	strategies	at	the	BLRA	needs	to	be	developed.	

Transportation Observations, Considerations, and Recommendations relative to the

Colorado Front Range (TAG/ATPPL, 2007)

In	response	to	transportation	issues	and	outdoor	recreation	pressures	in	the	Front	Range,	a	

Transportation	Assistance	Group	(TAG)	was	convened	in	the	Front	Range	region	during	July	24‐26,	

2007.	The	TAG	conducted	a	review	of	transportation	and	public	lands‐related	issues	in	the	Front	

Range	region,	on	behalf	of	the	USFS,	in	cooperation	with	the	USFWS	and	NPS.	The	review	sought	to	

explore	opportunities	for	improving	regional	connections	for	urban	residents	to/from	federal	

recreation	areas	and	to	identify	avenues	for	coordination	between	federal	land	management	

agencies	and	transportation	planning	organizations	over	the	next	15‐20	years.	Furthermore,	the	

USFS	convened	the	TAG	review	as	a	means	to	explore	potential	partnering	opportunities	and	

strategies	for	enhancing	alternative	transportation	access	to	public	lands	in	the	Colorado	Front	

Range.		

Key	findings	and	recommendations	from	the	TAG	include:	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 14

 There	is	a	need	to	address	quality	of	life	and	economic	development	impacts	of	

transportation,	including	the	potential	to	improve	visitor	experience	through	interpretive	

resources.	

 I‐70	traffic	and	associated	congestion	limits	access	to	recreation	on	public	lands	in	the	Front	

Range	region.	

 Federal	land	management	agencies	are	moving	toward	travel	management	policies	that	will	

concentrate	visitor	use	by	function	and	area.	Traveler	information	has	the	potential	to	shift	

visitors	to	areas	that	are	underutilized,	provided	that	the	land	management	agencies	are	

prepared	to	accommodate	the	shift.	

 USFS	staff	senses	that	the	national	forests	in	the	area	can	accommodate	more	visitors	in	the	

high	use	areas;	however,	the	infrastructure	cannot	safely	or	conveniently	handle	more	

vehicles.	

 Linkages	between	federal	land	management	plans/activities	and	state/regional	

transportation	planning	processes	are	extremely	weak,	given	the	significance	of	federal	

lands	and	recreational	travel	in	the	Front	Range.	

 Opportunities	exist	to	improve	cooperative	planning	between	federal	land	agencies	and	state	

/	regional	transportation	agencies.	The	benefits	of	such	cooperation	can	assist	in	coping	with	

current	shortfalls	in	funding	relative	to	needs	across	all	agencies.	They	can	also	help	to	build	

a	regional	strategy	for	securing	more	adequate	financial	support	of	critical	investments	to	

support	recreation	and	tourism	in	the	Front	Range,	consistent	with	Federal	Land	agency	

missions	and	objectives	such	as	reconnecting	people	with	nature,	conserving	natural	and	

cultural	resources,	fostering	healthier	lifestyles,	and	providing	quality	visitor	experiences.	

 The	USFS,	in	particular,	faces	a	special	challenge	to	ensure	that	public	access	issues	are	fully	

integrated	rather	than	being	overshadowed	by	advocacy	efforts	on	the	part	of	ski	areas	and	

other	permitted	users	within	transportation	planning	processes.

 There	are	several	initial	successes	in	providing	environmentally	sustainable	transportation	

solutions	and	additional	near	term	opportunities	(such	as	at	Guanella	Pass	and	the	BLRA)	

are	evident.	

 Improved	understanding	and	methods	for	considering	the	transportation	needs	of	federal	

lands	in	statewide	and	regional	transportation	planning	processes	and	ongoing	technical	

assistance	are	needed.	

The	TAG	report	concludes	with	recommendations	to	explore	opportunities	for	cooperative	ATPPL	

(i.e.,	TRIP)	planning	initiatives	to	address	demand	for	recreational	access	by	evaluating	and	

developing	feasible	alternative	transportation	solutions	in	the	ARNF.	These	recommendations	were	

a	primary	basis	for	the	TRIP	proposal	submitted	by	the	ARNF‐PNG	in	February	2009.		

2.4 Regional Stakeholders and Potential Partners

Among	the	important	insights	from	the	background	information	reviewed	in	this	section	is	

knowledge	of	the	various	governmental,	non‐governmental,	and	volunteer	organizations	involved	

in	transportation,	recreation,	and/or	tourism‐related	issues	in	the	Front	Range	region.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 15

Organizations	that	appear	to	be	particularly	important	stakeholders	and	potential	partners,	with	

respect	to	this	project	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project	are	discussed	here:	

 The	Friends	of	Guanella	was	formed	during	the	development	of	the	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	

and	Historic	Byway	Comprehensive	Management	Strategy	(CMS).	Members	are	charged	

with	carrying	out	implementation	efforts	related	to	the	CMS	and	are	thus	important	

partners,	with	respect	to	recreation	and	transportation	planning	in	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	

corridor.		

 The	Front	Range	Metropolitan	Planning	Organizations	(MPO’s)	are	important	partners	for	

the	ARNF	during	its	planning	processes,	particularly	for	sharing	data.	For	instance	the	Front	

Range	Travel	Counts	Survey	(0),	which	is	currently	being	conducted	by	the	MPOs,	CDOT,	

Regional	Transportation	District	of	Denver	(RTD),	and	FHWA,	will	provide	insight	regarding	

travel	patterns	and	behavior	along	the	length	of	the	Front	Range.	

 CDOT	and	FHWA	work	together	on	road	projects	such	as	the	I‐70	DPEIS	and	the	Guanella	

Pass	Road	EIS.	They	are	essential	partners	in	identifying	transportation	needs,	maintenance	

and	operational	issues,	data	availability,	and	problem	solutions.	

 As	the	regional	transit	provider,	RTD	represents	the	network	that	future	ARNF	shuttle	

systems	may	tie	into.	Collaborating	with	RTD	will	help	ARNF	to	identify	partnership	

opportunities,	shared	problems	and	needs,	data	resources,	and	a	better	understanding	of	

transit	technology,	logistics,	and	system	planning.		

 Commercial	service	operators	such	as	outfitters	and	tour	guides	are	stakeholders	and	

potential	partners,	with	respect	to	the	issues	addressed	in	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	

project.	For	example,	there	are	at	least	two	tour	providers	that	serve	the	Mount	Evans	area,	

and	a	number	of	other	regional	tour	providers	that	are	potentially	interested	in	providing	a	

shuttle	service	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit.		

 Regarding	Guanella	Pass	Road	specifically,	there	appears	to	be	consensus	that	the	USFS	

should	lead	any	efforts	pertaining	to	national	forest	access	and	FHWA	should	lead	projects	

related	to	the	road	itself.	The	two	agencies	will	need	to	coordinate	closely	with	each	other	

as	well	as	with	CDOT,	Clear	Creek	and	Park	Counties,	the	Towns	of	Grant	and	Georgetown,	

and	the	Friends	of	Guanella.	A	third	tier	of	management	input	might	include	the	Denver	

Regional	Council	of	Governments	(DRCOG),	Colorado	State	Parks,	and	the	I‐70	Coalition.		

 Management	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	corridor	is	conducted	in	partnership	with	the	

CDOT,	Colorado	Division	of	Wildlife,	University	of	Denver,	City	and	County	of	Denver,	

Denver	Botanic	Gardens,	and	Clear	Creek	County.		

 Denver	Mountain	Parks	currently	co‐manages	the	Summit	Lake	area	of	Mount	Evans.	

Denver	Mountain	Parks	also	manages	the	Echo	Lake	Lodge	and	Echo	Lake	Park	at	the	

intersection	of	Highway	103	and	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	Denver	Mountain	Parks	have	

provided	improvements	for	both	the	Echo	Lake	and	Summit	Lake	areas,	including	increased	

parking	facilities.		

 Denver	Botanic	Gardens	currently	leads	educational	and	interpretive	tours	on	the	M.	Walter	

Pesman	Trail	on	Mount	Goliath	in	the	Mount	Evans	Recreational	Area,	and	provides	

volunteers	and	staff	to	maintain	the	alpine	rock	gardens	and	assist	visitors	at	the	Mount	

Goliath	Research	Natural	Area	(RNA).		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 16

 The	Colorado	Division	of	Wildlife	is	tasked	with	managing	the	wildlife	and	environmental	

resources	that	support	the	960	wildlife	species	within	Colorado.	Specifically,	the	Division	of	

Wildlife	is	concerned	about	recreation	use	within	wildlife	areas	at	Mount	Evans	and	the	

impact	this	may	have	on	each	species’	habitat	and	livelihood.		

 Clear	Creek	County	is	concerned	mostly	with	tourism	within	its	boundaries.	County	officials	

want	to	see	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	experience	enhanced,	resulting	in	additional	

tourism‐based	revenue	for	the	County.	County	officials	would	also	like	to	see	additional	

marketing	efforts	initiated	to	promote	visitation	to	the	Mount	Evans	area.		

 The	University	of	Denver	operates	the	Mount	Evans	Meyer‐Womble	Observatory	located	on	

the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	This	facility	offers	the	Department	of	Physics	and	Astronomy	

research	and	educational	opportunities	atop	the	14,000+	foot	mountain.	Concerns	raised	by	

the	University	of	Denver	include	the	volume	of	traffic	and	safety	concerns	on	the	road	

leading	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	the	public’s	lack	of	basic	Wilderness	knowledge	and	

awareness	of	the	significance	of	the	natural	environment	in	the	Mount	Evans	area.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 17

3.0 Recreation Site‐Specific Sections

From	the	Forest‐wide	and	regional	perspectives	of	the	previous	section,	the	report	now	moves	to	

synthesis,	analysis,	and	evaluation	of	information	about	transportation,	visitor	use,	and	resource	

conditions	at	each	of	the	three	recreation	sites	of	focus	in	this	project	–	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	

and	Mount	Evans.		

3.1 Brainard Lake Recreation Area

This	section	synthesizes,	analyzes,	and	evaluates	information	about	the	BLRA,	based	on	review	of	

the	following	documents:	

 Brainard	Lake	Recreation	Area	Management	Plan	(USFS,	2005)	

 Federal	 Lands	Alternative	Transportation	Systems	Study:	Summary	 of	 Forest	Service	ATS	

Needs	(FHWA/FTA,	2004)	

 Arapaho‐Roosevelt	National	Forest	Field	Report	(FHWA/FTA,	date	unknown)	

 1997	Revision	of	the	Land	and	Resource	Management	Plan:	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	

Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland,	a.k.a.	the	Forest	Plan	(USFS,	1997)	

 Boulder	 County	Mountain	Town	Transit	 Feasibility	Study	Scope	 of	Work	 (Boulder	County	

Transportation,	2009)	

 Hessie	Trailhead	Shuttle	Feasibility	Study	(Boulder	County	Transportation,	2009)	

Location

The	BLRA	is	an	approximately	3,143	acre	land	unit	on	the	Boulder	Ranger	District	of	the	ARNF,	

bordered	by	the	town	of	Ward	to	the	east	and	the	Indian	Peaks	Wilderness	to	the	west	(Error!

Reference source not found.).	It	is	located	within	a	one	to	two	hour	drive	from	much	of	the	

Boulder‐Denver	metropolitan	area	and	northern	Front	Range	cities,	including	Longmont,	Loveland,	

Greeley,	and	Fort	Collins.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 18

Figure 31. BLRA ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities

			

Visitor Use and Recreation‐related Issues

The	BLRA’s	close	proximity	to	the	Front	Range	population	centers	makes	it	the	highest	use	area	in	

the	Boulder	Ranger	District	and	one	of	the	most	popular	recreation	sites	in	the	ARNF.	While	visitor	

use	is	highest	during	the	summer	and	fall,	a	significant	amount	of	recreational	use	also	occurs	in	the	

winter	due	to	the	popularity	of	the	area	for	backcountry	skiing	and	snowshoeing.	Other	popular	

activities	in	the	BLRA	include	hiking,	picnicking,	camping,	fishing,	mountain	biking,	viewing	

scenery,	and	connecting	with	nature.	A	parking	fee	is	collected	during	summer	and	fall	seasons.	

The	BLRA	includes	a	number	of	developed	recreation	facilities,	some	of	which	meet	the	standards	

for	the	Americans	with	Disabilities	Act	(ADA).	Developed	recreation	facilities	include	an	entrance	

fee	station,	picnic	sites,	parking	lots,	restroom	facilities,	information	kiosks,	and	a	boat	launch.	In	

addition,	there	is	a	55	site	campground	at	the	BLRA	that	accommodates	tents,	campers,	trailers,	and	

RV’s	up	to	45	feet	in	length.		

The	developed	recreation	facilities	at	the	BLRA	are	situated	within	the	ARNF’s	prescriptive	

Management	Area	8.21	–	Developed	Recreation	Complexes.	Within	this	Management	Area,	

recreation	is	prescribed	to	occur	within	an	intensively	managed,	highly	regulated	environment	

modified	to	accommodate	a	high	level	of	interaction	among	visitor	groups.	Thus,	there	are	few,	if	
11 May 2016

Page 19

any,	opportunities	for	visitors	to	experience	solitude.	Also	within	this	Management	Area,	directional	

and	regulatory	signs	are	widely	used,	and	visitor	access	may	be	controlled	to	an	established	

capacity.	Site	hardening,	including	surfacing	of	trails,	is	used	to	meet	visitors’	needs	and	protect	

resources,	and	most	facilities	are	prescribed	to	meet	ADA	standards.	

The	remaining	portion	of	the	BLRA	is	prescribed	by	the	ARNF	as	Management	Area	1.3	–	

Backcountry	Recreation.	Thus,	this	portion	of	the	BLRA	is	managed	for	non‐motorized	recreation	in	

a	natural	appearing	landscape.	While	encounters	are	somewhat	common	along	travelways,	fewer	

contacts	and	opportunities	for	solitude	are	prescribed	to	occur	away	from	trails.	Similarly,	sounds	

from	people	may	be	common	on	or	near	travelways,	while	further	away	from	travelways	and	the	

area’s	edges,	human‐caused	sounds	should	generally	not	be	noticeable.	The	use	of	signs	in	the	

Backcountry	Recreation	Management	Area	are	limited	to	those	necessary	for	visitor	safety	and	

resource	protection,	and	facilities	are	limited	to	those	that	provide	for	visitor	safety,	protect	Forest	

resources,	and/or	enhance	recreational	experiences.	

The	BLRA	has	a	number	of	trailheads,	some	of	which	provide	direct	access	into	the	Indian	Peaks	

Wilderness	Area	(IPW).	These	trailheads	are	very	popular,	with	approximately	40%	of	BLRA	

visitors	using	the	area	to	access	the	IPW.	The	IPW	is	congressionally	designated	Wilderness	

(Management	Area	1.1	in	the	Forest	Plan).	As	stated	in	the	Forest	Plan,	Wilderness	areas	are	

managed	such	that	their	natural	conditions	predominate	and	opportunities	for	solitude	and	self	

reliance	are	provided.	Thus,	evidence	of	human	activity	is	meant	to	be	limited	to	that	necessary	for	

resource	protection.	Desired	social	and	resource	conditions	are	to	be	maintained	by	developing	and	

implementing	limits	of	acceptable	change	programs,	to	the	extent	that	funding	and	resources	allow.	

In	addition	to	specifying	prescriptive	Management	Areas	for	the	BLRA,	the	Forest	Plan	identifies	

goals	and	objectives	for	the	area;	transportation‐related	goals	are	summarized	in	the	next	section,	

recreation‐related	goals	are	summarized	here:		

 Maintain	the	undeveloped	character	of	that	portion	of	the	BLRA	away	from	roads	and	trails,	

and	manage	all	trails	for	non‐motorized	use.	

 Provide	for	year‐round	recreational	use	in	the	BLRA	while	also	taking	actions	to	protect	and	

enhance	the	values	of	the	adjacent	IPW.		

 Disperse	existing	recreational	use	into	areas	east	of	Brainard	Lake	and	away	from	the	IPW.	

 Use	an	adaptive‐management	process	to	monitor	the	physical,	biological,	and	social	impacts	

of	recreational	use.		

 Improve	non‐motorized	recreational	opportunities	by	considering	connecting	and	loop	

trails	for	four‐season	multiple	use	that	direct	users	away	from	Brainard	Lake	and	the	IPW.		

The	Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005	(BLRA‐MP)	also	specifies	a	number	of	

goals,	objectives,	guiding	principles,	and	desired	future	conditions	for	the	BLRA.	All	of	these	provide	

context	for	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project;	several	are	particularly	relevant	and	those	are	

summarized	here:	

 Goals	
11 May 2016

Page 20

- Specify	where	developed	areas	and	concentrated	use	should	occur...identify	areas	with	

undeveloped	character	and	maintain	or	enhance	(through	limited	access,	facility	

removal,	rehabilitation	and	restoration)	those	undeveloped	areas.	

- Ensure	that	recreational	use	of	the	BLRA	is	compatible	with	long‐term	protection	of	

natural	and	cultural	resources	and	the	adjacent	IPW.	

 Objectives	

- Improve	winter	and	non‐motorized	recreational	opportunities.	

- Take	actions	to	reduce	impacts	to	the	adjacent	IPW.	

- Reduce	conflicts	among	visitors,	enhance	visitor	safety,	and	take	actions	to	identify	and	

restrict	inappropriate	uses.	

 Guiding	Principles	

- Sense of Welcome.	The	BLRA	should	be	a	place	that	the	public	has	a	strong	desire	to	

visit	and	return	to	visit,	based	on	positive	outdoor	recreation	experiences.	

- Priority to Protect the IPW. Visitors	should	understand	that	many	designs	and	

management	controls	within	the	BLRA	are	established	to	protect	and	enhance	the	

resources	of	and	visitor	experience	within	the	adjacent	IPW	as	well	as	within	the	BLRA.	

- Monitoring. The	USFS...shall	seek	to	monitor	the	visitor	experience,	visitor	

infrastructure,	and	resource	conditions	to	assess	the	effects	of	management	actions	and	

visitor	use	in	the	BLRA.	

- Adaptive Management. Based	on	monitoring	results,	changes	in	conditions,	and	new	

information,	the	USFS	shall	implement	an	adaptive	management	approach	that	assesses	

the	effectiveness	of	existing	management	actions	and	visitor	use	patterns	and	revises	

them	appropriately	under	current	planning	and	public	notification	guidelines.	

 Desired	Future	Conditions	

- Visitors	to	the	BLRA	will	experience	an	environment	where	the	sights	and	sounds	of	

nature	predominate	at	levels	greater	than	currently	exist.	

- Visitor	safety	and	satisfaction	are	provided	for	at	levels	greater	than	the	existing	

condition.	

- Natural	resources	(soil,	water,	wildlife,	vegetation,	etc.)	will	be	protected	and	enhanced	

to	conditions	better	than	currently	exist.	

As	noted,	the	BLRA	is	the	highest	use	area	in	the	Boulder	Ranger	District	of	the	ARNF.	Thus,	the	

BLRA	and	adjacent	IPW	experience	intensive	levels	of	visitation	that	present	obstacles	to	achieving	

the	USFS’	prescribed	social	and	resource	conditions,	goals,	and	objectives	for	these	areas.	For	

example,	an	estimated	119,000	persons	visited	BLRA	trailheads	in	the	summer	months	(June	

through	September)	of	2001.	In	2002,	approximately	2,647	overnight	camping	permits	were	issued	

for	the	IPW	(which	is	accessed	via	BLRA	trailheads).		

Information	reviewed	for	this	project	includes	BLRA	entrance	fee	station	visitation	data,	which	

support	additional	insights	about	visitor	use	in	the	BLRA.	For	example,	the	BLRA	visitation	data	in	

Figure	32	suggest	that	July	is	the	busiest	month	of	the	entrance	fee	collection	period,	with	August	a	

close	second.	Use	ramps	up	sharply	in	July	from	relatively	low	visitation	numbers	in	June,	while	it	
11 May 2016

Page 21

declines	more	gradually	from	August	into	September,	before	dropping	off	substantially	in	October.	

However,	anectdotal	evidence	from	correspondence	with	the	USFS	and	Boulder	County	suggest	that	

winter	use	may	sometimes	be	higher	than	that	observed	during	summer	months,	particularly	at	the	

lower	parking	lot	near	the	entrance	fee	station.		

Figure 32. BLRA ‐ Average Monthly Visitation (2001‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)

Figure	33	presents	annual	visitation	during	the	fee	collection	months	for	2001	through	2009,	both	

in	terms	of	number	of	people	and	number	of	vehicles.	While	there	is	some	question	about	the	

reliability	of	the	data	to	support	statements	about	actual	visitation	in	any	particular	year,	the	data	

do	support	conclusions	about	visitation	trends.	A	visual	inspection	of	the	data	in	Figure	33	suggests	

that	BLRA	visitation	has	been	relatively	stable	over	the	last	decade,	with	a	moderately	declining	

trend.		 Average Monthly Visitation (People)
11 May 2016

Page 22

Figure 33. BLRA ‐ Annual Visitation During Fee Collection Period (2001‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station

Data)

While	the	annual	visitation	data	suggest	a	moderating	trend	in	BLRA	visitation,	onsite	observations	

during	September	2009	suggest	that	the	BLRA	continues	to	receive	intensive	levels	of	visitation	

that	cause	impacts	to	Forest	resources	and	visitor	experiences,	parking	shortages,	and	public	safety	

issues.	These	user	capacity	issues	are	exacerbated	by	the	fact	that	the	BLRA’s	Developed	Recreation	

Complex	is	located	directly	adjacent	to	the	IPW.		

The	BLRA‐MP	notes	that	in	2004,	the	USFS	completed	a	report	titled	Assessment of Capacity:

Brainard Lake Recreation Area.	The	report	contains	information	regarding	visitation	trends	in	the	

BLRA	and	IPW,	as	well	as	information	about	parking	capacities.	Based	on	information	from	this	

report	and	direction	from	the	Forest	Plan,	the	USFS	developed	a	set	of	recommendations	to	address	

user	capacity.	These	recommendations,	which	are	documented	in	the	BLRA‐MP,	center	almost	

exclusively	around	parking	and	vehicle	traffic	management,	and	are	therefore	discussed	in	the	next	

section	of	this	report.	One	exception	is	the	recommendation	to	monitor	conditions	within	the	BLRA	

to	ensure	impacts	to	the	natural	resources	do	not	exceed	acceptable	levels,	and	implement	

management	actions	when	necessary	to	prevent	exceeding	these	levels.	

NVUM	studies	conducted	in	2000	and	2005	provide	another	relatively	recent	source	of	information	

about	visitor	use	in	the	BLRA.	The	NVUM	studies	included	interviews	with	visitors	at	one	location	

in	the	BLRA	during	the	2000	study	(Site	44)	and	two	locations	(Site	44	and	Site	255182)	during	the	

2005	study	(Figure	34).	A	copy	of	the	2005	NVUM	survey	instrument	is	in	0.	Another	NVUM	study	is	

planned	for	the	BLRA	during	summer	2010.	 Annual Visitation

Number of People
11 May 2016

Page 23

Figure 34. BLRA ‐ Lake NVUM Site Locations

One	of	the	NVUM	study	sites	at	the	BLRA	(Site	44)	is	classified	by	NVUM	methods	as	being	located	

in	a	Day‐use	Developed	Site	(DUDS)	and	the	other	(Site	255182)	is	classified	as	being	located	in	a	

General	Forest	Area	(GFA).	The	NVUM	interview	sample	sizes,	by	study	site	and	year,	are	reported	

in	(Table	41).	Key	results	from	the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	interviews	are	reported	and	compared	in	

the	following	paragraphs.	However,	the	relatively	low	sample	sizes	for	the	2000	NVUM	interviews	

at	the	DUDS	site	and	2005	interviews	at	the	GFA	site	suggest	that	results	of	the	studies,	including	

comparisons	across	study	years,	should	be	interpreted	with	caution.	

Table 41. BLRA ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)

Site Site Type 2000 2005 Total

44 – Brainard Lake DUDS 90 154 244

255182 – Brainard Lake GFA  ‐  99 99

Visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	which	activities	they	had	participated	in	or	will	participate	in	during	

their	visit	to	the	BLRA	(Table	42	and	Table	43;	specific	activities	corresponding	to	each	of	the	

activity	groupings	in	Table	42	and	Table	43	are	in	0).	At	both	the	DUDS	and	GFA	sampling	locations,	

viewing	and/or	learning	and	non‐motorized	activities	were,	by	far,	the	most	commonly	reported.	A	

substantial	proportion	of	visitors	at	the	DUDS	site	also	reported	motorized	activities.	In	addition,	

the	proportion	who	reported	camping	and	other	overnight	activities	at	the	DUDS	site	increased	

from	2000	to	2005	(Table	42).	
11 May 2016

Page 24

Table 42. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)

Activity Types *

2000

(n=60)

2005

(n=106) Change

Hunting and/or Fishing 15.0% 12.3%  ‐2.7

Viewing and/or Learning 96.7% 82.1%  ‐14.6

Non Motorized 93.3% 85.8%  ‐7.5

Motorized 38.3% 28.3%  ‐10.0

Camping or Other Overnight 8.3% 15.1% +6.8

Other Activities 26.7% 52.8% +26.1

Table 43. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)

Activity Types *

2000

(n=0)

2005

(n=88) Change

Hunting and/or Fishing  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

Viewing and/or Learning  ‐  3.4%  ‐ 

Non Motorized  ‐  100.0%  ‐ 

Motorized  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

Camping or Other Overnight  ‐  2.3%  ‐ 

Other Activities  ‐  9.1%  ‐ 

The	majority	of	visitors	sampled	at	both	study	locations	reported	their	race/ethnicity	as	“White”;	

very	few	reported	any	other	response	(Table	44	and	Table	45.)	

Table 44. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)

2000

(n=90)

2005

(n=154) Change

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 1.1% 0.6%  ‐0.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.0% 1.9% +1.9%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Asian 1.1% 0.0%  ‐1.1%

Black/African American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

White 56.7% 68.2% +11.5%

Other 6.7%  ‐  ‐ 

No Answer 34.4% 27.9%  ‐6.5%

Table 45. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)

2000  

(n=0)

2005

(n=99) Change

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino ‐  4.0%  ‐ 

American Indian/Alaskan Native ‐  1.0%  ‐ 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander ‐  1.0%  ‐ 

Asian ‐  5.1%  ‐ 

Black/African American ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

White ‐  83.8%  ‐ 

Other ‐  ‐  ‐ 

No Answer ‐  13.1%  ‐ 
11 May 2016

Page 25

The	ages	of	visitors	at	the	DUDS	sampling	location	were	fairly	evenly	distributed	between	31	and	

70	years	of	age	(Table	46),	while	a	majority	of	visitors	contacted	at	the	GFA	study	site	were	

between	31‐50	years	of	age	(Table	47).		

Table 46. BLRA (Site 44) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)

2000 Categories/2005 Categories

2000

(n=90)

2005

(n=154) Change

16‐20 / 16‐19 1.1% 1.3% +0.2%

21‐30 / 20‐29 4.4% 5.2% +0.8%

31‐40 / 30‐39 15.6% 9.7%  ‐5.9%

41‐50 / 40‐49 18.9% 13.0%  ‐5.9%

51‐60 / 50‐59 11.1% 13.6% +2.5%

61‐70 / 60‐69 11.1% 15.6% +4.5%

71+ / 70+ 3.3% 9.7% +6.4%

No Answer a 34.4% 31.8%  ‐2.6%

Table 47. BLRA (Site 255182) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)

2000 Categories/2005 Categories

2000  

(n=0)

2005

(n=99) Change

16‐20 / 16‐19  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

21‐30 / 20‐29  ‐  12.1%  ‐ 

31‐40 / 30‐39  ‐  35.4%  ‐ 

41‐50 / 40‐49  ‐  21.2%  ‐ 

51‐60 / 50‐59  ‐  15.2%  ‐ 

61‐70 / 60‐69  ‐  3.0%  ‐ 

71+ / 70+  ‐  1.0%  ‐ 

No Answer a

  ‐  12.1%  ‐ 

Visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	the	number	of	people	in	their	vehicle	on	the	day	they	were	

contacted	for	the	interview	(Table	48).	Average	group	size,	based	on	responses	to	this	question	and	

regardless	of	sampling	site	or	year,	were	2.2	or	2.3	people/vehicle.		

Table 48. BLRA ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

44 – Brainard Lake  

Average 2.2 2.3 +5%

St. Dev 1.1 1.3  ‐ 

n 59 106  ‐ 

255182 – Brainard Lake

Average ‐  2.2  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  1.0  ‐ 

n ‐  87  ‐ 

Finally,	in	the	2005	NVUM	inteview,	respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	how	far	they	had	traveled	

from	their	home	to	get	to	the	BLRA	(Table	49).	Mean	values	ranged	from	245‐322	miles,	which	

suggests	an	average	travel	time	of	roughly	4‐6	hours.		
11 May 2016

Page 26

Table 49. BLRA ‐ Distance Traveled from Home (miles; source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

44 – Brainard Lake  

Average ‐  322  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  692  ‐ 

N ‐  106  ‐ 

255182 – Brainard Lake

Average ‐  245  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  1170  ‐ 

N ‐  87  ‐ 

Transportation Systems, Infrastructure, and Issues

The	background	information	reviewed	for	this	project	suggests	that	there	are	substantial	

transportation‐related	issues	in	the	BLRA.	Further,	the	background	information	review	suggests	

that	transportation	planning	and	management	play	central	roles	in	visitor	access	and	user	capacity	

management	strategies	at	the	BLRA.	Thus,	there	are	a	number	of	changes	to	the	BLRA’s	

transportation	system	that	have	been	proposed	and/or	are	underway.	Presently,	the	BLRA	has	an	

access	road	from	the	entrance	fee	station	to	a	parking	area	on	the	east	side	of	Brainard	Lake	and	

adjacent	to	the	Pawnee	picnic	area	and	campground	(Error! Reference source not found.).	From	

there,	the	road	travels	north	along	Brainard	Lake,	providing	access	to	trailhead	parking	and	entry	

into	the	IPW.	The	road	turns	south	along	the	west	side	of	Brainard	Lake	and	loops	back	to	the	

parking	area	east	of	Brainard	Lake.	The	road	is	presently	closed	beyond	the	trailhead	parking	

access	at	the	point	where	it	turns	south,	due	to	a	washed	out	culvert.		
11 May 2016

Page 27

Figure 35. BLRA ‐ Existing Facilities (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005)

		

As	noted	in	the	“Alternative	A”	(existing	conditions)	portion	of	Table	50,	there	are	substantial	

parking	facilities	in	the	BLRA	(325	parking	spaces	in	total,	excluding	roadside	parking),	including	

parking	areas	near	the	entrance	fee	station,	adjacent	to	Brainard	Lake,	and	at	the	Wilderness	

trailheads.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 28

Table 50. BLRA ‐ Parking Capacity (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005)

Despite	this,	the	existing	parking	is	

inadequate	for	peak	use	on	weekends	and	

holidays	during	the	summer	months.	Thus,	

parking	shortages	occur	during	peak	

periods,	resulting	in	overflow	parking	

along	the	roadside	adjacent	to	Brainard	

Lake.	This	roadside	parking	causes	

resource	impacts,	public	safety	issues	

(people	walking	in	the	road	with	moving	

vehicle	traffic),	and	degrades	the	scenic	

quality	of	the	area	(Figure	36).		

To	address	vehicle	traffic	and	parking	

congestion	issues,	the	BLRA‐MP	specified	a	

set	of	visitor	access	management	strategies	

and	user	capacity	recommendations.	These	

strategies	and	recommendations	are	based	on	direction	from	the	Forest	Plan	and	the	capacity	

report	noted,	and	include:	

Summer Spaces Winter Spaces Summer Spaces Winter Spaces

Mitchell Lake Trailhead (TH) 55 0 55 0

Long Lake Trailhead 29 0 29 0

South St. Vrain Trailhead (West) 4 0 0 0

Dispersed Roadside Parking 8 0 0 0

Subtotal 96 0 84 0

Brainard Lake Overlook 4 0 0 0

Fishing Bridge 11 0 0 0

Brainard Cutoff Trailhead 11 0 0 0

Arickaree Picnic Area (seven tables) 20 0 0 0

Mitchell Creek Picnic Area (six tables) 6 0 0 0

Niwot Picnic Area (eight tables) 16 0 18‐22 0

Loop Roadside Parking 224 0 0 0

Pawnee Picnic Area (14 tables) 40 0 0 0

West Parking Area 170‐220 0

Subtotal 332 0 188‐242 0

Red Rock Lake Parking 20 0 20‐27 0

Subtotal 20 0 20‐27 0

Red Rock/Sourdough TH

(East Parking Area)

Dispersed Brainard Roadside 10 235

Subtotal 35 250

Left Hand Park Reservoir 58 0 15 0

Dispersed Parking/Camping 8 0 0 0

Subtotal 66 0 15 0

Wilderness Trailhead Zone 96 0 84 0

Brainard Lake Zone 332 0 188‐242 0

Red Rock Lake Zone 20 0 20‐27 0

Red Rock/Sourdough TH (East Parking Area) 35 250 200‐235 0

Left Hand Park Reservoir/Road 66 0 15 0

Total Parking 549 250 507‐603 220‐235

* The short‐term parking spaces for seven vehicles at fee entrance station are not included in the total for the Proposed Action.

220‐235

Left Hand Park

Reservoir and

Road

Total Parking All

Zones

Alternative E

Entrance Station/

Red Rock

Sourdough

Trailhead Zone

25 15 200‐235

Wilderness

Trailhead Zone

Brainard Lake

Zone

Red Rock Lake

Zone

Alternative A

Existing and Proposed Designated and Dispersed Parking Capacity

Figure 36. BLRA ‐ Overflow Parking on Roadside (September 2009)
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 29

 Manage	vehicle	access	within	the	BLRA	based	on	available	designated	parking	spaces.	When	

parking	lots	fill	up,	take	management	actions	to	restrict	and/or	re‐direct	vehicles	to	

alternative	parking	sites	within	the	area	or	to	the	parking	area	east	of	the	entrance	station.	

 Restrict	all	parking	to	designated	parking	spaces	in	the	BLRA.

 Develop	a	winter	day‐use	parking	area	near	the	entrance	fee	station	area.	Utilize	a	portion	

of	this	parking	area	in	the	summer	to	alleviate	parking	congestion	at	lots	adjacent	to	

Brainard	Lake	and	the	Wilderness	trailheads.

 Develop	a	summer	day‐use	parking	area	on	the	east	side	of	Brainard	Lake,	and	relocate	

some	of	the	existing	parking	spaces	to	this	area.

 Manage	the	road	on	the	south	and	west	side	of	Brainard	Lake	for	two‐	way	vehicle	traffic	for	

access	to	the	Niwot	Picnic	Area	and	the	Wilderness	Trailheads	west	of	Brainard	Lake,	to	

prevent	vehicles	from	dominating	the	landscape	around	the	lake	and	to	minimize	vehicle	

traffic	over	the	historic	Brainard	Lake	Dam	and	Bridge.	

 Concurrently,	prohibit	vehicle	access	on	the	north	side	of	Brainard	Lake	beginning	just	prior	

to	the	bridge/dam	and	continuing	west	to	the	junction	of	the	2‐way	road.		

 To	reduce	unnecessary	traffic	up	to	and	throughout	the	BLRA,	install	at	the	entry	point	from	

the	Peak‐to‐Peak	Highway	a	Variable	Message	Sign	(VMS)	to	inform	potential	visitors	of	

campground	occupancy,	Wilderness	trailhead	parking	occupancy,	and	other	key	

information.	

 Consider	a	commuter	trail	from	the	proposed	parking	area	at	the	entrance	fee	station	area	

to	Brainard	Lake.

The	changes	proposed	in	the	above	listed	strategies	and	recommendations	are	depicted	visually	in	

Error! Reference source not found..	Further,	proposed	changes	in	the	number	and	location	of	

parking	facilities	are	listed	in	the	“Alternative	E”	(proposed	conditions)	portion	of	Table	50.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 30

Figure 37. BLRA ‐ Proposed Facilities (source: Brainard Lake Recreation Area Management Plan, 2005)

	The	proposed	parking	and	vehicle	access	management	changes	noted	would	reduce	designated	

parking	adjacent	to	Brainard	Lake	and	at	the	Wilderness	trailheads	and	eliminate	overflow	parking	

along	the	roadside.	Consequently,	it	is	reasonable	to	expect	that	a	substantial	proportion	of	visitors	

would	be	unable	to	find	parking	near	the	lake	or	trailheads	and	alternative	visitor	access	options	

would	be	needed.	Thus,	the	USFS	is	considering	the	use	of	shuttle	service	in	the	BLRA,	and	FHWA	

has	conducted	studies	of	the	feasibility	of	shuttle	service	there.	In	particular,	the	FHWA	Field	

Report	for	the	ARNF	describes	and	evaluates	shuttle	service	options	for	the	BLRA,	as	follows:	

For Brainard Lake in the Boulder Ranger District, a proposed shuttle system would connect

the Nederland area with the Brainard Lake Recreation Area and include stops along the way

at trailheads and parking areas. The shuttle route would operate along the Peak‐to‐Peak

Highway from the Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) Park‐and‐Ride lot in Nederland to

and through the Brainard Lake Recreation Area (Figure	38). This system would connect with

the existing RTD Regional Bus Route N, providing public transit service from Boulder and the

Denver Metropolitan Area to the Brainard Lake area. In the future, the shuttle system could be

expanded to serve campgrounds and trailheads along the Peak‐to‐Peak highway between

Brainard Lake and Estes Park as well as areas south of Nederland.		
11 May 2016

Page 31

A first phase option would be to limit the shuttle service to the Brainard Lake area itself. Users

would be given the option of parking outside of the fee station and taking a shuttle or tram

into the area. The fee charged for the shuttle service would have to be competitive with the

$6.00 fee now charged for automobiles, possibly using a family or group pass. During times

when the Brainard Lake parking area is full, use of the shuttle would be required. This system

could be supplemented by a portable VMS along the Peak‐to‐Peak Highway, which could be

used to advise approaching drivers that parking is full but the shuttle is available. Some

drivers may respond to this information by diverting to less crowded areas of the Forest.

The	FHWA	study	includes	initial	estimates	of	up‐front	and	operating	costs	for	the	shuttle	systems	

described.	However,	the	data	and	methods	used	to	conduct	the	feasibility	analysis	are	not	reported,	

so	it	is	uncertain	how	precise	the	cost	estimates	are.	Further,	it	is	unclear	to	what	extent	potential	

ridership	(i.e.,	willingness	of	visitors	to	use	the	system)	was	analyzed;	there	is	no	mention	of	survey	

research	to	assess	this.	Finally,	the	analysis	does	not	include	assessment	of	how	to	optimize	shuttle	

service	to	conform	to	desired	social	and	resource	conditions	in	the	BLRA.	Nonetheless,	the	study	

provides	a	strong	foundation	from	which	to	design	additional	information	collection	and	analysis	to	

assess	shuttle	service	options	for	the	BLRA;	it	is	expected	this	would	be	a	point	of	focus	for	the	

proposed	TRIP	project,	if	it	is	funded.	
11 May 2016

Page 32

Figure 38. BLRA ‐ Transit Service Evaluated by FHWA (source: FHWA Field Report)

Summary

The	background	information	and	data	regarding	the	BLRA	reviewed	for	this	project	highlight	

several	important	themes	and	potential	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project.	These	

include:	

 The	BLRA	is	the	most	heavily	visited	year‐round	recreation	site	in	the	Boulder	Ranger	

District.	

 The	BLRA	provides	immediate	access	to	the	IPW,	desired	conditions	for	which	are	

threatened	by	intensive	and	increasing	visitation.	

 Parking	demand	frequently	exceeds	parking	supply	at	the	BLRA,	resulting	in	unendorsed	

parking	along	the	roadside	that	causes	resource,	safety,	and	scenic	quality	issues.	
11 May 2016

Page 33

 USFS	objectives	for	the	BLRA	include	dispersing	existing	recreational	use	into	areas	east	of	

Brainard	Lake	and	away	from	the	IPW.	

 Visitor	access	management	and	user	capacity	strategies	recommended	in	the	BLRA‐MP	

focus	on	vehicle	traffic	and	parking	management.	To	date,	resource	and	social	factors	do	not	

appear	to	have	been	as	explicitly	incorporated	into	user	capacity	strategies	for	the	BLRA.		

 A	number	of	changes	to	the	BLRA’s	transportation	system	have	been	proposed	and/or	are	

being	implemented,	many	of	which	influence	the	amount	and	location	of	recreational	use	in	

the	area.	

 Options	for	ATS	are	being	considered	for	the	BLRA,	including	linkages	to	transit	service	

between	the	Towns	of	Boulder	and	Nederland,	in	order	to	offset	reduced	visitor	access	

associated	with	proposed	changes	to	parking	facilities	and	management.	

The	background	information	reviewed	for	this	project	suggests	that	primary	information	and	

analysis	needs	for	the	BLRA	center	around	transportation	planning,	visitor	access	management,	and	

user	capacity	issues.	There	is	substantial	data,	analysis,	and	documentation	related	to	the	BLRA’s	

transportation	system	and	operation;	there	appears	to	be	limited	resource	and	visitor	experience	

information	as	it	relates	to	establishing	and	managing	user	capacities	for	the	BLRA.	Thus,	if	the	

proposed	TRIP	project	is	funded,	potential	points	of	focus	for	new	data	collection	and	analysis	

include:	

 Visitor‐based	indicators	and	standards	of	quality	for	resource	and	social	conditions	in	the	

developed	and	backcountry	areas	of	the	BLRA,	as	well	as	in	the	IPW.	

 Visitor	characteristics	and	motivations	for	visiting;	perceptions	of	soundscape,	resource,	

and	visitor	experience	conditions;	recreation	setting	preferences;	and	attitudes	about	

recreation	and	transportation‐related	management	options.	

 Visitor	“transportation	behavior”,	including	likelihood	to	use	various	shuttle	service	

options.	

 Evaluation	of	the	effectiveness	of	alternative	messages	to	influence	visitors’	“transportation	

behavior”	and	manage/manipulate	how	visitor	use	is	dispersed	to	different	areas	of	the	

BLRA.	

 Visitor	use	models	for	attraction	areas	in	the	developed	area	and/or	trails	in	the	

backcountry	areas	of	the	BLRA	and/or	the	IPW	to	estimate	user	capacities	based	on	

resource	and	social	standards	of	quality.	

 Linkages	between	visitor	use	models	and	transportation	data/models	to	evaluate	the	effects	

of	potential	visitor	use	and	transportation	management	actions	on	estimates	of	user	

capacities.	

 Measurement	of	the	extent	and	severity	of	recreation	and	transportation‐related	resource	

and	soundscape	impacts.		

 Observation	and	evaluation	of	visitor	behavior	to	identify	and	mitigate	visitor	use‐related	

factors	contributing	to	resource	and	soundscape	impacts.	

 Analysis	of	parking	demand	and	capacity,	under	existing	and	proposed	transportation	

system	conditions.	
11 May 2016

Page 34

 Modeling	and/or	analysis	of	alternative	transportation	solutions	(e.g.,	transit,	ITS)	to	

mitigate	parking	congestion,	with	respect	to	cost,	effectiveness,	and	visitor/public	support.	

3.2 Guanella Pass

This	section	synthesizes,	analyzes,	and	evaluates	information	about	Guanella	Pass,	based	on	review	

of	the	following	documents:	

 Guanella	Pass	Surface	Treatment	Evaluation	Traffic	Technical	Memorandum	(FHWA	Central	

Federal	Lands	Highway	Division,	2009)	

 Guanella	Pass	Scenic	and	Historic	Byway	Revised	Interpretive	Plan	(USFS	Center	for	Design	

&	Interpretation,	2008)	

 2030	Mountains	and	Plains	Transportation	Plan	(DRCOG,	2005)	

 Guanella	Pass	Road	Final	Environmental	Impact	Statement	(FHWA	Central	Federal	Lands	

Highway	Division,	2002)	

 Guanella	Pass	Road	Year	2025	Traffic	Projections	(FHWA	Central	Federal	Lands	Highway	

Division,	2002)	

 Guanella	Pass	Scenic	and	Historic	Byway	Corridor	Management	Strategy	(Guanella	Pass	

Scenic	Byway	Committee	in	association	with	USFS,	2001)	

 1997	Revision	of	the	Land	and	Resource	Management	Plan:	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	

Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland,	a.k.a.	the	Forest	Plan	(USFS,	1997)	

Location

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	a	National	Forest	Scenic	Byway	located	approximately	40	miles	west	of	the	

Denver	Metropolitan	Region.	It	travels	24	miles	between	the	town	of	Grant,	on	US	285	in	the	south,	

and	Georgetown,	on	I‐70	in	the	north	(Error! Reference source not found.).	Guanella	Pass	Road	

connects	Park	County	and	Pike	National	Forest	(PNF)	in	the	south	with	Clear	Creek	County	and	the	

ARNF	in	the	north.	According	to	DRCOG’s	2030 Mountains and Plains Transportation Plan,	between	

1980	and	2005,	the	population	of	Guanella	Pass’	neighboring	communities	(Clear	Creek	and	Gilpin	

Counties)	increased	50%	from	9,745	to	16,410	residents.	The	population	is	projected	to	increase	to	

27,970	by	2030.	Georgetown	is	the	primary	gateway	for	the	Guanella	Pass	corridor	and	is	the	Clear	

Creek	County	seat.	Georgetown	is	a	National	Historic	Landmark	District	due	to	its	mining	origins,	

and	it	is	the	second	largest	population	center	in	the	county.	The	I‐70	Coalition	identified	

Georgetown	as	a	potential	station	site	for	transit‐oriented	solutions	to	I‐70	traffic	congestion	

considered	in	the	I‐70	DPEIS.	
11 May 2016

Page 35

Figure 39. Guanella Pass ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities

Visitor Use and Recreation‐related Issues

Guanella	Pass	Road	provides	year‐round	recreation	access	within	the	ARNF	and	PNF,	including	

hiking,	camping,	fishing,	horseback	riding,	hunting,	cross‐country	skiing,	snowshoeing,	

snowmobiling	and	ATV	riding,	picnicking,	and	sightseeing.	There	are	a	number	of	recreation	sites	

and	facilities	situated	along	Guanella	Pass	Road,	including	developed	campgrounds,	picnic	areas,	

trailheads	with	parking,	and	vista	points	(Table	51).		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 36

Table 51. Guanella Pass ‐ Recreation Sites and Facilities (source: CMS, 2001)

Number of Sites

Developed Campgrounds   

Clear Lake 8

Guanella Pass 17

Geneva Park 26

Burning Bear 13

Whiteside 7

Picnic Areas   

Clear Lake 4

Duck Creek 5

Geneva Creek 5

Trailheads with Parking Lots   

Silver Dollar Lake ‐ 

Guanella Pass ‐ 

Silverdale ‐ 

Abyss Lake ‐ 

Vista Points 6

The	Guanella	Pass	Summit	is	situated	at	an	elevation	of	11,700	feet	and	is	the	area	of	particular	focus	

for	 the	 proposed	TRIP	 project.	The	 summit	 area	includes	 two	 parking	lots	 that	 provide	 trailhead	

access	to	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	to	the	east	of	Guanella	Pass	and	the	Square	Top	Mountain	area	

to	the	west.	Part	of	Guanella	Pass’	attraction	is	that	the	summit	area	parking	provides	relatively	easy	

hiking	access	to	Mt.	Bierstadt	(Error! Reference source not found.),	one	of	Colorado’s	14,000+	foot	

peaks	(i.e.,	14’ers).		

Most	of	the	recreational	facilities	along	Guanella	Pass	Road,	and	the	Guanella	Pass	Byway	itself,	are	

situated	within	the	ARNF’s	prescriptive	Management	Area	4.2	–	Scenery.	Within	this	Management	

Area,	frequent	encounters	between	individuals	or	parties	are	acceptable	on	travelways,	while	

contact	away	from	trails	is	prescribed	to	generally	be	infrequent.	Sounds	from	people	or	motorized	

recreational	activities	are	usually	common	and	limit	opportunities	for	solitude	or	isolation.	

Developed	facilities	may	be	common	in	this	Management	Area,	for	the	purposes	of	improving	

recreation	opportunities	and	enjoyment	of	scenery.	Furthermore,	the	use	of	directional,	regulatory,	

and	informational	signs	is	acceptable,	and	their	presence	may	be	frequent.	

While	most	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	and	its	recreational	facilities	are	located	in	Management	Area	4.2,	

the	area	immediately	to	the	east	of	Guanella	Pass	Summit,	including	the	Mt.	Bierstadt	summit,	is	

Congressionally	designated	Wilderness	(Management	Area	1.1	in	the	Forest	Plan).	As	stated	in	the	

Forest	Plan,	Wilderness	areas	are	managed	such	that	their	natural	conditions	predominate	and	

opportunities	for	solitude	and	self	reliance	are	provided.	Thus,	evidence	of	human	activity	is	meant	

to	be	limited	to	that	necessary	for	resource	protection.	Desired	social	and	resource	conditions	are	

to	be	maintained	by	developing	and	implementing	limits	of	acceptable	change	programs,	to	the	

extent	that	funding	and	resources	allow.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 37

The	area	to	the	west	of	the	Guanella	Pass	Summit	is	also	popular	for	hiking,	and	is	prescribed	by	the	

ARNF	as	Management	Area	1.3	–	Backcountry	Recreation.	Thus,	the	area	is	managed	for	non‐

motorized	recreation	in	a	natural	appearing	landscape.	While	encounters	are	somewhat	common	

along	travelways,	fewer	contacts	and	opportunities	for	solitude	are	prescribed	to	occur	away	from	

trails.	Similarly,	sounds	from	people	may	be	common	on	or	near	travelways,	while	further	away	

from	travelways	and	the	area’s	edges,	human‐caused	sounds	should	generally	not	be	noticeable.	

The	use	of	signs	in	the	Backcountry	Recreation	Management	Area	are	limited	to	those	necessary	for	

visitor	safety	and	resource	protection,	and	facilities	are	limited	to	those	that	provide	for	visitor	

safety,	protect	Forest	resources,	and/or	enhance	recreational	experiences.	

In	addition	to	the	management	prescriptions	set	forth	in	the	Forest	Plan	for	the	various	

Management	Areas	of	the	Guanella	Pass	area,	the	Guanella Pass Scenic and Historic Byway

Conservation Management Strategy	(CMS)	specified	a	number	of	desired	conditions	and	action	

items	for	the	Guanella	Pass	Summit	and	adjacent	area.	Those	desired	conditions	and	action	items	

with	a	transportation‐related	focus	are	reported	in	the	next	section;	recreation‐related	desired	

conditions	and	action	items	of	particular	relevance	to	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project	include:	

 Emphasize	a	summit	experience	that	highlights	the	value	of	wilderness	and	the	sensitivity	of	

subalpine	and	alpine	ecosystems.	

 Steer	 recreational	 use	 away	 from	Wilderness	 and	 sensitive	 tundra	 areas	 onto	 designated	

interpretive	trails	through	design	characteristics.	

 Protect	the	environmental	resources	as	the	primary	management	goal.	

 Manage	 the	 number	 of	 users	 in	 the	 Guanella	 Pass	 summit	 area	 not	 to	 exceed	 carrying	

capacities.	

 Monitor	use	of	the	Square	Top	area,	mitigate	impacts	and	implement	management	strategies	

as	necessary.	

The	CMS	made	several	other	recommendations	to	protect	resources	and	maintain	a	quality	visitor	

experience	at	Guanella	Pass.	Recommendations	of	particular	relevance	to	this	project	and	the	

proposed	TRIP	project	include:	

1. A	fee	system	and/or	fee	demo	system	should	be	explored	and	used	to	help	manage	visitor	

use.	

2. Parking	and	camping	should	be	allowed	only	in	designated	areas	with	adequate	facilities	or	

within	Forest	Service	guidelines.	The	Byway	should	be	designed	to	clearly	mark	areas	

intended	for	recreation	and	discourage	use	in	areas	to	be	restored	and	revegetated.	

3. Through	a	carrying	capacity	study,	determine	visitor	carrying	capacity	and	manage	

appropriately.	

4. Studies	should	be	completed	as	soon	as	possible	to	ascertain	if	use	along	the	Byway	should	

be	restricted	seasonally	or	throughout	the	year.	

A	primary	theme	among	the	key	issues	and	recommendations	in	the	CMS	is	the	need	to	address	the	

impacts	of	increasing	visitation	on	natural	resources,	the	character	of	recreation	settings,	and	the	

quality	of	visitor	experiences.	The	CMS	references	a	1995	Recreation	Capacity	Study	conducted	by	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 38

the	PNF,	the	results	of	which	suggested	that	visitor	use	on	several	of	the	trails	in	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness	exceeded	the	social	capacity	of	the	area.	More	recently,	fencing	and	boardwalks	have	

been	used	along	the	Bierstadt	Trail	to	reduce	off‐trail	trampling	impacts,	which	may	actually	

exacerbate	social	capacity	issues	there.	Thus,	the	CMS	defines	as	a	goal	for	the	USFS	the	

development	of	a	social	capacity	analysis	for	the	Byway	corridor	and	management	of	the	area	to	

desired	user	capacities.	

While	the	CMS	references	relatively	dated	visitation	data,	more	recent	data	collected	by	the	USFS	

via	infrared	trail	use	monitors	suggest	that,	during	weekends,	the	Bierstadt	Trail	continues	to	

receive	intensive	levels	of	visitation	that	far	exceed	that	of	the	other	trails	at	Guanella	Pass	(Figure	

40).	It	should	be	noted	that	the	data	in	Figure	40	are	not	calibrated,	and	consequently	only	provide	

insight	about	the	relative	amount	of	use	across	the	three	trails	reported.	

Figure 40. Guanella Pass ‐ Average Daily Trailhead Counts (~September 2008 to Early October 2008;

source: USFS trail counters)

NVUM	studies	conducted	in	2000	and	2005	provide	another	relatively	recent	source	of	information	

about	visitor	use	in	the	Guanella	Pass	area.	The	NVUM	studies	included	interviews	with	visitors	at	

two	locations	within	the	Guanella	Pass	area	(Site	314	and	Site	331)	in	2000	and	at	three	locations	

(Site	175,	Site	314,	and	Site	331)	in	2005	(Figure	41).	A	copy	of	the	2005	NVUM	survey	instrument	

is	in	0.	Another	NVUM	study	is	planned	for	Guanella	Pass	during	summer	2010.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 39

Figure 41. Guanella Pass Area ‐ NVUM Study Sites
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 40

The	two	NVUM	study	sites	included	in	2000	study	(Site	314	and	Site	331	in	Figure	41)	are	classified	

by	NVUM	methods	as	General	Forest	Area	(GFA),	while	the	third	site	(Site	175	in	Figure	41),	which	

was	included	in	the	2005	study,	is	in	Wilderness.	The	NVUM	interview	sample	sizes,	by	study	site	

and	year,	are	reported	in	Table	52.	Key	results	from	the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	interviews	are	

reported	and	compared	in	the	following	paragraphs.	However,	the	relatively	low	sample	sizes	for	

the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	interviews	suggest	that	results	of	the	studies,	including	comparisons	

across	study	years,	should	be	interpreted	with	caution.		

Table 52. Guanella Pass ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)

Site Site Type* 2000 2005 Total

175 – Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH WILD  ‐  63 63

314 – Guanella Pass Rd (S) – Pike NF GFA 14 16 30

331 – Guanella Pass Rd (N) – Georgetown Streets GFA 191 277 468

* WILD = Wilderness; GFA = General Forest Area.

Within	the	NVUM	interviews,	visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	which	activities	they	had	participated	

in	or	will	participate	in	during	their	visit	to	Guanella	Pass	(Table	53	and	Table	54;	specific	activities	

corresponding	to	each	of	the	activity	type	groupings	in	Table	53	and	Table	54	are	in	0).	At	both	the	

GFA	 and	 Wilderness	 sampling	 locations,	 viewing	 and	 learning	 activities,	 non‐motorized,	 and	

motorized	activities	were	 the	most	 commonly	 reported.	The	 proportion	who	 reported	motorized	

activities	at	 the	GFA	sites	decreased	 from	2000	 to	2005,	while	the	proportion	who	reported	non‐

motorized	 activities	 increased.	 A	 substantial	 proportion	 of	 visitors	 contacted	 at	 the	 Wilderness	

sampling	point	reported	overnight/camping	activities	(Table	53).	

Table 53. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Activity Type During Visit (source: NVUM)

Activity Types *

2000

(n=136)

2005

(n=142) Change

Hunting and/or Fishing 3.0% 7.9% +4.9%

Viewing and/or Learning 33.2% 22.5%  ‐10.7%

Non Motorized 24.5% 27.8% +3.3%

Motorized 24.8% 19.4%  ‐5.4%

Camping or Other Overnight 9.7% 5.6%  ‐4.1%

Other Activities 4.9% 16.9% +12.0%

Table 54. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Activity Type During Visit (source: NVUM)

Activity Types *

2000

(n=0)

2005

(n=53) Change

Hunting and/or Fishing  ‐  1.9%  ‐ 

Viewing and/or Learning  ‐  71.7%  ‐ 

Non Motorized  ‐  100.0%  ‐ 

Motorized  ‐  28.3%  ‐ 

Camping or Other Overnight  ‐  20.8%  ‐ 

Other Activities  ‐  34.0%  ‐ 
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 41

Several	demographic	questions	were	asked	of	NVUM	interview	participants.	The	majority	of	visitors	

sampled	at	all	three	study	locations	reported	their	race/ethnicity	as	“White”;	“Spanish,	Hispanic,	or	

Latino”	was	the	second	most	frequently	reported	response	(Table	55	and	Table	56).	

Table 55. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)

2000

(n=205)

2005

(n=293) Change

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 4.4% 2.6%  ‐1.8%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.0% 0.4% +0.4%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0% 1.3% +1.3%

Asian 1.5% 0.0%  ‐1.5%

Black/African American 0.5% 0.9% +0.4%

White 58.5% 60.1% +1.6%

Other 1.0%  ‐  ‐ 

No Answer 34.1% 34.6% +0.5%

Table 56. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)

2000

(n=0)

2005

(n=63) Change

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino  ‐  4.8%  ‐ 

American Indian/Alaskan Native  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

Asian  ‐  3.2%  ‐ 

Black/African American  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

White  ‐  79.4%  ‐ 

Other  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

No Answer  ‐  12.7%  ‐ 

Visitors	at	all	three	sampling	locations,	and	across	study	years,	were	generally	between	21	and	50	

years	of	age	(Table	57	and	Table	58).	Ages	were	somewhat	more	evenly	distributed	at	the	two	GFA	

sites	in	2005	than	they	were	in	2000.	

Table 57. Guanella Pass (Sites 314 and 331) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)

2000 Categories/2005 Categories

2000

(n=205)

2005

(n=293) Change

16‐20 / 16‐19 1.5% 1.4%  ‐0.1%

21‐30 / 20‐29 15.3% 10.2%  ‐5.1%

31‐40 / 30‐39 16.8% 10.6%  ‐6.2%

41‐50 / 40‐49 16.8% 10.6%  ‐6.2%

51‐60 / 50‐59 8.9% 10.2% +1.3%

61‐70 / 60‐69 5.9% 4.1%  ‐1.8%

71+ / 70+ 1.5% 0.3%  ‐1.2%

No Answer a 34.7% 52.6% +17.9%
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 42

Table 58. Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH (Site 175) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)

2000 Categories/2005 Categories

2000

(n=0)

2005

(n=63) Change

16‐20 / 16‐19  ‐  1.6%  ‐ 

21‐30 / 20‐29  ‐  22.2%  ‐ 

31‐40 / 30‐39  ‐  23.8%  ‐ 

41‐50 / 40‐49  ‐  17.5%  ‐ 

51‐60 / 50‐59  ‐  15.9%  ‐ 

61‐70 / 60‐69  ‐  3.2%  ‐ 

71+ / 70+  ‐  0.0%  ‐ 

No Answer a

  ‐  15.9%  ‐ 

Visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	the	number	of	people	in	their	vehicle	on	the	day	they	were	contacted	

for	the	NVUM	interview	(Table	59).	Average	group	size,	based	on	responses	to	this	question,	ranged	

from	1.4	people/vehicle	to	2.6	people/vehicle.	The	sample	sizes	at	Site	331	are	substantially	higher	

than	either	of	the	other	two	sampling	locations,	thus	mean	values	based	on	these	data	(mean	=	2.3	

and	mean	=	2.2	people/vehicle)	constitute	 the	most	robust	estimates	of	 visitor	group	sizes	in	 the	

Guanella	Pass	Summit	area.		

Table 59. Guanella Pass Area ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

175 – Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH

Average ‐  2.6  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  1.6  ‐ 

n ‐  53  ‐ 

314 – Guanella Pass Rd (S) –  Pike NF

Average 1.4 2.0 +43%

St. Dev 0.5 1.0  ‐ 

n 9 12  ‐ 

331 – Guanella Pass Rd (N) –

Georgetown Streets

Average 2.3 2.2  ‐4%

St. Dev 1.2 1.0  ‐ 

n 126 331  ‐ 

Finally,	in	2005	NVUM	respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	how	far	they	had	traveled	from	their	

home	to	the	Guanella	Pass	Summit	area	(Table	60).	Again,	the	most	robust	results	are	from	Site	331,	

which	had	a	sample	size	more	than	double	that	of	either	of	the	other	two	sampling	locations.	There,	

the	mean	distance	traveled	to	visit	Guanella	Pass	was	approximately	120	miles,	which	suggests	an	

average	travel	time	of	roughly	2‐3	hours.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 43

Table 60. Guanella Pass Area ‐ Distance Traveled from Home (miles; source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

175 – Mount Evans: Guanella Pass TH

Average ‐  221  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  429  ‐ 

n ‐  53  ‐ 

314 – Guanella Pass Rd (S) –  Pike NF

Average ‐  366  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  610  ‐ 

n ‐  12  ‐ 

331 – Guanella Pass Rd (N) –

Georgetown Streets

Average ‐  124  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  336  ‐ 

n ‐  131  ‐ 

Transportation Systems, Infrastructure, and Issues

Guanella	Pass	Road	is	also	known	as	Colorado	Forest	Highway	80,	Park	County	Road	62,	Clear	

Creek	County	Road	381,	Forest	Development	Road	118,	and	the	Guanella	Pass	Scenic	and	Historic	

Byway	Corridor.	As	noted,	the	road	travels	24	miles	between	the	towns	of	Grant	in	the	south	and	

Georgetown	(on	I‐70)	in	the	north.	It	traverses	Guanella	Pass	(elevation	11,669	feet)	through	the	

PNF	and	ARNF,	and	through	Park	and	Clear	Creek	Counties	(Error! Reference source not found.).	

The	Guanella	Pass	Road	has	paved	and	gravel	sections;	the	paved	portions	have	a	speed	limit	of	35	

mph,	and	the	gravel	sections	have	speed	limits	of	20	mph.		

Vehicle	traffic	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	is	highest	between	late	spring	and	fall	(due	to	the	fact	that	it	is	

predominantly	recreation‐related)	and	is	concentrated	on	the	Georgetown	side	of	the	pass	(Figure	

42).	The	traffic	volumes	reported	in	Figure	42	represent	Seasonal	Average	Daily	Traffic	(SADT),	

which	is	the	average	number	of	vehicles	traveling	the	road	over	the	course	of	one	day	during	the	

corresponding	season.	The	SADT	of	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	was	recorded	in	summer	1995	at	650	

vehicles	per	day	at	a	location	just	south	of	Georgetown.	The	winter	traffic	volumes	are	estimated	to	

be	75%	less	than	the	summer	volumes	since	the	road	is	often	closed	in	winter	at	the	top	of	the	pass.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 44

Figure 42. Guanella Pass Road ‐ 1995 Seasonal Traffic Volumes (source: Guanella Pass Road Year 2025

Traffic Projections, 2002)

Traffic	projections	for	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	suggest	that	vehicle	traffic	will	be	substantially	

higher	in	2025	than	in	1995	(Figure	43).	In	particular,	data	in	Figure	43	suggest	that	the	peak	

season	ADT	in	2025	would	be	56%	greater	than	in	1995,	if	no	improvements	(e.g.,	surfacing,	

widening)	are	made	to	Guanella	Pass	Road,	and	approximately	80%	greater	if	road	improvements	

are	made	(a	detailed	discussion	of	relevant	roadway	improvements	are	discussed	later	in	this	

section).		

Seasonal Traffic Volume Variations:

1995 Average Daily Traffic

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

North ofGrant South end of

Geneva Park

South of

Guanella Pass

North of

Guanella Pass

North of

Guanella Pass

Campground

South of Clear

Lake

Campground

South ofthe

entrance to

Clear Lake

Picnic Area

South of

Georgetown

Count Location

vehicles per day

Summer SADT

Winter SADT

AADT

Guanella Pass
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 45

Figure 43. Guanella Pass Road ‐ Projected Summer ADT (source: Guanella Pass Road Year 2025 Traffic

Projections, 2002)

As	noted,	the	vehicle	traffic	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	is	primarily	recreation‐related.	There	are	a	

number	of	formally	designated	parking	facilities	along	the	Byway	to	provide	access	to	recreation	

facilities,	trailheads,	and	vistas,	and	these	are	documented	in	the	CMS	(Table	61).		

Table 61. Guanella Pass ‐ Recreation Sites and Capacities (source: CMS, 2001)

Number of Designated Parking Spaces  

Developed Campgrounds 72

Picnic Areas 39

Trailheads with Parking Lots 86

Vista Points 26

Note: Data reported in the table reflect parking facilities in 2001. Parking has since been expanded at the Guanella

Pass Summit to 106 parking spaces. It is assumed that parking facilities at the Guanella Pass Summit were included

within the “Trailheads with Parking Lots” category of the CMS inventory.

The	CMS	reports	that	demand	for	parking	at	the	summit	of	Guanella	Pass	frequently	exceeds	

designated	parking	capacity	there.	Consequently,	many	visitors	park	their	cars	along	the	roadside	

near	the	summit,	causing	visitor	safety	issues,	resource	impacts,	and	degrading	the	scenic	quality	of	

Summer Average Daily Traffic:

1995, 2025 No Build, 2025 Improved

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

North of

Grant

South end of

Geneva Park

South of

Guanella

Pass

North of

Guanella

Pass

North of

Guanella

Pass

South of

Clear Lake

Campground

South of the

entrance to

Clear Lake

South of

Georgetown

Count Location

vehicles per day

1995

2025 No Build

2025 Preferred Alternative

Guanella Pass
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 46

the	area.	Thus,	the	CMS	specifies	a	number	of	transportation‐related	desired	conditions	and	action	

items	for	the	Guanella	Pass	Summit	area,	including:	

 Design	future	parking	to	provide	a	net	long‐term	benefit	to	the	environment.	

 Emphasize	short‐term	parking	and	minimize	long‐term	parking	at	the	summit.	

 Allow	parking	in	designated	areas	and	avoid	having	a	single	large	parking	lot.	

 Design	roads	so	that	vehicles	cannot	drive	or	park	off	the	defined	roadway.	

 Reduce	current	levels	of	parking	at	the	summit	(including	in	designated	parking	spaces	and	

along	the	road).	

 Enforce	parking	restrictions	at	the	summit.	

 Disperse	the	long‐term	parking	for	Wilderness	entry	to	other	than	the	summit	trailheads.	

The	CMS	also	recommends	that	ATS	could	be	used	to:	1)	direct	visitor	use	to	recreation	sites	along	

the	Guanella	Pass	Road	that	can	sustain	such	use;	2)	reduce	parking	congestion	at	the	Guanella	Pass	

summit;	and	3)	potentially	help	moderate	recreation‐related	traffic	through	the	towns	of	

Georgetown	and	Grant.		

Thus,	issues	and	potential	solutions	related	to	parking	demand/shortages	at	Guanella	Pass	are	

potentially	important	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project.	The	parking	and	ATS‐related	

action	items	suggested	in	the	CMS	serve	as	potential	starting	points	for	this	work.	Recreation‐

related	issues	documented	in	the	CMS	and	summarized	in	this	report	also	suggest	that	any	

evaluation	of	parking‐related	issues	and	potential	solutions	must	be	made	in	the	context	of	

concerns	about	increasing	visitation	and	associated	impacts	to	Forest	resources,	the	character	of	

the	recreation	setting,	and	visitor	experiences	in	the	Wilderness	and	Backcountry	Recreation	areas	

at	the	Guanella	Pass	Summit.	

Review	of	background	information	about	Guanella	Pass	conducted	for	this	project	suggest	there	are	

also	engineering‐related	transportation	issues	on	Guanella	Pass	Road.	These	issues	have	potential	

implications	for	the	character	of	the	recreation	settings	and	opportunities	in	the	Guanella	Pass	area,	

as	well	as	potential	traffic‐related	impacts	to	the	towns	of	Georgetown	and	Grant.	Consequently,	

there	has	been	substantial	public	controversy	surrounding	them,	as	described	here.	

In	the	1990’s,	the	need	for	improvements	to	Guanella	Pass	Road	was	identified,	based	on	

environmental	concerns,	current	and	projected	traffic	volumes,	roadway	and	maintenance	

deficiencies,	and	safety	considerations.	To	address	the	need	for	roadway	improvements,	FHWA,	

USFS,	CDOT,	and	other	cooperating	agencies	initiated	a	planning	process	to	develop	a	Final	

Environmental	Impact	Statement	(FEIS)	and	selected	a	Preferred	Alternative	for	improving	

Guanella	Pass	Road.		

A	primary	component	of	the	roadway	improvements	for	Guanella	Pass	contained	in	the	FEIS’	

Preferred	Alternative	involved	resurfacing	some	portions	of	the	road	with	a	hardened	surface	(i.e.,	

asphalt	and/or	macadam,	rather	than	gravel)	to	preserve	and	protect	water	quality	in	adjacent	

streams	and	wetland/riparian	areas.	In	addition,	the	Preferred	Alternative	included	roadway	

widening	in	some	areas	to	address	safety	and	operational	concerns.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 47

While	most	public	comments	received	during	the	FEIS	planning	process	suggested	agreement	with	

the	need	for	repair	or	maintenance	of	the	road,	many	expressed	concerns	about	the	extent	of	

improvements	in	the	Preferred	Alternative.	In	particular,	concerns	were	expressed	that	the	

proposed	roadway	improvements	would	result	in:	

 A	loss	or	change	in	the	character	of	the	Guanella	Pass	area;	public	comments	suggested	a	

desire	to	retain	rustic,	unmanaged,	backcountry	characteristics	of	the	setting	in	the	area.	

 Increased	traffic	on	Guanella	Pass	Road,	because	it	would	become	a	potentially	attractive	

alternative	route	between	the	Denver	metro	area	and	the	Rocky	Mountains	to	the	congested	

I‐70	corridor.	Increased	traffic	on	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	would,	in	turn,	result	in	traffic	and	

community	impacts	to	the	towns	of	Georgetown	and	Grant.		

 Increased	speeds	and	associated	safety	issues.	

In	response	to	public	comments	about	the	concerns	noted,	a	new	alternative	was	developed	by	the	

FHWA	in	cooperation	with	Clear	Creek	County,	the	town	of	Georgetown,	Park	County,	the	USFS,	and	

CDOT.	The	new	alternative	was	designed	to	emphasize	rehabilitation	or	minimal	improvements	to	

Guanella	Pass	Road,	and	was	based	on	the	outcomes	of	work	group	sessions	that	took	place	during	

early	February	through	early	May	2000	and	were	open	to	the	public	for	observation.		

The	new	alternative	(Alternative	6),	specified	roadway	classification	and	design	elements	that	allow	

for	lower	speeds,	sharper	roadway	curves,	and	a	narrower	roadway	width	than	was	proposed	in	

the	original	Preferred	Alternative.	Further,	macadam,	rather	than	asphalt,	was	selected	for	most	of	

the	resurfacing	to	be	done	on	some	gravel	sections	of	the	road.		

As	part	of	the	planning	process,	CFL	conducted	a	traffic	study	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	in	2002	which	

projected	traffic	volumes	in	2025	with	and	without	proposed	roadway	improvements.	The	study	

included	24‐hour	automatic	traffic	counts	at	eight	locations	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	to	determine	

existing	ADT	and	project	future	ADT,	as	well	as	SADT.	The	study	also	included	manual	traffic	

counts,	a	parking	survey,	and	an	origin/destination	study.	Based	on	the	estimates	used	in	this	

study,	traffic	at	the	summit	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	could	increase	by	56%	over	1995	levels	by	the	

year	2025	if	no	road	improvements	are	made	(Figure	43).	The	study	projected	traffic	volumes	to	

grow	by	88%	to	183%	with	improvements	to	Guanella	Pass	Road	(Figure	43).	

The	FHWA	concluded	that	the	roadway	improvements	specified	in	Alternative	6	constitute	the	

minimum	that	can	be	built	and	no	further	reduction	in	design	standards	would	be	advisable.	The	

FHWA	further	suggested	that	the	Alternative	6	roadway	improvement	projects	reduce	

environmental	impacts	of	projected	traffic	increases	to	the	greatest	extent	possible.	Thus,	FHWA	

concluded	that	any	further	reduction	in	projected	traffic	increases	can	be	accomplished	only	by	the	

land	management	agencies	(USFS,	Clear	Creek	County,	Park	County,	and	Georgetown)	

implementing	policies	that	serve	to	restrict	use	of	the	area.	

A	Record	of	Decision	was	released	in	January	2003,	supporting	Alternative	6	as	the	Preferred	

Alternative	for	Guanella	Pass	Road	improvements,	and	a	CFL	Guanella	Pass	newsletter	indicated	the	

project	would	be	phased	as	follows:	

 Phase	I	‐	construction	from	milepost	9.3	to	milepost	17.0	was	completed	in	2007.	

 Phase	II	‐	construction	from	milepost	17.0	to	the	town	of	Georgetown	is	currently	underway.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 48

 Phase	III	‐	construction	(on	the	Park	County	side)	is	planned	for	2012.	

Since	initiating	the	project,	there	have	been	severe	erosion	and	surface	degradation	issues	on	the	

gravel	and	macadam	sections	of	Guanella	Pass	Road.	Thus,	in	a	March	2009	memorandum,	FHWA	

recommended	surfacing	the	gravel	and	macadam	portions	of	the	roadway	with	a	permanent	and	

sustainable	surface.	Thus,	FHWA	re‐evaluated	the	FEIS	to	determine	if	any	changes	to	the	project	

and	any	changed	circumstances	or	new	information	would	result	in	significant	impacts	not	

evaluated	in	the	FEIS.	It	was	determined	that	paving	these	sections	of	Guanella	Pass	Road	would	

have	no	new	significant	impacts,	thus,	these	sections	of	road	will	be	paved	the	summer	of	2010.		

As	part	of	the	process	to	re‐evaluate	the	FEIS,	FHWA	produced	revised	traffic	forecasts	based	on	

proposed	changes	to	roadway	resurfacing.	Revised	traffic	forecasts	were	estimated	using	new	

traffic	data,	additional	data	on	population	growth	from	the	Colorado	Division	of	Local	Government	

Demography	Office,	and	travel	time	analysis.	In	addition,	traffic	data	for	roadways	similar	to	

Guanella	Pass	were	collected	for	comparison	purposes.	The	revised	forecasts	of	2025	traffic	

volumes	were	slightly	higher	than	those	in	the	2002	CFL	traffic	study.	However,	the	FHWA	

concluded	from	a	travel	time	analysis	that,	even	with	resurfacing,	Guanella	Pass	Road	would	not	be	

a	feasible	alternative	route	to	I‐70	(Figure	44).	

Figure 44. Travel Time Comparisons of Alternative Routes (source: Guanella Pass Surface Evaluation:

Effect to Traffic Volumes and Speeds Technical Memo, 2009)

The	USFS	and	FHWA	are	handling	additional	engineering‐related	issues	on	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	

that	have	implications	for	recreation‐related	travel	and	tourism‐related	traffic	impacts	in	the	towns	

Travel Time Comparisons

(from Gergetown to Metro Denver‐Wadsworth/Alameda)

40

90

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

via I‐70

(uncongested)

via I‐70 (congested) via Guanella Pass &

US 285 (uncongested)

via Guanella Pass &

US 285 (congestion

on US 285)

Travel time in minutes
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 49

of	Georgetown	and	Grant.	In	August	2009,	Guanella	Pass	Road	between	the	Clear	Lake	day‐use	area	

and	the	Clear	Lake	Campground	was	closed	indefinitely	due	to	concerns	that	a	rockmass	in	the	area	

could	fall	across	the	road	due	to	instability	created	by	above	normal	precipitation	that	occurred	in	

summer	2009.	A	press	release	indicated	that	the	large	rock	mass	could	be	anywhere	from	20,000	to	

60,000	cubic	yards	in	volume,	and	would	fill	up	to	6,000	dump	trucks.	The	surface	area	of	the	mass	

may	be	approximately	a	football	field	in	size.	Since	summer	2009,	the	USFS	has	been	working	with	

CFL	to	evaluate	options	to	monitor	and	manage	the	situation.	Presently,	the	road	closure	is	still	in	

effect	and	will	remain	that	way	until	May	2010	when	an	assessment	of	the	slide	will	be	conducted.		

Summary

The	background	information	and	data	regarding	Guanella	Pass	reviewed	for	this	project	highlight	

several	important	themes	and	potential	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project.	These	

include:	

 Rapid	population	growth	is	occurring	in	the	communities	neighboring	Guanella	Pass.	

 Anecdotal	evidence	suggests	recreational	use	in	the	Guanella	Pass	area	is	increasing.	

 The	Guanella	Pass	summit	area	provides	immediate	access	to	Backcountry	Recreation	and	

Wilderness	Management	Areas,	desired	conditions	for	which	are	threatened	by	intensive	

and	increasing	visitation.	

 Previous	user	capacity	research	(1995)	suggests	that	social	capacity	on	trails	in	the	

Guanella	Pass	summit	area	are	exceeded	and	recreational	use	is	causing	off‐trail	trampling	

and	other	resource	impacts	there.	

 Recreation	management‐related	action	items	recommended	in	the	CMS	focus	on	conducting	

user	capacity	studies	to	support	the	USFS	in	managing	the	number	of	recreational	users,	

particularly	in	the	Guanella	Pass	summit	area,	to	protect	Forest	resources	and	the	quality	of	

visitor	experiences.	

 	Traffic	volumes	on	Guanella	Pass	Road	are	high,	particularly	from	late	spring	through	fall.		

 Traffic	volumes	are	projected	to	increase	substantially	over	the	next	two	decades.	

 Parking	demand	frequently	exceeds	parking	supply	at	the	Guanella	Pass	summit,	resulting	

in	unendorsed	parking	along	the	roadside	that	causes	resource,	safety,	and	scenic	quality	

issues.	

 Transportation	management‐related	action	items	recommended	in	the	CMS	focus	on	

parking	management	at	the	Guanella	Pass	summit	and	consideration	of	ATS	to	manage	the	

amount	and	location	of	visitor	use	in	the	Byway	corridor,	parking	congestion,	and	traffic	in	

the	towns	of	Georgetown	and	Grant.	

 Roadway	improvement	projects	managed	by	FHWA	and	USFS	are	underway,	with	

particular	focus	on	resurfacing	and	roadway	geometry	improvements.	These	improvements	

are	controversial	due	to	concerns	about	change	to	the	natural/rustic	character	of	the	area	

and	traffic	impacts	to	the	towns	of	Georgetown	and	Grant.	

 A	section	of	the	Guanella	Pass	Road	near	the	summit	area	is	closed	due	to	concern	about	a	

rockfall;	the	road	closure	will	be	re‐evaluated	in	May,	2010.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 50

The	background	information	reviewed	for	this	project	suggests	that	some	data	and	analysis	results	

exist	to	address	the	issues	noted,	but	many	of	those	information	sources	are	dated	and/or	

incomplete.	Thus,	there	are	a	number	of	potential	information	and	analysis	needs	that	should	be	

considered	if	the	proposed	TRIP	project	is	funded,	including:	

 Trail	use	counts	and	hiking	routes	for	trails	in	the	Guanella	Pass	summit	area.	

 Visitor‐based	indicators	and	standards	of	quality	for	resource	and	social	conditions	in	the	

Backcountry	Recreation	and	Wilderness	Management	Areas	adjacent	to	the	summit.	

 Visitor	characteristics	and	motivations	for	visiting	the	summit	area;	perceptions	of	

soundscape,	resource,	and	visitor	experience	conditions;	recreation	setting	preferences;	

and	attitudes	about	recreation	and	transportation‐related	management	options.	

 Visitor	use	models	for	trails	in	the	summit	area	to	estimate	user	capacities	based	on	

resource	and	social	standards	of	quality.	

 Linkages	between	visitor	use	models	and	transportation	data/models	to	evaluate	the	effects	

of	potential	visitor	use	and	transportation	management	actions	on	estimated	user	

capacities.	

 Measurement	of	the	extent	and	severity	of	recreation	and	transportation‐related	resource	

and	soundscape	impacts.		

 Observation	and	evaluation	of	visitor	behavior	to	identify	and	mitigate	visitor	use‐related	

factors	contributing	to	resource	and	soundscape	impacts.	

 Analysis	of	parking	demand	and	capacity,	under	existing	and	proposed	transportation	

system	conditions.	

 Modeling	and/or	analysis	of	alternative	transportation	solutions	(e.g.,	transit,	ITS)	to	

mitigate	parking	congestion,	with	respect	to	cost,	effectiveness,	and	visitor/public	support.	

3.3 Mount Evans		

This	section	synthesizes,	analyzes,	and	evaluates	information	about	Mount	Evans,	based	on	review	

of	the	following	documents:	

 Mount	Evans	Recreation	Enhancement	Project:	Business	Plan	(USFS,	2007)	

 2030	Mountains	and	Plains	Transportation	Plan	(DRCOG,	2005)	

 Mount	Evans	Scenic	and	Historic	Byway	Corridor	Management	Plan	(Clear	Creek	County	

Tourism	Board	&	Community	Matters,	Inc.,	2000)	

 1997	Revision	of	the	Land	and	Resource	Management	Plan:	Arapaho	and	Roosevelt	National	

Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland,	a.k.a.	the	Forest	Plan	(USFS,	1997)	

 Analysis	of	the	Feasibility	of	the	Shuttle	System	(Lewin,	Brust,	Gulas,	Ohmart,	&	Velarde,	

1993)	

Location

Mount	Evans	is	located	approximately	70	miles	southwest	of	the	Denver	Metro	area,	and	28	miles	

southwest	of	Idaho	Springs.	Primary	access	to	Mount	Evans	is	from	I‐70	via	the	Idaho	Springs	exit	

and	Colorado	Highway	103	to	the	intersection	of	Colorado	Highway	5/Mount	Evans	Highway.	The	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 51

Mount	Evans	entrance	fee	station	is	situated	at	the	base	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	which	travels	

from	the	fee	station	14	miles	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	14,264	

feet	in	elevation,	making	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	the	highest	elevation	paved	road	in	North	

America	reaching	14,130	feet.	The	entire	route	from	Idaho	Springs	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans	is	

designated	as	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	and	Historic	Byway.	The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	within	

both	the	ARNF	and	PNF,	and	runs	directly	through	the	Mount	Evans	Wilderness	(Error! Reference

source not found.).	The	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	open	seasonally,	roughly	between	Memorial	Day	

and	the	first	weekend	in	October,	depending	on	weather	and	road	conditions,	although	the	road	

beyond	Summit	Lake	is	closed	on	the	Tuesday	after	Labor	Day.		

Figure 45. Mount Evans ‐ Visitor Use Areas and Parking Facilities

Visitor Use and Recreation‐related Issues

As	noted,	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	provides	seasonal	recreation	access	within	the	ARNF	and	PNF,	

roughly	between	Memorial	Day	and	the	first	weekend	of	October,	although	the	road	beyond	

Summit	Lake	is	closed	on	the	Tuesday	after	Labor	Day.	The	USFS	charges	an	entrance	fee	for	travel	

on	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	Recreation	activities	include	sightseeing,	hiking,	wildlife	viewing,	

wildflower	viewing,	photography,	bicycling,	snowshoeing,	cross	country	skiing,	and	many	

educational	opportunities.	There	are	a	number	of	recreation	sites	and	facilities	located	along	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway,	including	picnic	areas,	trailheads	with	parking,	and	interpretive	or	visitor	

centers.	Primary	facilities	and	attractions	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	include:	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 52

 The	Summit	area	and	Crest	House,	which	offer	panoramic	views,	interpretive	opportunities,	

and	trails	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	

 Summit	Lake	Park,	National	Natural	Landmark,	which	includes	restrooms,	a	historic	shelter,	

and	trails	to	Summit	Lake.		

 The	Mount	Evans	Wilderness,	which	provides	access	to	over	100	miles	of	trails.	

 The	Mount	Goliath	Research	Natural	Area	(RNA),	which	includes	the	Alpine	Interpretive	

Garden,	Dos	Chappell	Nature	Center,	and	universally	accessible	trails.	This	area	is	jointly	

managed	by	the	USFS	and	Denver	Botanic	Gardens.		

 The	University	of	Denver	Observatory,	which	is	located	in	the	summit	area,	but	is	not	open	

to	the	public.	

Located	just	outside	of	the	Mount	Evans	area	are	numerous	picnic	areas,	vista	points,	and	Echo	

Lake	and	West	Chicago	Creek	Campgrounds.	These	facilities	are	accessed	via	Colorado	Highway	

103.	Echo	Lake	is	located	at	the	base	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	and	is	identified	in	studies	

reviewed	for	this	project	as	a	potential	staging	location	for	shuttle	service	to	the	summit	of	Mount	

Evans.		

Most	of	the	recreation	facilities	noted	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	are	situated	in	the	USFS’s	

prescriptive	Management	Area	4.2	–	Scenery.	Within	this	Management	Area,	frequent	encounters	

between	individuals	or	parties	are	acceptable	on	travelways,	while	contact	away	from	trails	is	

prescribed	to	generally	be	infrequent.	Sounds	from	people	or	motorized	recreational	activities	are	

usually	common	and	limit	opportunities	for	solitude	or	isolation.	Developed	facilities	may	be	

common	in	this	Management	Area,	for	the	purposes	of	improving	recreation	opportunities	and	

enjoyment	of	scenery.	Furthermore,	the	use	of	directional,	regulatory,	and	informational	signs	is	

acceptable,	and	their	presence	may	be	frequent.	

While	most	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	corridor	and	its	recreational	facilities	are	located	in	

Management	Area	4.2,	almost	all	of	the	surrounding	area	lies	within	Congressionally	designated	

Wilderness	(Management	Area	1.1	in	the	Forest	Plan).	As	stated	in	the	Forest	Plan,	Wilderness	

areas	are	managed	such	that	their	natural	conditions	predominate	and	opportunities	for	solitude	

and	self	reliance	are	provided.	Thus,	evidence	of	human	activity	is	meant	to	be	limited	to	that	

necessary	for	resource	protection.	Desired	social	and	resource	conditions	are	to	be	maintained	by	

developing	and	implementing	limits	of	acceptable	change	programs,	to	the	extent	that	funding	and	

resources	allow.	

The	Forest	Plan	also	specified	a	number	of	desired	conditions	and	action	items	for	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness	and	Mount	Evans	National	Scenic	Byway	corridor.	Those	desired	conditions	and	action	

items	with	a	transportation‐related	focus	are	reported	in	the	next	section;	recreation‐related	

desired	conditions	and	action	items	of	particular	relevance	to	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project	

include:	

 Provide	opportunities	for	recreational	use	of	the	area	while	protecting	the	alpine	

ecosystems	and	the	integrity	of	the	Wilderness	area.	

 Concentrate	most	use	of	the	area	within	the	Byway	corridor.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 53

 Identify	limits	of	acceptable	change	to	the	environment	and	manage	the	area	to	stay	within	

these	limits.	

 Accommodate	recreational	use	along	the	trail	corridors	in	which	upper	limits	of	use	are	

based	on	environmental	effects	with	less	emphasis	on	social	factors.	

In	addition	to	the	Forest	Plan,	the	Mount Evans Scenic and Historic Byway Corridor Management

Plan, 2000	(CMP)	identified	additional	issues	of	focus	for	the	area.	Among	the	issues	of	focus	in	the	

CMP	were	impacts	of	intensive	visitation	at	recreation	sites	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	Thus,	

while	there	is	a	general	understanding	that	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	is	a	popular	recreation	and	

tourism	destination	due	to	its	proximity	to	the	Denver	metro	area	and	road	access	to	the	summit	of	

Mount	Evans,	empirical	information	about	visitor	use	is	important.		

Information	reviewed	in	this	project	include	various	sources	of	visitation	data	that	provide	insights	

about	annual	visitation	and	trends	over	time.	For	example,	visual	inspection	of	the	Mount	Evans	

entrance	fee	station	visitation	data	in	Figure	46	suggests	that	visitation	to	Mount	Evans	has	been	

relatively	steady	over	time,	with	a	slight	increasing	trend	since	2000.		

Figure 46. Mount Evans ‐ Annual Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)

The	data	in	Figure	47	suggest	that	visitation	to	Mount	Evans	peaks	during	the	month	of	July	and	is	

nearly	as	high	in	August.	Further,	visitation	increases	substantially	from	May	to	June	and	from	June	

to	July,	while	it	declines	sharply	after	August.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 54

Figure 47. Mount Evans ‐ Average Monthly Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)

As	might	be	expected,	weekend	visitation	to	Mount	Evans	is	substantially	higher	than	weekday	

visitor	use		(Figure	48).	Visitation	is	generally	slightly	higher	on	Sundays	than	on	Saturdays.	

Figure 48. Mount Evans ‐ Average Daily Visitation (2000, 2002‐2009; source: USFS Fee Station Data)

NVUM	studies	conducted	in	2000	and	2005	provide	another	relatively	recent	source	of	information	

about	visitor	use	in	the	Mount	Evans	area.	The	NVUM	studies	in	2000	and	2005	included	interviews	

with	visitors	at	one	sampling	location	in	the	Mount	Evans	summit	area	(Figure	49).	A	copy	of	the	

2005	NVUM	survey	instrument	is	in	0.	Another	NVUM	study	is	planned	for	the	Mount	Evans	area	

during	summer	2010.	 Average Monthly Visitation (People) Average Daily Visitation (People)
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 55

Figure 49. Mount Evans ‐ NVUM Site Locations

The	NVUM	study	site	included	in	the	2000	and	2005	study	is	classified	by	NVUM	methods	as	a	Day‐

use	Developed	Site	(DUDS).	The	NVUM	interview	sample	sizes,	by	year,	are	reported	in	Table	62.	

Key	results	from	the	2000	and	2005	NVUM	interviews	are	reported	and	compared	in	the	following	

paragraphs.	However,	the	relatively	low	sample	sizes	for	the	2000	and	2005	interviews	suggest	

that	results	of	the	studies,	including	comparisons	across	study	years,	should	be	interpreted	with	

caution.		

Table 62. Mount Evans ‐ Number of NVUM Interview Respondents per Year (source: NVUM)

Site Site Type* 2000 2005 Total

60 – Mount Evans DUDS 9 52 61

* DUDS = Day‐use developed site.
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 56

Within	the	NVUM	interviews,	visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	which	activities	they	had	participated	

in	or	will	participate	in	during	their	visit	to	Mount	Evans	(Table	63;	specific	activities	corresponding	

to	each	of	 the	activity	groupings	in	Table	63	are	in	0).	Viewing	and	learning	activities,	motorized	

activities,	 and	 non‐motorized	 activities	 were	 the	 most	 commonly	 reported.	 The	 proportion	 who	

reported	camping	or	other	overnight	activities	decreased	from	2000	to	2005,	while	the	proportion	

that	reported	all	of	the	other	activity	types	increased.		

Table 63. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Participating in Activity Group (source: NVUM)

Activity Types *

2000     

(n=8)

2005   

(n=38) Change

Hunting and/or Fishing 0.0% 2.6% +2.6

Viewing and/or Learning 87.5% 94.7% +7.2

Non Motorized 75.0% 78.9% +3.9

Motorized 62.5% 84.2% +21.7

Camping or Other Overnight 25.0% 7.9%  ‐17.1

Other Activities 12.5% 81.6% +69.1

Several	 demographic	 questions	were	asked	 of	NVUM	interview	 participants.	The	 vast	majority	 of	

visitors	reported	their	race/ethnicity	as	“White”	(Table	64).	

Table 64. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Ethnicity and Race (source: NVUM)

2000

(n=9)

2005

(n=52) Change

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 10.0% 0.0% +10.0%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Asian 0.0% 1.9% +1.9%

Black/African American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

White 88.9% 71.2%  ‐17.7%

Other 0.0%  ‐  ‐ 

No Answer 11.1% 26.9% +15.8%

A	majority	of	visitors	interviewed	at	the	Mount	Evans	summit	area	during	2000	were	between	31	

and	50	years	of	age,	while	in	2005	the	majority	of	respondents	were	between	40	and	69	years	of	age	

(Table	65).		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 57

Table 65. Mount Evans (Site 60) ‐ Age Categories (source: NVUM)

2000 Categories/2005 Categories

2000

(n=9)

2005

(n=52) Change

16‐20 / 16‐19 11.1% 0.0%  ‐11.1%

21‐30 / 20‐29 11.1% 9.6%  ‐1.5%

31‐40 / 30‐39 22.2% 5.8%  ‐16.4%

41‐50 / 40‐49 33.3% 15.4%  ‐17.9%

51‐60 / 50‐59 11.1% 23.1% +12.0%

61‐70 / 60‐69 0.0% 15.4% +15.4%

71+ / 70+ 0.0% 3.8% +3.8%

No Answer a 11.1% 26.9% +15.8%

Visitors	were	asked	to	indicate	the	number	of	people	in	their	vehicle	on	the	day	they	were	

contacted	for	the	NVUM	interview	(Table	66).	Average	group	size,	based	on	responses	to	this	

question,	ranged	from	1.8	people/vehicle	to	2.6	people/vehicle.	However,	the	reliability	of	either	

estimate	of	group	size	is	limited	due	to	low	sample	sizes	in	both	NVUM	study	years.		

Table 66. Mount Evans ‐ Number of People in Vehicle (source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

60 – Mount Evans

Average 1.8 2.6 +44%

St. Dev 0.7 1.4  ‐ 

n 8 37  ‐ 

Finally,	in	2005	NVUM	respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	how	far	they	had	traveled	from	their	

home	to	the	Mount	Evans	summit	area	(Table	67).	The	average	distance	traveled	by	NVUM	

respondents	in	2005	visit	Mount	Evans	was	approximately	668	miles,	which	suggests	an	average	

travel	time	of	roughly	11	hours.	The	mean	travel	time	should	be	interpreted	with	caution,	due	to	

the	low	sample	size.		

Table 67. Mount Evans ‐ Distance Traveled (miles; source: NVUM)

Site    2000 2005 % Change

60 – Mount Evans

Average ‐  668  ‐ 

St. Dev ‐  678  ‐ 

n ‐  38  ‐ 

In	addition	to	the	NVUM	studies	of	2000	and	2005,	several	other	visitor	surveys	were	conducted	at	

Mount	Evans	between	1994	and	1999	(e.g.,	a	copy	of	a	visitor	survey	instrument	administered	in	

1999	is	included	in	0).	While	these	surveys	are	less	recent	than	the	NVUM	studies,	they	were	

designed	to	support	more	reliable	statistical	results	about	Mount	Evans	visitor	use	and	visitors	than	

the	NVUM	studies,	which	are	designed	for	a	more	Forest‐wide	perspective.	Results	of	these	studies	

support	several	insights	about	Mount	Evans	visitor	use	and	visitors,	including:	

 Mount	Evans	visitors	are	generally	45‐64	years	of	age,	married,	college	educated,	and	with	

household	incomes	of	$50,000	or	more	(1999	dollars).	

 Most	(70%)	Mount	Evans	visitors	travel	in	their	own	vehicles.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 58

 The	majority	(75%)	of	visitors	do	not	have	children	in	their	groups.	

 About	half	of	all	Mount	Evans	visitors	are	from	Colorado	and	half	are	from	outside	Colorado,	

with	about	one‐quarter	from	east	of	the	Mississippi	River.	

 Most	visitors	learned	about	the	Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway	by	word	of	mouth/from	friends	

and	family.	

 A	majority	(55%)	of	visitors	said	they	would	take	a	shuttle,	if	service	were	provided	on	the	

Mount	Evans	Scenic	Byway;	large	minorities	of	visitors	said	 they	would	not	 take	a	shuttle	

because	it	would	take	too	long	to	get	to	the	summit	(46%)	and	they	would	not	be	able	to	stop	

where	they	wanted	(39%).	

 Most	(70%)	visitors	to	Mount	Evans	are	first‐time	visitors	to	the	area.	

 Pleasure	driving	and	enjoying	the	scenery	are	the	predominant	visitor	activities	reported.	

 Most	 visitors	 reported	 that	 harassment	 of	 wildlife,	 including	 feeding	 and	 scaring	 wildlife	

while	taking	photographs,	is	a	problem	at	Mount	Evans.	

Transportation Systems, Infrastructure, and Issues

The	Mount	Evans	Highway,	also	known	as	Colorado	Highway	5,	consists	of	a	14‐mile	drive	from	

Echo	Lake	to	the	Summit	area.	It	is	part	of	the	greater	Mount	Evans	Scenic	and	Historical	Byway,	

which	also	includes	Colorado	Highway	103	from	Idaho	Springs	to	Echo	Lake.	As	noted,	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway	is	the	highest	paved	road	in	North	America,	reaching	an	elevation	of	over	14,000	

feet	at	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	roadway	is	a	two‐lane,	paved	road	with	a	speed	limit	of	20‐

30	mph,	and	is	closed	during	the	winter	season.	There	are	currently	two	private	tour	operators	that	

provide	transportation	between	Denver,	the	Mount	Evans	summit,	and	other	tourist	attractions	in	

the	area.	However,	most	visitors	travel	to	and	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	in	their	own	

vehicles.		

There	are	three	primary	parking	areas	along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway,	all	three	with	limited	

parking	capacity.	In	particular,	there	is	a	17‐space	parking	area	at	the	Mount	Goliath	RNA,	a	34‐

space	parking	area	at	Summit	Lake	and	a	38‐space	parking	area	at	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.	

Buses	and	cars	with	small	trailers	are	not	allowed	to	travel	beyond	the	Summit	Lake	parking	area	

due	to	the	narrow,	winding	nature	of	the	road.		

Vehicle	traffic	data	for	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	suggest	that	visitation	has	declined	moderately	

from	1996	to	2000,	but	has	increased	slightly	between	2000	and	2006;	this	is	consistent	with	

entrance	fee	station	visitation	data	trends	noted.	Over	the	ten	year	period	for	which	data	were	

available	for	review	in	this	project,	annual	vehicle	traffic	averaged	just	under	45,000	vehicles.	

Maximum	annual	vehicle	traffic	between	1996	and	2006	was	just	over	63,000	vehicles	in	1998,	

while	the	minimum	was	observed	in	2000	at	33,240	vehicles	(Table	68).		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 59

Table 68. Mount Evans ‐ Vehicle and Visitor Counts 1996‐2006 (source: Mount Evans Business

Plan/Recreation Enhancement Act Project, 2007)

Year Vehicle Count

1996 52,500

1997 42,800

1998 63,043

1999 51,528

2000 33,240

2001 37,410

2002 47,617

2003 47,569

2004 38,108

2005 39,655

2006 39,828

Average 44,586

The	background	information	reviewed	for	this	study	suggests	that	parking	demand	at	the	Summit	

Lake	and	Mount	Evans	Summit	parking	typically	exceeds	capacity	during	summer	weekends	and	

holidays.	Parking	congestion	at	the	Summit	Lake	and	summit	area	parking	lots	cause	bottlenecks	as	

cars	wait	for	parking	spaces	to	become	available.	Furthermore,	many	visitors	park	their	cars	in	

undesignated	areas	along	the	road	when	the	designated	parking	areas	are	full.	Pull‐outs	located	

along	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	also	fill‐up	with	parked	vehicles	quickly	during	peak	periods.		

The	congested	parking	conditions	noted	cause	visitor	frustration,	resource	impacts,	and	public	

safety	issues.	Parking	congestion	issues	are	exacerbated	by	the	fact	that	steep	terrain	and	harsh	

climatic	conditions	limit	possibilities	for	providing	new	or	expanded	parking	or	turnouts	along	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway.	These	issues	have	been	documented	at	Mount	Evans	for	several	decades	

and	were	systematically	studied	in	1993,	when	the	USFS	was	considering	to	convert	Mount	Evans	

area	to	a	USFS	Park	(Analysis of the Feasibility of the Shuttle System, 1993).		

The	focus	of	the	study	in	1993	was	on	assessing	the	feasibility	of	implementing	a	shuttle	system	on	

the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	The	study	cites	parking	congestion	as	a	primary	motivation	for	

considering	shuttle	service	at	Mount	Evans.	The	study	also	suggests	a	shuttle	system	would	

improve	visitor	enjoyment	by	allowing	visitors	to	better	enjoy	the	scenic	views	than	they	are	able	

to	when	concentrating	on	the	challenging	driving	conditions	presented	by	the	Mount	Evans	

Highway.		

The	1993	study	of	the	feasibility	of	a	Mount	Evans	shuttle	system	states	that	the	first	consideration	

in	designing	a	system	should	be	the	recreation	carrying	capacity	(hereafter	referred	to	as	user	

capacity)	of	Mount	Evans.	The	study	further	notes	that,	at	the	time	of	the	study,	the	USFS	had	not	

yet	established	numerical	user	capacities	for	the	area	and	that	a	model	to	estimate	user	capacity	

was	needed.	The	study	suggests	that	a	user	capacity	model,	coupled	with	visitor	use	data	(e.g.,	

visitor	counts)	is	essential	in	order	to	design	a	shuttle	system	for	Mount	Evans	that	is	in	accord	with	

sustainable	levels	of	visitor	use.	The	study	report	includes	a	definition	of	user	capacity	and	suggests	

an	indicator‐based	process	(i.e.,	Limits	of	Acceptable	Change)	for	establishing	user	capacities	at	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 60

Mount	Evans.	Several	potential	indicators	of	resource,	social,	and	facility	quality	are	suggested	as	a	

basis	for	indicator‐based	user	capacity	analysis	at	Mount	Evans,	including	the	following	that	are	

particularly	pertinent	to	this	and	the	proposed	TRIP	project:	

 Resource	Indicators	

- Percent	of	specified	types	of	ground	cover	

- Number	of	specified	plants	or	animals	observed	

- Soil	compaction	

- Soil	erosion	

 Facility	Indicators	

- Number	of	people,	groups,	or	vehicles	per	parking	lot	or	shuttle	bus	

- Time	waiting	for	shuttle	service	

 Social	Indicators	

- Number	of	encounters	with	other	people	per	hour,	day,	etc.	while	hiking	

- Number	of	people	at	one	time	at	attraction	sites	

The	discussion	of	user	capacity	in	the	1993	study	also	suggests	that	information	about	the	travel	

patterns	of	visitors	while	visiting	the	Mount	Evans	area	is	essential.	Finally,	the	study	outlines	

several	pros	and	cons	of	implementing	shuttle	service	for	Mount	Evans,	with	respect	to	user	

capacity	considerations.	The	following	summarizes	key	points	made	in	the	1993	study	report,	with	

respect	to	advantages	and	disadvantages	of	shuttle	service,	in	terms	of	user	capacity	

considerations:	

 Pros	

- Can	make	visitors’	tour	more	educational,	including	learning	about	the	fragile	

ecosystem	and	how	to	protect	it.	

- Can	control	the	number	of	visitors,	which	potentially	reduces	resource	and	social	

impacts	of	recreational	use.	

- Potentially	reduces	transportation‐related	air,	noise,	and	greenhouse	gas	(GHG)	

emissions.	

- Potentially	allows	visitors	to	relax	and	enjoy	the	surroundings	more	than	if	they	were	

driving.	

- Provides	an	opportunity	for	visitors	to	socialize	with	others	(Note:	This	could	be	

interpreted	as	a	pro	or	a	con,	depending	on	the	experience	motives	of	visitors).	

 Cons	

- Buses	potentially	accelerate	the	deterioration	of	the	road.	

- Would	potentially	require	converting	some	camping	facilities	into	parking	lots	for	

shuttle	service	staging.	

- Potentially	increases	noise	impacts	to	hikers	and	bikers.	

- Potentially	decreases	the	personal	experience	associated	with	traveling	in	your	own	

vehicle.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 61

- Potentially	increases	visitors’	feeling	of	being	controlled	and	potentially	decreases	sense	

of	privacy.	

- Potentially	inhibits	visitors’	ability	to	use	the	hiking	trails	in	the	area,	as	they	may	not	

have	adequate	time	to	do	so	before	returning	to	their	shuttle	buses.	

- The	presence	of	buses	may	have	particularly	pronounced	adverse	experiential	impacts	

on	hikers	and	bikers.		

- Shuttle	tours	of	Mount	Evans	potentially	disproportionately	appeal	to	older	visitors,	

which	could	cause	displacement	among	younger	generations	of	visitors.	

- Potential	for	onboard	crowding,	long	wait	times	for	buses,	and	time	restrictions	to	have	

significant	adverse	impacts	to	visitor	experience.	

Within	the	analysis	of	shuttle	system	feasibility,	three	sites	were	considered	as	potential	staging	

areas	for	a	Mount	Evans	shuttle	system.	The	potential	staging	area	locations	include:	1)	the	Visitors	

Center	in	Idaho	Springs,	2)	Echo	Lake;	and	3)	Summit	Lake.	The	report	discusses	primary	

advantages	and	disadvantages	of	each	staging	area	option,	which	are	summarized	here:		

 Visitors	Center	in	Idaho	Springs	–	Advantages	

- Ample	parking.	

- Easy	access	from	I‐70.	

- Longer	duration	tour,	which	some	visitors	would	enjoy	(though	others	might	prefer	

minimizing	time	on	shuttle	buses	versus	being	in	their	own	vehicles).	

- Eliminates	the	need	for	visitors	to	drive	the	challenging	road	conditions	on	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway.	

 Visitors	Center	in	Idaho	Springs	–	Disadvantages	

- The	length	of	the	shuttle	bus	tour	may	be	too	long	for	some	visitor	groups,	including	

those	with	children	or	people	on	a	time	schedule.	

- Visitors	would	not	be	able	to	stop	at	recreation	facilities	along	the	road	to	the	Mount	

Evans	Highway.	

- The	beginning	of	the	tour	would	be	through	residential	areas	with	little	appeal	to	

tourists	and	recreationists.	

- Difficult	to	manage	shuttle	service	fee	collection	and	ensure	ridership	is	tourism‐based,	

rather	than	commuter‐based	from	this	location.	

 Echo	Lake	–	Advantages	

- Location	at	the	junction	of	State	Highway	5	and	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	serves	as	a	

good	staging	location.	

- Ample	parking.	

- Located	at	the	halfway	point	between	Idaho	Springs	and	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	

resulting	in	a	roughly	one‐hour	tour.	Thus,	not	constraining	to	visitors	on	a	time	

schedule.	

- Serves	as	a	good	control	point	for	managing	vehicle	access	to	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	

and	ridership	on	the	shuttle	buses.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 62

- Attractions	at	Echo	Lake	provide	visitors	with	something	to	do	while	they	wait	for	the	

bus.	

 Echo	Lake	–	Disadvantages	

- To	expand	parking,	it	may	be	necessary	to	eliminate	some	campsites	at	Echo	Lake.	

- An	hour‐long	tour	may	still	be	too	long	for	some	visitors.	

 Summit	Lake	–	Advantages	

- Located	only	5	miles	from	the	summit,	so	visitors	would	only	be	on	shuttle	buses	for	

roughly	30	minutes.	Visitors	may	prefer	this	and	the	cost	of	service	would	be	lower.	

- Still	allows	visitors	to	avoid	driving	the	most	difficult	section	of	the	Mount	Evans	

Highway,	which	is	between	Summit	Lake	and	the	Mount	Evans	summit.	

 Summit	Lake	–	Disadvantages	

- Limited	existing	parking	means	that	substantial	additional	parking	would	need	to	be	

developed,	causing	serious	resource	impacts.	

- Still	requires	visitors	to	drive	some	challenging	sections	of	the	Mount	Evans	Highway.	

The	1993	study	report	concludes	from	the	analysis	of	potential	staging	areas	that	Echo	Lake	would	

be	the	preferred	option.	The	report	further	suggested	that	upon	request	or	every	three	hours	a	

shuttle	bus	leave	Echo	Lake	for	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	with	stops	at	Summit	Lake	on	the	way	

up	and	down.	

More	recently,	the	CMP	identified	a	set	of	projects	deemed	to	be	feasible	means	to	implement	the	

CMP.	Among	the	projects	identified	to	implement	the	CMP	was	a	peak	season	Byway	shuttle	system.	

The	CMP	noted	the	same	reasons	as	the	1993	study	for	considering	shuttle	service	for	Mount	Evans,	

including	mitigation	of	parking	congestion	and	improvement	of	the	visitor	experience	associated	

with	eliminating	the	stress	of	driving	in	challenging	road	conditions.		

The	shuttle	system	proposed	in	the	CMP	includes	a	staging	area	in	Idaho	Springs,	in	part	to	bolster	

the	economy	of	the	town.	This	is	in	contrast	to	the	1993	study’s	recommendation	for	a	staging	area	

at	Echo	Lake.	The	CMP	identified	several	next	steps	regarding	shuttle	service	for	Mount	Evans.	

These	next	steps	focus	on	the	USFS	working	cooperatively	with	the	local	counties	and	CDOT	to:	

 Identify	drop‐off/pick‐up	locations	in	Idaho	Springs	

 Engage	local	businesses	in	developing	marketing	material	for	the	shuttle	service	

 Develop	partnerships	with	private	entities	to	secure	vehicles	and	other	resources	

 Monitor	vehicle	traffic	on	the	Byway	

In	addition,	the	CMP	contains	a	copy	of	a	memorandum	written	on	behalf	of	the	USFS	to	Land	Rover	

requesting	sponsorship	of	a	Mount	Evans	shuttle	system.	In	particular,	the	memo	suggests	

providing	Land	Rover	exclusive	rights	to	operate	a	shuttle	service	transporting	visitors	to	the	

summit	of	Mount	Evans.	The	memo	suggests	that	a	meeting	was	held	with	Land	Rover	in	2000,	but	

the	outcome	of	this	meeting	is	unknown.	

Finally,	within	the	background	information	reviewed	for	this	project,	the	FHWA	suggested	that	

shuttle	service	focus	on	providing	transit	service	for	those	visitors	who	arrive	at	the	base	of	the	

Mount	Evans	Highway	via	their	own	automobile	but	would	prefer	to	ride	a	shuttle	van	to	the	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 63

summit.	The	FHWA	further	suggested	that	the	USFS	could	purchase	the	vehicles	for	this	service	to	

ensure	the	vehicles	meet	standards	for	comfort	and	safety	and	contract	the	operation	of	the	

vehicles	to	a	private	provider.	The	FHWA	estimated	the	cost	of	this	shuttle	service	arrangement	at	

$340,000	for	vehicles	to	serve	Mount	Evans	and	an	additional	$25,000	estimated	for	signs	and	

shelters	to	support	the	shuttle	service.	These	cost	estimates	are	based	on	the	assumption	that	no	

additional	parking	would	be	needed	and	that	the	shuttle	service	would	be	provided	by	private	

companies	with	no	operating	subsidy.	

Summary

The	background	information	and	data	regarding	Mount	Evans	reviewed	for	this	project	highlight	

several	important	themes	and	potential	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project.	These	

include:	

 Visitation	and	vehicle	traffic	data	for	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	suggest	that	visitor	use	has	

been	relatively	stable	or	slightly	increasing	since	2000.	However,	visitation	has	declined	

somewhat	from	the	late	1990’s.		

 During	summer	weekends	and	holidays,	parking	demand	exceeds	parking	supply	at	the	

Mount	Goliath	RNA,	Summit	Lake,	and	Summit	Areas,	resulting	in	visitor	frustration,	

resource	impacts,	and	safety	issues.	

 The	steep,	narrow	roadway,	coupled	with	outstanding	scenic	views	from	the	Mount	Evans	

Highway	are	sources	of	concern	among	visitors	and	the	USFS	about	visitors’	safety	while	

driving	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.		

 To	address	parking	and	visitor	safety	issues	noted,	a	shuttle	system	has	been	recommended	

to	transport	visitors	from	Idaho	Springs	or	Echo	Lake	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans.		

 A	majority	of	visitors	interviewed	in	a	1999	survey	indicated	they	would	be	willing	to	ride	

in	a	shuttle	bus	to	the	summit	of	Mount	Evans,	but	substantial	minorities	indicated	that	they	

would	not	because	it	would	take	too	long	and/or	they	would	not	be	able	to	stop	where	they	

wanted.	

 The	Mount	Evans	Highway	offers	immediate	access	into	the	heart	of	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness,	desired	conditions	for	which	may	be	threatened	by	intensive	and	potentially	

increasing	visitation.		

The	background	information	reviewed	for	this	project	suggests	that	some	data	and	analysis	results	

exist	to	address	the	issues	noted,	but	many	of	those	information	sources	are	dated	and/or	

incomplete.	This	is	particularly	true	with	respect	to	the	need	noted	in	the	1993	study	to	understand	

relationships	among	visitor	use	levels,	user	capacity,	and	shuttle	service	design.	Thus,	there	are	a	

number	of	potential	information	and	analysis	needs	that	should	be	considered	if	the	proposed	TRIP	

project	is	funded,	including:	

 Trail	use	counts	and	hiking	routes	for	trails	in	the	Mount	Goliath	RNA,	Summit	Lake,	and	

Mount	Evans	summit	areas.	

 Visitor‐based	indicators	and	standards	of	quality	for	resource	and	social	conditions	at	the	

Mount	Goliath	RNA,	Summit	Lake	and	Mount	Evans	summit	areas,	and	in	the	Mount	Evans	

Wilderness	adjacent	to	these	areas.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 64

 Visitor	characteristics	and	motivations	for	visiting	the	Mount	Evans	Highway	and	summit	

area;	perceptions	of	soundscape,	resource,	and	visitor	experience	conditions;	recreation	

setting	preferences;	and	attitudes	about	recreation	and	transportation‐related	management	

options.	

 Assessment	of	visitors’	willingness/likelihood	to	use	various	shuttle	service	options	and	

ecological	impacts	of	alternative	shuttle	service	options.	

 Visitor	use	models	for	the	attraction	areas	at	the	Mount	Goliath	RNA,	Summit	Lake	and	

summit	area,	and	trails	in	these	areas,	to	estimate	user	capacities	based	on	resource	and	

social	standards	of	quality.	

 Linkages	between	visitor	use	models	and	transportation	data/models	to	evaluate	the	effects	

of	potential	visitor	use	and	transportation	management	actions	on	estimated	user	

capacities.	

 Measurement	of	the	extent	and	severity	of	recreation	and	transportation‐related	resource	

and	soundscape	impacts.		

 Observation	and	evaluation	of	visitor	behavior	to	identify	and	mitigate	visitor	use‐related	

factors	contributing	to	resource	and	soundscape	impacts.	

 Analysis	of	parking	demand	and	capacity,	under	existing	and	proposed	transportation	

system	conditions.	

 Modeling	and/or	analysis	of	alternative	transportation	solutions	(e.g.,	transit,	ITS)	to	

mitigate	parking	congestion,	with	respect	to	cost,	effectiveness	and	visitor/public	support.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 65

4.0 Conclusion

As	the	preceding	review	of	Forest‐wide,	regional,	and	site‐specific	information	suggests,	there	are	

several	themes	and	issues	that	are	common	to	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans.	These	

themes	provide	potential	points	of	focus	for	the	proposed	TRIP	project	and	include:	

 While	visitation	to	the	three	study	sites	has	been	relatively	stable	over	the	last	decade,	all	

three	areas	receive	intensive	levels	of	visitor	use	during	the	summer	months.	

 Regional	population	growth	and	the	popularity	of	the	Colorado	Rocky	Mountains	for	

nature‐based	tourism	suggest	that	the	study	areas	are	likely	to	continue	to	experience	

intensive	visitation	into	the	future.	

 Intensive	visitation	at	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans	are	causing	impacts	to	

Forest	resources,	the	quality	of	visitors’	experiences,	and	public	safety.	Further,	the	

character	of	backcountry	and	Wilderness	areas	in	each	of	the	three	study	sites	is	threatened	

by	intensive	visitation	to	the	adjacent	developed	recreation	areas.	

 Parking	congestion	and	associated	resource,	social,	and	public	safety	issues	are	significant	

at	all	three	study	sites,	particularly	during	summer	weekends	and	holidays.	

 Despite	the	transportation,	resource	protection,	and	visitor	experience‐related	capacity	

issues	noted,	all	three	sites	lack	systematically	and	empirically	defined	user	capacities.	

 Concepts	have	been	developed	for	ATS	solutions	to	parking	and	related	capacity	issues	at	

each	of	the	three	study	sites,	but	only	limited	analyses	of	the	feasibility	of	these	options	

have	been	conducted	to	date.	In	addition,	while	potential	opportunities	exist	to	expand	or	

connect	existing	transit	systems	that	serve	nearby	urban	areas	or	Federal	Lands	(i.e.,	Rocky	

Mountain	National	Park),	there	have	been	no	systematic	studies	to	support	implementation	

of	such	approaches.	Further,	there	has	been	no	substantial	analysis	of	ATS	solutions,	with	

respect	to	user	capacities	of	the	study	sites;	thus,	systematic	design	of	ATS	solutions	in	

accordance	with	desired	resource	and	visitor	experience	conditions	is	yet	to	be	evaluated.	

Thus,	while	ATS	solutions	have	substantial	potential	to	alleviate	resource	protection,	visitor	

experience,	and	transportation‐related	issues	at	the	BLRA,	Guanella	Pass,	and	Mount	Evans,	

additional	data	collection	and	analysis	are	needed.	Specific	information	and	analysis	needs	are	

noted	in	the	Summary	at	the	end	of	each	of	the	site‐specific	sections.	These	recommendations	

regarding	additional	information	and	analysis	needs	are	potentially	important	points	of	focus	for	

the	proposed	TRIP	project,	if	it	is	funded.		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 66

Appendix A (of Appendix AA): Other Colorado Front Range Regional

Transportation Planning Studies
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 67

Rocky Mountain Rail Authority High‐Speed Rail Feasibility Study (Transportation Economics

& Management Systems, Inc., 2010)

Project Purpose & Description

The	Rocky	Mountain	Rail	Authority	is	conducting	a	one‐year	study	of	the	technical,	financial	and	

economic	feasibility	of	implementing	high‐speed	intercity	rail	service	within	Colorado	and	into	

neighboring	states	that	could	provide	seamless	travel	throughout	the	state’s	most	populated	

corridors.	Study	activities	began	in	June	of	2008	and	a	final	report	was	issued	in	March,	2010,	after	

the	literature	review	for	this	project	was	completed.	

The	study	is	examining	the	feasibility	of	high‐speed	rail	service	in	two	primary	corridors:	the	I‐25	

corridor	along	Colorado’s	Front	Range	from	Wyoming	to	New	Mexico,	and	the	I‐70	mountain	

corridor	from	Denver	to	Grand	Junction.	Five	secondary	corridors	will	also	be	examined,	linking	the	

I‐70	corridor	to	Central	City,	Winter	Park,	Breckenridge,	Aspen,	and	Steamboat	Springs	and	Craig.		

The	High‐Speed	Rail	Feasibility	Study	will	provide	a	fresh,	independent,	and	objective	evaluation	of	

alignments,	station	locations	and	high‐speed	rail	technologies	to	identify	the	most	feasible	

alternatives	for	both	corridors	and	develop	an	investment‐grade	business	plan	for	their	

implementation.	The	most	feasible	alternatives	will	be	submitted	to	the	Federal	Railroad	

Administration	for	designation	as	High‐Speed	Rail	Corridors	which	would	make	them	eligible	for	

specially	targeted	funding.	

Project	website:	http://www.rmrastudy.net/		

Front Range Travel Counts Survey (North Front Range MPO, DRCOG, Pikes Peak Area Council

of Governments, Pueblo Area Council of Governments, CDOT, RTD & FHWA; in progress)

Project Purpose & Description

The	Front	Range	Travel	Counts	Survey	is	the	first	in‐depth	study	of	urban	household	travel	

behavior	covering	all	of	Colorado's	Front	Range.	The	survey	is	looking	at	urban	household	travel	

behavior	along	Colorado's	Front	Range.	The	results	of	this	effort	will	help	the	survey	partners	plan	

for	future	transportation	needs	in	the	Front	Range.	Approximately	12,000	households	along	the	

Front	Range	will	be	randomly	selected	and	asked	to	identify	where	and	how	they	traveled	on	a	

specific,	designated	travel	day	(24	hours).	Later	phases	of	the	study	will	look	at	commercial	vehicle	

trips,	and	trips	to	special	facilities,	such	as	airports.		

The	survey	began	in	the	North	Front	Range	area	in	August	2009	and	will	run	through	December	

2009.	Surveys	began	in	the	Denver	metro	area	in	September	2009	and	will	conclude	in	spring	2010.	

Surveys	will	be	conducted	in	the	Colorado	Springs	and	Pueblo	areas	in	spring	and	fall	2010,	

respectively.		

Project	website:	http://sites.nustats.com/frontrange/		

I‐70 Mountain Corridor Collaborative Effort Consensus Recommendation (The Collaborative

Effort, 2008)

Document Purpose & Description
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 68

The	Collaborative	Effort,	a	27‐member	group	representing	varied	interests	of	the	corridor,	was	

charged	with	reaching	consensus	on	a	recommended	transportation	solution	for	the	I‐70	Mountain	

Corridor.	CDOT	and	FHWA	were	active	participants	in	this	group	and	committed	to	adopt	the	

consensus	recommendation	in	the	I‐70	DPEIS.	

Conclusions/Preferred Alternatives/Implications for Transportation and Visitor Use

Management

Non‐infrastructure	related	components	(such	as	enforcement,	driver	education	and	traveler	

information	systems)	can	begin	in	advance	of	major	infrastructure	improvements	to	address	some	

of	the	issues	in	the	corridor	today.	These	strategies	and	the	potential	tactics	for	implementation	

require	actions	and	leadership	by	agencies,	municipalities	and	other	stakeholders	beyond	CDOT	

and	FHWA.	

An	Advanced	Guideway	System	(AGS)	is	a	central	part	of	the	recommendation	and	includes	a	

commitment	to	the	evaluation	and	implementation	of	AGS	within	the	corridor,	including	a	vision	of	

transit	connectivity	beyond	the	study	area	and	local	accessibility	to	such	a	system.	

Future Information Needs/Identified Action Items

Additional	information	is	necessary	to	advance	implementation	of	an	AGS	system	within	the	

corridor:	

 Feasibility	of	high	speed	rail	passenger	service	

 Potential	station	locations	and	local	land	use	considerations	

 Transit	governance	authority	

 Alignment	

 Technology	

 Termini	

 Funding	requirements	and	sources	

 Transit	ridership	

 Potential	system	owner/operator	

 Interface	with	existing	and	future	transit	systems	

 Role	of	AGS	in	freight	delivery	both	in	and	through	the	corridor

Ongoing	stakeholder	engagement	is	necessary	because	the	aforementioned	improvements	may	or	

may	not	fully	address	the	needs	of	the	corridor	beyond	2025,	and	the	recommendation	does	not	

preclude	nor	commit	to	the	additional	multi‐modal	capacity	improvements.	As	such,	CDOT	and	

FHWA	will	convene	a	committee	that	retains	that	the	Collaborative	Effort	member	profile.	The	

committee	will	establish	its	own	meeting	schedule	based	on	progress	made	against	the	approved	

triggers,	with	check‐ins	at	least	every	two	years.		

In	2020,	there	will	be	a	thorough	assessment	of	the	overall	purpose	and	need	and	effectiveness	of	

implementation	of	these	decisions.	At	that	time,	CDOT	and	FHWA,	in	conjunction	with	the	

stakeholder	committee,	may	consider	the	full	range	of	improvement	options.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 69

I‐70 Coalition Land Use Planning Study for Rail Transit Alignment throughout the I‐70

Corridor (I‐70 Coalition, 2009)

Document Purpose & Description

The	I‐70	Coalition	envisions	a	high	speed	Advanced	Guideway	System	(AGS)	designed	to	serve	the	

residents,	employees,	resorts	and	visitors	that	comprise	the	travel	pool	in	this	corridor.	(The	

geographic	extents	of	the	corridor	are	from	Jefferson	County	in	the	east	to	Garfield	County	in	the	

west,	including	the	off‐corridor	communities	of	Gilpin	County	(Blackhawk	and	Central	City),	Grand	

County	(Winter	Park,	Fraser,	and	Granby),	Routt	County	(Steamboat	Springs),	Lake	County	

(Leadville),	and	Pitkin	County	(Aspen).)	The	study	planning	process	engaged	representatives	from	

all	communities	along	the	corridor	in	conversations	about	local	transit,	land	use	decision‐making	

and	regional	mobility.	This	year‐long	collaborative	planning	effort	was	designed	to	address	local	

and	corridor‐wide	visions,	goals,	and	understanding	of	transit	service	implementation,	along	with	

concepts	for	land	use	development	patterns	that	support	and	integrate	with	future	transit.		

Identified Issues/Opportunities

The	Coalition	summarized	the	community’s	overall	guiding	principle	for	future	transit	in	Clear	

Creek	County	(where	Guanella	Pass	and	Mount	Evans	are	located):

Future AGS or high speed rail through Clear Creek County should provide key connections to

adjacent communities in order to accommodate the local needs for connectivity and improve

access to the Clear Creek community for tourist activity. It should create a transit system that

creates the “wow” factor while maintaining the historic character of the towns.

Data Provided and Methodology

The	study	established	a	framework	for	cooperation	and	coordination	among	all	corridor	

jurisdictions.	It	is	essential	groundwork	for	future	system	planning,	station	sub‐area	planning,	and	

community	education	and	involvement.		

Conclusions/Preferred Alternatives/Implications for Transportation and Visitor Use

Management

The	study	worked	with	County	Working	Groups	to	recommend	station	sites	for	the	AGS.	The	final	

station	siting	criteria	for	group	evaluation	and	discussion	included	the	following	questions:	

 Does	the	location	serve	a	population	center?	

 Is	the	location	an	established	activity	center	(or	will	be	someday)?	

 Does	the	location	serve	a	geographic	area	(have	the	potential	to	capture	ridership)?	

 Is	the	location	compatible	with	future	land	use	plans?	

 Does	the	location	have	good	vehicular	access?	

 Does	the	location	complement	future	transit	plans	and	connections?	

 Are	there	any	known	environmental	issues	with	the	location?	

 Is	there	County	Working	Group	support	for	the	location?	

Recommendations	by	the	County	Working	Groups	for	major	hub	locations	(called	Tier	1	regional	

station	locations)	are	as	follows.	(These	recommendations,	however,	do	not	preclude	additional	or	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 70

alternative	locations	that	might	be	served	by	spurs	or	skip	service	that	could	be	developed	at	a	later	

date.	The	list	represents	each	County	Working	Group’s	recommendation	of	what	locations	they	

believe	would	best	serve	the	people	in	the	community,	as	well	as	those	traveling	to	their	

communities.	The	County	Working	Groups	recognize	that	technical	data,	such	as	ridership,	are	still	

being	developed	and	such	information	may	cause	these	recommendations	to	be	reconsidered.)	

 Jefferson	County	

- I‐70/US	6	Interchange	Area	(or	Washington	Street/SH	58	Area)	

 Clear	Creek	County	

- Idaho	Springs	(includes	five	potential	sites)	

- Empire	Junction/Georgetown	(or	somewhere	in	between)	

 Summit	County	

- Frisco	or	Silverthorne	

- Also	recognizing	that	Keystone,	Breckenridge,	and	Copper	Mountain	may	be	preferred	

depending	on	ridership	and	alignment	considerations.	Copper	Mountain	is	likely	to	have	

a	station	regardless	because	potential	alignments	are	likely	to	pass	through	there.	

 Eagle	County	

- Vail	or	Avon	(east	end	of	county)	

- Eagle	Airport	(west	end	of	county)	

- Garfield	County	

- Glenwood	Springs	‐	Downtown	Wye	

- Mid‐valley/Carbondale	if	alignment	follows	Cottonwood	Pass	

Future Information Needs/Identified Action Items

Near Term Planning‐	Today’s Actions

 Continue	to	coordinate	with	ongoing	I‐70	corridor	studies.	

 Develop	a	vision	for	transit	in	your	community	through	a	broad‐based	community	visioning	

process.	

 Strengthen	the	policy	language	in	the	comprehensive/master	plans	to	signify	a	strong	

direction	for	transit	and	integrated	land	use.	

 Develop	policies	that	identify	how	to	realize	the	vision	and	goals	for	transit.	

 Evaluate	whether	current	zoning	practices	or	planned	unit	development	(PUD)	allowances	

ensure	desired	development	patterns,	mixed‐use,	higher	density	or	greater	walkability.	

 Continue	specialty	planning	efforts	such	as	bicycle/pedestrian	master	plans,	transit	service	

plans,	design	guidelines,	etc..	

 Evaluate	existing	and	future	needs	for	a	local	transit	system.	

Mid Term Planning – Three to Ten Years Prior to AGS

 Confirm	station	site	and	begin/continue	local	land	assemblage.	

 Develop	a	station	area	sub‐plan.	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 71

 Evaluate	infrastructure	availability	and	set	a	plan	to	deal	with	these	limitations.	This	could	

include	improving	the	infrastructure	or	limiting	development.	

 Identify	funding	mechanisms.	

 Continue	planning,	funding	and	implementation	of	local	transit	system	if	needed.	

 Continue	coordination	with	the	AGS	or	corridor	transit	planning	team.	

Long Term Planning – One to Three Years Prior to AGS

 Coordinate	and	implement	infrastructure	improvements	related	to	the	site	if	not	already	

underway.	

 Continue	coordination	with	developer	on	site	development.	

 Implement	transit	system	connections	to	tie	into	AGS.	

It	will	also	be	critical	to	identify	a	path	for	decision‐making	and	information	going	forward.	It	will	

be	important	to	continue	the	momentum	established	during	this	planning	process	and	to	maintain	

an	increased	communication	level	with	local	agency	staff	and	their	communities	over	the	next	

several	years.	The	continuation	of	the	County	Working	Group	structure	organized	for	this	study	

process	may	prove	to	be	an	appropriate	vehicle	for	open	and	collaborative	dialogue	and	ongoing	

planning	cooperation	for	the	corridor.	Additionally,	CDOT’s	Public	Information	team	for	the	I‐70	

corridor	and	the	CSS	I‐70	Project	Leadership	Teams	will	be	future	forums	for	collaboration	and	

information.	The	ability	of	the	multitude	of	agencies	to	stay	informed	and	be	involved	rests	in	a	

central	location	for	that	activity.	The	I‐70	Coalition	represents	the	broadest	participation	of	

agencies	in	or	adjacent	to	the	I‐70	corridor	and	is	a	good	conduit	for	this	ongoing	coordination.	

		
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 72

Appendix B (of Appendix AA): 2005 NVUM Survey Instrument

	 	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 73
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 74
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 75
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 76

Appendix C (of Appendix AA): 2000 and 2005 NVUM List of Specific

Activities

	 	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 77

Activity Group 2000 2005

Fishing and Hunting  Fishing – all types

 Hunting – all types

 Fishing – all types

 Hunting – all types

Viewing and Learning Nature and

Culture

 Viewing wildlife

 Viewing natural features

 Visiting historic sites

 Nature Study

 Nature center activities

 Viewing wildlife, birds, fish,

etc.

 Viewing natural features such

as scenery, flowers, etc.

 Visiting historic and prehistoric

sites/areas

 Nature Study

 Visiting a nature center, nature

trail or visitor center

Nonmotorized Activities  Hiking or walking

 Horseback riding

 Bicycling

 Nonmotorized water activities

 Downhill skiing

 Cross‐country skiing

 Other nonmotorized activities

 Hiking or walking

 Horseback riding

 Bicycling, including mountain

bikes

 Nonmotorized water travel

(canoe, sailing, raft, etc.)

 Downhill skiing or

snowboarding

 Cross‐country skiing,

snowshoeing

 Other nonmotorized activities

(swimming, games, and sports)

Motorized Activities  Driving for pleasure

 Off‐highway vehicle use

 Snowmobiling

 Motorized water activities

 Other motorized activities

 Driving for pleasure on roads

(paves, gravel, or dirt)

 Riding on motorized trails

(non‐snow)

 Riding in designated off‐road

vehicle areas (non‐snow)

 Snowmobile travel

 Motorized water travel (boats,

ski sleds, etc.)

 Other motorized activities

(endure events, games, plane,

etc.)

Camping or other Overnight  Developed camping

 Primitive camping

 Backpacking

 Resort use

 Camping in developed sites

(family or group sites)

 Primitive camping (motorized)

 Backpacking, camping in

unroaded areas

 Resorts, cabins, or other

accommodations on FS

managed lands (private or FS)
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 78

Activity Group 2000 2005

Other activities  Gathering forest products

 Relaxing

 Picnicking

 Gathering mushrooms, berries,

firewood, or other natural

products

 Relaxing, hanging out,

escaping heat, noise, etc.

 Picnicking and family day

gatherings in developed sites

(family or group)

 Other
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 79

Appendix D (of Appendix AA): 1999 Mount Evans Scenic Byway visitor

Survey

	 	
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 80
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 81
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 82

Appendix E (of Appendix AA): List of Acronyms
Data Assessment Report: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests

Page 83

AADT	 	 Annual	Average	Daily	Traffic	

AGS	 	 Advanced	Guideway	System	

ARNF	 	 Arapaho‐Roosevelt	National	Forests	

ARNF‐PNG	 Arapaho‐Roosevelt	National	Forests	and	Pawnee	National	Grassland	

ATPPL	 	 Alternative	Transportation	in	the	Parks	and	Public	Lands

ATS	 	 Alternative	Transportation	System	

BLM	 	 Bureau	of	Land	Management	

CDOT	 	 Colorado	Department	of	Transportation	

DRCOG	 	 Denver	Regional	Council	of	Governments	

EIS	 	 Environmental	Impact	Statement	

FEIS	 	 Final	Environmental	Impact	Statement	

FHWA	 	 Federal	Highway	Administration	

FTA	 	 Federal	Transit	Administration	

HOT	 	 High‐Occupancy	Toll	

HOV	 	 High‐Occupancy	Vehicle	

IMC	 	 Intermountain	Connection	

MPO	 	 Metropolitan	Planning	Organization	

NEPA	 	 National	Environmental	Policy	Act	

NPS	 	 National	Park	Service		

NVUM	 	 National	Visitor	Use	Monitoring	Program	

PEIS	 	 Programmatic	Environmental	Impact	Statement	

ROD	 	 Record	of	Decision	

RTD	 	 Regional	Transit	Authority	of	Denver	

SADT	 	 Seasonal	Average	Daily	Traffic	

STIP	 	 Statewide	Transportation	Improvement	Plan	

TAG	 	 Technical	Assistance	Group	

TDM	 	 Travel	Demand	Management	

USDA	 	 US	Department	of	Agriculture	

USDOI	 	 US	Department	of	Interior	

USFS	 	 US	Forest	Service	

USFWS	 	 US	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service