National Park Service a

July 2017 

National Park Service

US Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Plan

National
Cover Photo: Yellowstone National Park © Neal Herbert

Back Cover Photo: Yellowstone National Park
National Long Range 

Transportation Plan

National Park Service

US Department of the Interior

July 2017
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Prologue

In this, the 100th year of the National Park Service, we are pleased to 

present our first National Long Range Transportation Plan. 

This plan charts a dynamic path leading us into our second century for one of America’s most significant and diverse 

transportation portfolios. Our systems extend beyond the beauty and heritage of historic corridors like the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, Kings Canyon Scenic Byway, or Glacier’s Going-to-the-Sun Road, to the opportunities found in multi-use trails, 

transit services, alternative fuel vehicles and mobile technologies. The plan helps us face some of our biggest challenges 

in climate change and fiscal constraint, and it covers the full breadth of National Park Service transportation issues. 

It marks the beginning of a new era of commitment and focus in sustaining the legacy of access to, and enjoyment of, 

our National Parks. 

The National Long Range Transportation Plan sets forth a performance-based 20-year vision for providing access to our nation’s 

most special and treasured places. It establishes goals, objectives, and performance measures for how we will move toward that 

vision. It provides a strategy for using our existing transportation funding to ensure the most important transportation assets 

remain in good condition to support our highest priority mission objectives in resource stewardship, visitor enjoyment, and safety. 

The National Park Service recognizes that transportation systems are the backbone on which all visitor experiences rely. Roads, 

bridges, trails, transit systems, watercraft, and the variety of other transportation modes and services the National Park Service 

provides are a crucial part of visitor enjoyment. Without them, few could ever hope to find themselves at the roaring lower 

falls of Yellowstone, at the precipice of the Grand Canyon, or anywhere within the millions of acres of natural and cultural 

landscapes that we preserve and protect. While the majority of visitors reach national park units by private automobile, alternative 

transportation options are increasingly important to addressing contemporary challenges such as changing demographics, traffic 

congestion, and air pollution, and enhancing resource protection. The multimodal experience of visiting a national park unit 

is an important dimension of this plan, and of our future.

The plan recognizes a key challenge: that transportation investment needs significantly outpace current and forecasted funding 

levels; this is a challenge that all land management agencies, states, and metropolitan areas face. As a result, the plan includes 

a prioritized investment strategy that calls upon the many National Park Service programs that support our multimodal 

transportation system to coordinate investments even more effectively. In addition, to meet the needs of the future, the plan 

acknowledges the importance of continuing to seek additional resources through a combination of appropriated funds, fees, 

partnerships, and other sources.

We are proud to say that the National Park Service welcomed over 325 million visitors in 2016, the highest total ever, demonstrating 

that the experiences available in National Parks remain a sought after and relevant part of American culture. We look to the 

future secure in the knowledge that the National Park Service will continue to be a leader in connecting people to the great 

outdoors and to our national heritage.

Thank you for your interest in our National Long Range Transportation Plan. We look forward to working together with you, our 

visitors, and our partners in advancing the goals and objectives of this plan to secure a better, brighter future for transportation 

in our National Parks! 
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
National Park Service iii

Table of Contents

Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................iv

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

National Transportation Investment Strategy........................................................................................................................... 11

Asset Management....................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Transportation Finance................................................................................................................................................................. 43

Resource Protection...................................................................................................................................................................... 65

Visitor Experience......................................................................................................................................................................... 89

Safety............................................................................................................................................................................................ 109

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................................... 123

Glossary of Selected Acronyms and Terms............................................................................................................................... 126

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 132

References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 135
iv National Long Range Transportation Plan

Summary of Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures

TRANSPORTATION FINANCE

Goal – Allocate available transportation funding wisely

Performance Measures

Percentage of Transportation Funds Invested in Highest 

Priority Transportation Assets

Baseline: 76%

5-yr Target: 95%

Baseline: n/a

5-yr Target: 100%

Objectives

• Identify and prioritize investments based on the 

NPS mission, anticipated life-cycle costs and 

consideration of likely available future funding

• Maintain flexible use of transportation funding 

sources while improving identification of 

investments and needs

Percentage of Park Units that Meet Preventive 

Maintenance Targets for Highest Priority 

Transportation Assets

0%

0%

50%

50%

100%

100%

Performance Measures*

Condition of Highest Priority Transportation Assets

Objectives

• Maintain critical assets and services in good 

operating condition through targeted investment 

• Adapt transportation systems to climate change 

impacts

Goal – Sustainably manage NPS transportation assets and services 

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Bridges (All Bridges)

Baseline: 92% BHI

6-yr Target: 90% BHI

42

Other Asset Types (OB 1)

Baseline: 0.12 FCI

6-yr Target: 0.11 FCI

Paved Roads and Parking Areas (FC 1, 7 and Subset of FC 2)

Baseline: 83 PCR

6-yr Target: 80 PCR

Number of Park Units That Have Completed a 

Transportation Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment

Baseline: 17

5-yr Target: At least 5 per year

0

0%

0

50

50%

21

100

100%

1.0 0.5 0.0

Grand Teton National Park

See Glossary for definitions of acronyms

* Arlington Memorial Bridge and other large-scale projects which 

cannot be addressed with annual transportation funding are not 

included in the asset management performance measures. 
National Park Service v

SAFETY

Goal – Provide a safe transportation system for all users

Performance Measure

Completion of the NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System

Objectives

• Institute a comprehensive, performance-based 

transportation safety program that addresses 

engineering, education and enforcement

• Reduce serious and fatal 

transportation-related injuries

• Maximize safety without impairing 

park resources and values

• Enable effective emergency response

0% 50% 100%

Baseline: 30%

5-yr Target: 100%

Baseline: varies by park

5-yr Target: 100% 

Baseline: 75%

2017 Target: 100%

Baseline:n/a

5-yr Target: 100% 

Performance Measures

Percentage of Park Unit Websites that Provide Nine 

Elements of Essential Traveler Information

Objectives

• Improve ease of access to and within 

national park units for all people

• Create a range of appropriate 

transportation options that support a 

network of seamless connections within 

each park unit and to surrounding 

communities

• Provide state-of-the-art traveler 

information and wayfinding and, 

where appropriate, interpretation and 

education opportunities that complement 

transportation options

Completion of Phase II of the NPS Congestion 

Management Program

Percentage of Transportation Contracts and Projects 

that Include Accessibility Language and Are Compliant 

with Accessibility-Related Laws, Regulations and Policies

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Goal – Maintain and enhance the quality of visitor experiences

0%

0%

0%

50%

50%

50%

100%

100%

100%

SCOPE 1+2 (in MTCO2E)

2008 Baseline: 74,000 

2020 Target: 48,000 (-35%)

SCOPE: 3 (in MTCO2E)

2008 Baseline: 104,000

2020 Target: 93,600 (-10%) 0

0

55,000

55,000

110,000

110,000

Develop a System for Tracking and Forecasting the 

Condition of Culturally Significant Transportation Assets

Performance Measures

Completion of the INSTEP Tool

Objectives

• Incorporate natural and cultural resource 

considerations into all aspects of transportation 

decision making and operations to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate negative impacts on these resources

• Minimize and mitigate the greenhouse gas 

emissions of the NPS transportation system

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Goal – Protect and preserve natural and cultural resources

Percentage Decrease in NPS Transportation System 

Emissions

Baseline: 60%

5-yr Target: 100%

Baseline: 30%

5-yr Target: 100%

0%

0%

50%

50%

100%

100%
Denali National Park & Preserve
Introduction

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
2 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation systems play a critical role in fulfilling the 

National Park Service (NPS) mission by providing people 

access to America’s national treasures. Transportation 

planning in the National Park Service is fundamentally 

about providing sustainable, appropriate, enjoyable 

visitor access while also protecting resources and visitor 

safety. These goals are ingrained in the NPS mission, and 

they are part of what makes the National Park Service 

a unique agency.

The Role of Transportation in the National Park Service

Rocky Mountain National Park

The NPS transportation landscape is diverse and includes 

an extensive inventory of transportation assets:

• Roadway systems, including approximately 5,500 miles 

of paved roads, 7,000 miles of unpaved roads, 1,460 

bridges and tunnels and 6,100 parking areas

• Nonmotorized systems, including approximately 4,600 

miles of bicycle and pedestrian multiuse trails and 950 

trail bridges

• Approximately 130 transit systems, including buses, 

trolleys, trains, streetcars, snowcoaches and maintenance 

facilities

• Marine systems, including ferries, boats, docks, 

marinas and waterfronts, representing more than 1,000 

individual assets

• Intelligent transportation systems (ITS), such as variable 

message signs and traveler information systems

• Transportation management systems, including systems 

for managing congestion, safety, roadway and bridge 

condition and facilities.

The NPS Mission

The National Park Service preserves 

unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the National Park 

System for the enjoyment, education, and 

inspiration of this and future generations. 

The Park Service cooperates with partners to 

extend the benefits of natural and cultural 

resource conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout this country and the world.
National Park Service 3

The NPS National Long Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP) establishes a strategic framework for transportation 

investment servicewide over the next 20 years. It provides 

guidance to regional and park unit staff who make 

transportation investment and maintenance decisions 

every day. Because transportation touches all directorates 

and program areas, the National LRTP reflects the input 

What Is the National Long Range Transportation Plan?

The National LRTP Vision

The National Park Service provides a missionfocused transportation system that is safe 

and seamless, enabling high-quality access 

to essential park unit experiences. The agency 

responsibly plans and effectively manages 

the transportation system to accommodate 

changing environmental, social and financial 

conditions.

of subject matter experts from across the agency, our 

partners and the public. It defines common goals that 

transcend traditional NPS administrative program 

boundaries. These goals are reflected in the overall vision 

for NPS transportation.

The National LRTP is consistent with statewide and 

metropolitan transportation planning practices as part 

of a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) 

transportation planning process. The LRTP is the first 

step in the transportation life cycle as shown in Figure 1-1, 

guiding the investment decisions program managers make 

and document in multiyear investment programs. Funded 

projects are developed and engineered according to best 

management practices, and environmental reviews are 

performed when needed, followed by construction and 

systems operations. The National LRTP also establishes a 

framework for performance monitoring, which as part of 

the 3C process, feeds into future LRTP updates, informing 

future planning priorities.

Figure 1-1. The Life Cycle of a Transportation Program

Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan

Multi-Year Investment Programs

Project Development and Environmental Compliance

Construction

Systems Operations

Performance Monitoring

Transportation Program Life Cycle

3C 

Process
4 National Long Range Transportation Plan

This National LRTP was developed through a servicewide, 

multidisciplinary effort. A wide variety of NPS staff, including 

more than 80 subject matter experts at the directorate, 

region, park unit and program levels, as well as external 

stakeholders and the general public, provided critical input 

to the development of this plan. The National LRTP was 

developed in six phases (Figure 1-2).

PHASE 1: ESTABLISH VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The planning team, with input from NPS staff, established a 20-

year vision for the NPS transportation system and developed 

associated goals and objectives (page iv–v). The vision, goals 

and objectives serve as the organizational framework for the 

National LRTP planning process; each future phase is aligned 

to these elements to ensure that this plan achieves the desired 

outcomes.

PHASE 2: IDENTIFY BASELINE CONDITIONS AND 

MACRO TRENDS

The current performance level and condition of the NPS 

transportation system, in terms of transportation asset 

management, financial condition, resource protection, visitor 

experience and safety, was established. The planning team also 

considered macro-level trends that affect the management and 

delivery of the transportation system, such as demographics, 

climate change and technology. The baseline and macro trends 

assessment highlighted the critical areas of focus and provided 

a foundation for the subsequent phases.

PHASE 3: IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

The findings from the baseline conditions and macro trends 

stage were used to identify the most crucial needs in meeting 

the transportation vision, goals and objectives.

PHASE 4: DEVELOP STRATEGIES

Short- and long-term actions and strategies were identified 

to address the transportation needs and meet the stated goals 

and objectives. As part of this step, the National Transportation 

Investment Strategy was also developed to articulate a 

framework for how limited transportation funding can be 

best aligned with the goals and objectives of the plan, based 

on rigorous modeling and analysis of potential options.

PHASE 5: ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE MEASURES

National-level performance measures and targets were 

developed to monitor the progress of the National LRTP 

over time. The performance measures were developed in 

coordination with the particular NPS directorates and 

program areas that will ultimately implement the strategies to 

achieve the plan’s goals and objectives. The National LRTP 

does not include performance measures for each specific 

objective; rather, it includes a limited set of measures that 

the National Park Service will use to monitor progress and 

gauge whether the plan is on track to achieving established 

goals and objectives.

PHASE 6: CONDUCT OUTREACH AND FINALIZE PLAN

Drafts of the National LRTP were shared broadly with 

NPS staff and the public. As part of the outreach process, 

the team created a page on the Planning Environment and 

Public Comment website, which made general information 

and plan documents available for review. The team also 

conducted numerous presentations with NPS subject matter 

experts to collect feedback on the plan. The team made 

iterative revisions in response to subject matter expert 

feedback and public comments.

National LRTP Development Process

Figure 1-2. The National LRTP Development Process

Establish Vision, Goals and Objectives

Identify Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

Identify Transportation Needs

Develop Strategies

Establish Performance Measures

Conduct Outreach and Finalize Plan

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

Phase 6
National Park Service 5

The goals of the National LRTP are rooted in the NPS mission. The National LRTP sets goals that address both traditional 

transportation topics, such as asset management, transportation finance and safety, and broader mission-focused topics, 

such as visitor experience and natural and cultural resource protection.

National LRTP Goals

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Sustainably manage NPS transportation assets and services

TRANSPORTATION FINANCE

Allocate available transportation funding wisely

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Protect and preserve natural and cultural resources

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Maintain and enhance the quality of visitor experiences

SAFETY

Provide a safe transportation system for all users

Goal Areas and Goal Statements of the National LRTP
6 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Federal surface transportation legislation, as reauthorized 

in the FAST Act, requires federal land management agencies 

such as the National Park Service to develop LRTPs that are 

consistent with the 3C planning processes required of state 

departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan 

planning organizations (23 United States Code [USC] §201; 

23 USC §134 and §135). This plan is consistent with those 

processes and legal requirements. Table 1-1 demonstrates 

how the National LRTP aligns with US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) planning factors.

Alignment with Planning Requirements and Existing Plans

Consistency with State and 

Metropolitan Plans

Table 1-1. Comparison of NPS and USDOT Planning Factors

Connectivity

Asset 

Management

Transportation 

Finance

Resource 

Protection

Visitor 

Experience Safety

Economic Vitality

Safety

Security

Accessibility & Mobility

Environment

Efficiency

System Preservation

Resiliency & Reliability

Travel & Tourism

USDOT

Planning Factors1

National LRTP Goal Areas

1 23 USC §134(h) and §135(d).
National Park Service 7

The National LRTP aligns with existing NPS regional LRTPs, such as the Alaska, Northeast and 

Intermountain Region LRTPs. Other regional LRTPs already developed or under development 

will similarly be aligned with the National LRTP.

The National LRTP is also aligned with other NPS and 

Department of the Interior (DOI) plans, policies and 

management tools, such as the NPS Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006) and others including the following:

• A Call to Action (NPS 2015)

• NPS Capital Investment Strategy (NPS 2012a)

• Healthy Parks Healthy People Strategic Action Plan

(NPS 2011a)

• Green Parks Plan (NPS 2012b)

• America’s Great Outdoors (CEQ et al. 2011).

The National LRTP also serves as a strategic guide to inform 

long range transportation planning at the regional and 

park unit levels. Future regional and unit LRTPs will be 

consistent with the goals and objectives established in the 

National LRTP but customized to evaluate and respond to 

regionally unique needs and challenges and to identify more 

detailed strategies to support NPS shared goals, objectives, 

strategies and performance measures. Iterative feedback 

among the national, regional and park unit levels will inform 

and strengthen future updates to each plan (Figure 1-3).

A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

FINAL

September 2012 

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior Intermountain Region

INTERMOUNTAINREGIONLONGRANGETRANSPORTATIONPLAN2014-2035

FINALPLAN APRIL 2014

Northeast Region

Long Range Transportation Plan

Final Report

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Northeast Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report

National LRTP

Regional LRTP

Park Unit Transportation Plan

Data & Needs Policy & Guidance

Figure 1-3. The Iterative Feedback Loop of NPS LRTPs 

Alignment with Other Plans
8 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Paved Roads 

and Parking*

Title 23* 

Federal Highway Administration

Title 54 Fee

National Park Service

Title 54 Non-Fee

National Park Service

Other

Bridges*

Trails

Transit

& Other

*Historical focus of many transportation plans

Asset Categories Fund Sources Life-Cycle Emphasis

Plan*

Build*

Operate

Maintain

Rehab*

Monitor

Figure 1-4. Illustration of Comprehensive National Park Service Long Range Transportation Planning Approach 

2 The financial analysis for the National LRTP was completed before the passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST Act) and the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, both of which increased future available funding for 

NPS transportation assets. Although these increases will help the National Park Service care for its transportation system, they are 

not large enough to cover even the highest priority investment needs identified in this plan.

The National LRTP includes the most comprehensive 

analysis of NPS transportation finance ever completed 

(Figure 1-4). The plan cuts across NPS programs, offices 

and disciplines to look at all assets, fund sources and stages 

in the transportation life cycle. It is a fiscally constrained 

plan, meaning that only funds reasonably expected to be 

available for transportation are included2 (Figure 1-5). 

The plan looks at all stages in the life cycle of investment 

needs for transportation assets and all programs that have 

historically contributed to planning, building, operating 

and maintaining the transportation system. It is multimodal, 

including every mode of transportation in the financial 

analysis. The result of this in-depth, comprehensive 

examination of NPS transportation finance is the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy. This framework 

articulates how the National Park Service can make the best 

use of limited funding, focusing on the most important parts 

of the system and making smart, long-term investments in 

operations and maintenance activities to extend the life of 

transportation investments.

Figure 1-5. Illustration of NPS Estimated Annual 

Transportation Funding Gap

A Comprehensive, Fiscally Constrained Plan

Annual Need 

$1.5 billion 

Funding Forecast

$394 million

Annual

Funding Gap

$1.1 billion
National Park Service 9

The National LRTP is a strategic, long-range plan that 

provides guidance to programs and managers throughout 

the National Park Service. It does not replace decisions 

made at the directorate, regional, park unit or program 

levels. The National LRTP will be implemented through 

the actions of existing programs and managers in alignment 

with their priorities and procedures.

Following the plan's release, the National Park Service will 

organize action planning and reporting teams and establish 

performance monitoring protocols. A performance report 

will be published approximately two years after the plan is 

released, with a second performance report after four years. 

These reports will inform the first National LRTP update, 

which will be an opportunity for the National Park Service 

to re-examine and re-evaluate transportation priorities 

servicewide. The first National LRTP update is targeted 

for release five years after this plan is published.

The National LRTP begins by presenting the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy. This chapter articulates 

how limited transportation funding can be best applied 

to meet the goals of the National LRTP and describes the 

anticipated outcomes of following the investment strategy.

The following five chapters are organized around the five 

strategic goal areas:

Asset Management

Transportation Finance

Resource Protection

Visitor Experience

Safety

Each goal area chapter follows the same format:

• Goal area chapters begin with a brief overview and 

introduction to the chapter.

• Next, the chapters present the baseline conditions 

and macro trends, providing context and introducing 

key concepts in transportation related to the goal.

• The chapters discuss the objectives of the goal area 

and lay out recommended strategies for achieving 

them.

• The chapters conclude by listing the performance 

measures and targets that the National Park Service 

will use to gauge progress in the goal area.

The Conclusion closes the National LRTP, discussing 

next steps for putting the plan into action, monitoring and 

reporting progress and releasing future plan updates.

Technical reports and methodology are available on request. 

For more information, please visit the National Park Service 

LRTP website.

Putting the Plan 

into Action

How to Read the Plan

Olympic National Park
10 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Blue Ridge Parkway © Ron Miguel
National Park Service 11

National Transportation 

Investment Strategy

 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Fund highest priorities first

Align capital and O&M investments

Reflect a multimodal NPS 

transportation system

Principles
12 National Long Range Transportation Plan

62% Invested to 

Improve Asset Condition

8% Invested in Capital, 

Planning, Administrative and 

Programmatic Needs

Investment Strategy Principles

The NPS Transportation Investment Strategy is the first of its kind for the service. It addresses the goals and diverse 

transportation needs identified in this plan. It encourages the service to expand internal coordination across all transportation 

funding programs and organizational units, align management objectives and continue responsible financial investment 

in a fiscally constrained environment. This investment strategy, which is driven by the NPS Capital Investment Strategy 

(CIS), consists of three principles as shown in Figure 2-1. These principals describe how transportation funding can be 

aligned with the CIS in terms of 1) asset priority, 2) activities in the asset management life cycle, and 3) investments in 

roads and bridges versus multimodal systems.

1) ASSET PRIORITY

The strategy focuses funding on highest priority 

transportation needs. It addresses the deferred 

maintenance (DM) on highest priority assets, which are 

typically most crucial to meeting the agency mission. 

Highest priority assets include the following:

• All functional classification (FC) 1 and 7 and selected 

FC 2 paved roads and parking

• All bridges

• All transit

• Other assets in optimizer band (OB) 1.

2) ACTIVITIES IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT LIFE CYCLE

The strategy emphasizes operations and maintenance 

(O&M) activities that keep assets in good condition 

longer, focusing on the highest priority assets. It stresses 

that capital and O&M investments align to the same 

portfolio of highest priority transportation assets.

3) INVESTMENTS IN ROADS AND BRIDGES VS. 

 MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS

The strategy focuses a modest amount of funding that 

might have been spent on low-priority roads to highest 

priority Other Transportation Assets, including transit, 

trails and other multimodal assets.

95% Invested in 

Improving and 

Maintaining Highest 

Priority Assets

30% Invested in Other 

Transportation Assets 

(Multimodal Systems)

Figure 2-1. Principles of the NPS National Transportation Investment Strategy 

5% Invested in Other 

Priority Assets

70% Invested in 

Paved Road and 

Bridge Network

30% Invested in 

O&M Activities, 

which also Extend 

Asset Life
National Park Service 13

National Transportation Investment Strategy

The National Transportation Investment Strategy provides funding for all categories of transportation assets. Paved 

roads and parking areas receive the highest share—55 percent—because they comprise the largest portion of the NPS 

transportation portfolio, are used by the greatest number of visitors and have accumulated the greatest amount of deferred 

maintenance. Bridges and transit systems receive 11 and 9 percent respectively. The remaining 25 percent is reserved for 

other asset types (e.g., unpaved roads, multi-use trails, waterways) which comprise a significant portion of the diverse 

NPS transportation asset portfolio. Figure 2-2 illustrates this distribution.

Figure 2-2. Annual Average Distribution of Investments by Asset Category in the National Transportation Investment Strategy 

Transit 

Systems

9%

Paved Roads 

and Parking

55%

Other Asset 

Categories

25%

Bridges and Tunnels

11% 
14 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Transportation Investment Strategy is fiscally constrained. Because financial needs exceed available resources, 

the strategy balances competing NPS investment priorities to meet the performance goals of this plan. It not only achieves 

asset condition goals by devoting 92% of forecasted funding to improving and maintaining transportation assets, but also 

makes funds available for planning, administrative and programmatic needs. Those funds will make it possible for the National 

Park Service to address Resource Protection, Visitor Experience, and Safety goals by continuing to develop systems and 

tools to improve the management of its diverse transportation system.

Six-Year Expected Outcomes

3 The National LRTP Investment Strategy was completed before recent funding increases were included in the FAST Act and the 

FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The condition and O&M modeling results shown in this plan are likely conservative 

estimates in light of the FY 2016 funding.

The vast majority of the annually forecasted funding ($394 million) over the next six years will be invested to maintain and 

improve the condition of the service’s highest priority transportation assets.3 Examples of activities include:

• Repaving of roads, parking areas and paved trails

• Repairing or replacement of bridges

• Preventive and routine maintenance to extend asset service life

• Operations such as plowing and salting

• Recapitalization of transit system rolling stock.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

The remaining funding will be invested in long-range 

planning, plan implementation strategic improvements and 

management systems that support improved decision making. 

Completing and testing these management systems will allow 

the National Park Service to better understand and address 

Resource Protection, Safety, and Visitor Experience goals.

• Improving existing pavement and 

bridge management systems

• Completing the NPS Transportation 

Safety Management System

• Completing the second phase of the NPS 

Congestion Management Program

• Piloting the Innovative and Sustainable Transportation 

Evaluation Process and Guidance (INSTEP) tool.

By implementing the National Transportation Investment 

Strategy, the National Park Service can best balance the 

condition and O&M needs of the multimodal transportation 

system across all regions and park units. Figure 2-3 shows 

modeled six-year condition outcomes based on the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy, using NPS pavement, 

bridge and asset management modeling systems.
National Park Service 15

PAVED ROADS AND PARKING

The National Transportation Investment Strategy results in an 

80 Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) for the highest priority 

(all FC 1, 7 and select FC 2) paved roads and parking areas. 

By addressing the DM on these highest priority assets, they 

can be maintained in fair condition. However, because the 

strategy focuses almost all transportation resources on highest 

priority assets, other roads and parking areas (remaining FC 

2 and all FC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8) will decline to poor condition 

(56 PCR). Under the strategy, all paved roads and parking 

areas will receive 64 percent, nearly two-thirds, of the O&M 

funding needed to sustain these assets over their life cycles, 

a significant increase from past investment trends.

BRIDGES

All bridges under this plan have been classified as highest 

priority assets. Accordingly, NPS bridges will also receive 

100 percent of expected needed O&M to ensure their longterm health and functionality. The National Transportation 

Investment Strategy results in a 90 percent Bridge Health 

Index (BHI) for the entire NPS bridge portfolio, which is 

fair/good condition.

TRANSIT

The National Transportation Investment Strategy provides 

for 31 percent of all capital needs for NPS transit systems over 

the next six years, an increase over past trends. In addition, 

targeted funding will cover 69 percent of ongoing O&M 

needs for all those systems. In part due to the discontinuation 

of major federal programs that funded NPS transit systems, 

the National Park Service will have difficulty replacing aging 

buses and other transit capital assets as they reach the end 

of their useful lives.

OTHER ASSETS

The National Transportation Investment Strategy will result a 

Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 0.11 (fair/good condition) 

for highest priority (OB 1) transportation assets in other 

categories. However, due to a significant gap between funding 

and investment needs, assets not classified as highest priority 

will decline to poor condition. O&M funding for these other 

facilities will achieve 38 percent of identified need, an increase 

over past trends.

Asset Category Condition Outcomes O&M Outcomes

0.11 FCI

0.21 FCI

90%

BHI

31%

of Capital 

Needs

100%

Needs Met

69%

Needs Met

38%

Needs Met

64%

Needs Met

80 PCR

56 PCR

Highest Priority (FC 1, 7 and select FC 2)

Highest Priority (OB 1)

Other Priority (remaining FC 2 and all FC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8)

Other Priority (OB 2, 3, 4, 5)

Figure 2-3. National Transportation Investment Strategy Expected Six-Year Outcomes, by Asset Category
16 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Strategy Development

The Park Facility Management Division leadership team, which represents a diverse group of program managers responsible 

for NPS facility management, critically examined six potential investment strategies. Each strategy invested forecasted 

funding in different ways according to the three strategic principles described on page 12. Through research, analysis and 

discourse, the leadership team evaluated the outcomes of each strategy according to four broad trends and related trade-offs.

FINANCIAL NEEDS FAR OUTWEIGH AVAILABLE FUNDING

The National Park Service is focusing on its highest 

priority assets at the expense of lower priority assets. FC 

1, 7 and select FC 2 roads are arguably the service’s most 

important roads, and they can be maintained near their 

current conditions with available funding. Other functional 

classifications cannot. Segmenting the asset portfolio into 

“Highest” and “Other” priority groupings will enable the 

National Park Service to demonstrate results for both the 

assets it can afford to maintain, as well as those it cannot, as 

illustrated by the shortfall in the funding forecast relative 

to total needs (Figure 2-4). Figure 2-5 shows that when 

95 percent of all transportation funds are invested in the 

highest priority transportation assets, the condition of 

other priority assets are forecasted to quickly decline. 

The condition of highest priority assets are nevertheless 

forecast to experience a modest decline, remaining in fair/

good condition.

Needs by Priority

Total $1.5B

Forecast Total

$394M

Highest Other

Figure 2-4. Comparison of Annual 

Needs to Forecasted Available Funding 

Figure 2-5. Relative Forecasted Changes in Transportation Asset Condition under the National Transportation Investment Strategy
National Park Service 17

PARK UNITS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO MEET 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

Shifting a modest amount of funding from activities that 

improve condition, such as recurring maintenance (RM) 

and component renewal (CR), to activities that maintain 

condition, such as preventive maintenance and facility 

operations (FO), enables park units to take better care of the 

assets they have. Asset management principles suggest proper 

preventive maintenance can keep assets in better condition 

longer and at lower cost, as shown in the illustration of the 

optimal asset management life cycle (Figure 2-6). Although 

DM may rise in the short term, investing in activities that 

maintain condition will yield longer useful service life and 

will reduce long-term RM and CR needs. 

VISITORS AND PARK MANAGERS VALUE 

TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

Shifting funding from lower priority roads to other higher 

priority assets is consistent with CIS principles. This shift 

trades the lowered condition of lower priority roads with an 

improved condition for higher priority Other Transportation 

Assets, including transit systems. Park managers demonstrate 

the value of their transit systems by annually funding their 

operations; however, their transit fleets, purchased a decade 

ago and still in high demand (Figure 2-7), are nearing the 

end of their service lives. Recapitalization of these fleets 

typically costs more than a unit or even a region can support. 

Other Transportation Assets are also important, but they have 

historically received significantly fewer resources than roads.

COORDINATION IS NECESSARY

Despite the time and effort required, coordinating across 

funding programs and organizational levels will be the only 

way to implement the National Transportation Investment 

Strategy. Transportation decision makers accept that they 

will need to work together, in some cases painstakingly, 

to align financial needs with eligibility criteria. Park units, 

regions and national offices each have different missions, 

needs and daily challenges. As shown by the programming 

responsibilities of those offices across all the funding sources 

(Figure 2-8), they will need to seek others’ perspectives as 

they attempt to align capital and O&M investments.

In 2013, 131 NPS transit systems carried a total of 26.9 million 

passenger boardings

The National Park Service owns 274 transit vehicles

Figure 2-7. National Park Service Transit Supply and Demand 

Preventive

Maintenance

Reconstruction

Need

Years

Condition

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 2-6. Illustration of an 

Optimally Managed Asset Life Cycle

Nationally

Programmed

Regionally

Programmed

Park Unit

Programmed

Title 54 Non-Fee Title 54 Fee Title 23 Other

Figure 2-8. Illustration of NPS Fund Source 

Programming Responsibility Overlap 
18 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The NPS National Transportation Investment Strategy 

reflects a major milestone in the service’s transition to a 

performance-based 3C transportation planning process. With 

a strategy selected, the National Park Service must now put it 

into practice. Plan stakeholders acknowledge the challenging 

nature of implementing this strategy and ultimately how it 

will change the way transportation funding is spent.

The National Park Service has created a working group 

to implement the financial strategy. It will accomplish the 

following:

• Convene NPS transportation finance stakeholders

• Identify tactics to coordinate investments on highest 

priority assets

• Develop complementary, multiyear programs of 

projects

• Identify and address outstanding data collection and 

reporting needs

• Manage performance to ensure that the investment 

strategy results in intended outcomes

• Communicate financial needs and outcomes to inform 

the budgeting process.

The National Transportation Investment Strategy establishes 

a framework for comprehensively addressing NPS 

transportation needs. It sets a high bar, requiring enhanced 

coordination across multiple funding programs and between 

park unit, regional and national offices. Implementing the 

strategy will be hard work, but the National Park Service 

is committed to working through challenges and adopting 

new program management approaches. Doing so will result 

in a more sustainable, safe and effective transportation 

system that both meets the needs of a new generation of 

NPS visitors and continues the service’s commitment to 

resource conservation.

Implementation
National Park Service 19

Zion National Park
20 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Yellowstone National Park
National Park Service 21

Maintain critical assets and services in good operating 

condition through targeted investment

Adapt transportation systems to climate change impacts

Objectives

Goal

Sustainably 

manage NPS 

transportation 

assets and 

services 

Asset Management

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
22 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The NPS transportation system is defined as all surface transportation assets and services that 

accommodate roadway, nonmotorized, transit and waterborne modes. For the purpose of this LRTP, 

these assets are grouped into two primary categories: the Paved Road and Bridge Network, which 

includes paved roads and parking areas, bridges and tunnels; and Other Transportation Assets, 

which includes unpaved roads and parking, trails, waterways, docks, marinas and railroads. These 

assets, which represent a combined $38 billion public investment, support a core mission of the 

National Park Service: to provide visitor access to America’s greatest natural and cultural treasures. 

The system also includes nearly 4,000 historic and culturally significant assets (discussed in detail 

in the Resource Protection chapter), which the National Park Service manages to preserve their 

historical character and integrity, as well as their continuing important transportation functions.

Maintaining transportation assets in good operating condition is critical to the NPS mission. However, 

with current and anticipated future budget constraints, the National Park Service will not be able to 

sustain all transportation assets in their current condition. In response to this challenge, the National 

Park Service is working to direct increasingly scarce funds to the most mission-critical assets and to 

enable a long-term commitment from park units to perform required maintenance on these assets. 

Total cost of facility ownership (TCFO) is a life-cycle accounting concept at the heart of NPS 

transportation asset management. TCFO is the full life-cycle cost of building, maintaining and 

operating an asset until it needs replacement. This concept recognizes that assets require investment 

throughout their service lives and that preventive maintenance and facility operations activities are 

key to minimizing long-term costs. 

Reduced funding is not the only asset management challenge the National Park Service is facing; 

adapting to the effects of climate change is also a present and growing challenge. NPS transportation 

assets were built to withstand historical climatic conditions. However, changes in air and water 

temperature, precipitation and sea level have already been observed and are projected to become 

more significant as climate change progresses. Changes in extreme weather events (e.g., very high 

temperatures, floods, extended droughts) are expected to increase in many regions and will likely 

lead to new transportation asset management challenges that must be systematically considered and 

accounted for when making transportation decisions.

Introduction
National Park Service 23

Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

NPS Transportation Asset Inventory 

The NPS transportation system is extensive and essential to 

meeting the NPS mission. The NPS Paved Road and Bridge 

Network includes approximately 5,500 centerline miles of 

paved roads, 120 million square feet of paved parking areas 

and more than 1,400 bridges and tunnels. These roadway 

assets are at the core of the NPS transportation inventory 

because a majority of visitors use them and because they 

often facilitate access to other transportation modes. Other 

Transportation Assets include numerous transit systems, 

trails, unpaved roads and parking areas and marine and 

waterway assets (Table 3-1), which provide essential access 

to park units and experiences.

A key accomplishment of this planning effort was the 

development of a consistent definition and a more 

comprehensive inventory of NPS transportation assets 

spanning all transportation modes and multiple systems 

of record. This multimodal inventory enables more holistic 

transportation planning by making it possible to evaluate 

strategies across modes. The National Park Service is 

now working to integrate the inventory into NPS asset 

management systems of record, which will ease analysis, 

reporting and future planning related to transportation assets. 

In the aggregate, the NPS transportation inventory 

represents a substantial public investment. Transportation 

assets work in concert with a much larger NPS portfolio 

of visitor and operational assets, representing a combined 

current replacement value (CRV) of $154 billion. The CRV 

of all transportation assets is more than $37 billion and 

represents nearly 25 percent of the CRV of all NPS assets 

(Figure 3-1). Roads, parking areas and bridges represent 

more than 80 percent of the total portfolio of transportation 

assets by CRV (18 percent of all NPS assets), with other asset 

categories making up the remaining 20 percent. 

The NPS Paved Road and Bridge Network 

includes approximately 5,500 centerline 

miles of paved roads, 120 million square 

feet of paved parking areas and more 

than 1,400 bridges and tunnels.

Zion National Park
24 National Long Range Transportation Plan

NPS transportation assets vary significantly across park 

units and by region, accounting for different visitation 

patterns and geographical, historical and cultural 

characteristics. The overall inventory of transportation 

assets is extraordinarily diverse (Table 3-1), but paved 

roadway and parking assets are by far the most common 

means of providing access to NPS park units in all regions. 

The notable exception is the Alaska Region where many 

park units are not accessible by road and instead must rely 

on boats, airplanes, snowcoaches and other alternative 

modes of transportation.

The NPS transportation asset inventory is not evenly 

distributed across NPS regions or park units. For example, 

the Intermountain, Pacific West and Southeast regions 

support approximately 1,500 miles of paved roads each, 

consistent with the expansive and remote nature of many 

western park units and the long parkways and corridors 

of the southeast. The Northeast, National Capital and 

Midwest regions maintain fewer miles of paved roads, 

consistent with the more densely developed settlement 

patterns of these areas of the United States. However, 

these three regions make up a significantly larger share of 

paved parking areas. Also of note, the Southeast Region 

is home to more than 800 bridges, more than half of all 

NPS bridges.

Figure 3-1. Transportation Share of Total NPS Asset Portfolio 

(CRV $ in Billions) 

Source: Facility Management Software System FY 2014 Year-End Data4

Dry Tortugas National Park

4

 Final FY 2014 asset-level data, which are used to develop the “OMB Eight Major Industry Standard Assets Report", 11/12/2014.

Other NPS Assets 

$116.4

Paved Road and Bridge Network

$27.3

Other 

Transportation 

Assets 

$10.1
National Park Service 25

Table 3-1. Inventory of NPS Transportation Assets 

Sources: Facility Management Software System FY 2014 Year-End Data, National Park Service Transit Inventory, 2013 (NPS 2014a) and Transportation 

Reauthorization Resource Paper (NPS 2013a)

Category Asset Count Quantity CRV ($ in Billions) DM ($ in Billions)

Paved Road and Bridge Network

Paved Roads 3,900 5,500 Miles $19.1 $4.2

Paved Parking Areas 6,100 120 Million Square Feet $2.9 $0.8

Road Bridges and Tunnels 1,460* 8.5 Million Square Feet $5.3 $0.5

Total 11,460 $27.3 $5.6

Other Transportation Assets

Unpaved Roads 3,800 7,000 Miles $3.1 $0.3

Unpaved Parking Areas 1,800 25 Million Square Feet $0.2 <$0.1

Trails 2,250 4,600 Miles $2.2 $0.2

Trail Bridges 950 900,000 Square Feet $0.4 <$0.1

Trail Tunnels 40 500,000 Square Feet $0.2 <$0.1

Transit Systems** 130 130 Systems n/a n/a

Constructed Waterways 30 130 Miles $0.1 <$0.1

Docks, Marinas and Waterfront Assets 950 2.3 Million Linear Feet $3.0 $0.8

Railroad Assets 250 700,000 Linear Feet $0.9 <$0.1

Total 10,200 $10.1 $1.5

All Transportation Assets 21,660 $37.4 $7.1

 * Includes those bridges tracked in the Federal Highway Administration Pontis modeling application and publicly accessible tunnels.

** Transit Systems refers to both physical infrastructure assets as well as rolling stock, which the National Park Service manages differently than 

infrastructure assets.
26 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service uses industry-standard metrics to 

assess asset condition and to estimate investment needs. For 

the most common transportation asset categories—paved 

roads, paved parking areas and bridges—the National Park 

Service partners with the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to inspect these assets and assess their condition 

using automated tools and engineering expertise. For other 

asset categories (e.g., docks, trails, unpaved roads, unpaved 

parking areas), the National Park Service uses the FCI, 

which represents the estimated cost of DM divided by the 

asset’s CRV. DM for all NPS assets is tracked in the Facility 

Management Software System (FMSS), an industry-standard 

software package the National Park Service customized. 

FMSS fiscal-year-end reports are the official sources for 

most NPS asset information, including DM, replacement 

value, and condition when measured in FCI. Unless 

otherwise stated, the National LRTP uses 2014 FMSS yearend data, the same source used to develop the 2014 Asset 

Inventory Summary and other official reports.

Transportation Asset Condition

Deferred Maintenance

DM is defined as “maintenance that 

was not performed when it should 

have been or was scheduled to be 

and which, therefore, is put off or 

delayed for a future period.” Continued 

deferment of required maintenance 

results in impaired asset performance.

Facility Condition Index 

Facility Condition Index = Deferred Maintenance 

Current Replacement Value

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
National Park Service 27

PAVEMENT CONDITION 

Poor pavement quality can be uncomfortable or even jarring 

for visitors, can impose increased wear and tear on vehicles, 

can decrease vehicle fuel economy and can reduce roadway 

safety. Through regular inspection and proactive maintenance 

of paved assets, the National Park Service seeks to minimize 

total life-cycle ownership costs, while keeping those roads 

and parking areas in good condition. 

The National Park Service and the FHWA jointly monitor 

paved roads and parking areas through the Roadway 

Inventory Program (RIP). The FHWA inspects paved 

surfaces using automated, industry-standard equipment 

and provides inputs to pavement management models 

that project RM and CR needs, helping managers identify 

projects that will make the biggest improvements to system 

pavement condition per dollar spent.

PCR is an industry-standard condition metric the National 

Park Service uses for paved roads and parking areas. PCR 

values range from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating 

pavement in better condition. The National Park Service 

has historically sought to achieve and sustain a servicewide 

average PCR of 85 for all paved roads and parking areas, 

which is “good” condition. This approach would be ideal 

as it would allow efficient condition management using less 

expensive pavement preservation techniques and would 

reduce the frequency of much more costly CR and capital 

investment (CI) projects. However, despite recent progress 

toward the 85 PCR target, funding has not been sufficient 

to achieve it (Figure 3-2).

Because available funding is insufficient to maintain all paved 

assets in good condition, the National Park Service prioritizes 

investments so that the highest priority paved assets are kept in 

as close to good condition as possible. As discussed later in this 

chapter, the CIS is changing the way transportation projects 

are selected to respond to fiscal constraints while minimizing 

impacts on resources, visitors and essential park unit functions.

Refer to the National Transportation Investment Strategy chapter 

for a more detailed analysis of roadway investment needs.

Figure 3-2. NPS Pavement Condition Rating, 2006–2018

Source: 2015 NPS Pavement Condition Report (NPS 2016)

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

65

70

75

80

85

90

The National Park Service’s 

efficient allocation of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA) funding to “shovel ready” projects 

was a significant contributor to road 

condition improvement in 2009 and 2011.

73

76 77

79

82 82 82 82

Past Actual 

(2006–2014)

Forecasted 

(2015–2018)

82 82 82 81 81

PCR

PCR Scale

Perfect: 100

Good: 85-99

Fair: 61–84

Poor: Less than 61

2018
28 National Long Range Transportation Plan

BRIDGE CONDITION 

The National Park Service inspects and analyzes the 

condition of its approximately 1,400 public roadway bridges 

through the FHWA Bridge Inspection Program (BIP). The 

FHWA performs bridge inspections on a two-year cycle, 

assigning a BHI rating to each bridge based on models that 

consider structural condition, erosion around bridge piers 

and abutments and rate of deterioration. The BHI values 

range between 0 percent and 100 percent, with 100 percent 

indicating perfect condition. 

BHI was held in average good condition from 2006 to 2013, 

with the servicewide average declining slightly from 93 to 

92 percent. However, an increase in the number of aging 

bridge structures, combined with forecasted increases 

in rehabilitation and reconstruction costs, will make 

maintaining average good condition more difficult in the 

future. The National Park Service forecasts that $120 million 

in annual investments are needed to maintain a BHI of 

92 percent (Figure 3-4). Lower levels of investment may 

result in a gradual decline in average BHI. The National 

Transportation Investment Strategy chapter provides more 

information on forecasts of future bridge condition.

Figure 3-4. Future NPS BHI Ratings Under Three Scenarios

Source: Transportation Branch Reauthorization Resource Paper (NPS 2013a)

Nearly three quarters of NPS bridges are 

classified in good condition (Figure 3-3), 

and the systemwide BHI average also 

falls in the good range, at 92 percent.

75

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

80

85

90

95

100

BHI historical and future projected condition for servicewide bridge portfolio

Past Actual 

(2006–2014)

Scenario 1 

($120 million/year)

Scenario 2 

($60 million/year)

Scenario 3

($0 million/Year)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

93

92

79

87

92

BHI

Figure 3-3. Condition of NPS Bridges 

Source: NPS Structure Data Management System Database (2011)

Fair

Poor

 Good > = 92% 74%

80 to 91% 15%

< = 79% 11%

Condition BHI Scale Percentage of Bridges, by Count
National Park Service 29

CONDITION OF OTHER TRANSPORTATION ASSETS 

The NPS Paved Road and Bridge Network constitutes the 

majority of NPS transportation assets. However, Other 

Transportation Assets (e.g., unpaved roads and parking 

areas, trails, docks, constructed waterways and alternative 

transportation systems) are also essential parts of the NPS 

transportation system. 

These assets provide critical transportation services, provide 

alternatives for users and may serve as the primary or sole 

mode of access to some park units. Servicewide, the majority of 

assets in these categories are in good condition (Figures 3-5 and 

3-6). However, as with the Paved Road and Bridge Network, 

there are significant numbers of Other Transportation Assets in 

need of reinvestment. In particular, fewer trails and waterfront 

assets (e.g., docks, marinas) are in good condition than other 

asset categories.

Comprehensive historical analysis of condition 

information is not available for Other Transportation 

Assets. However, like the Paved Road and Bridge 

Network, their condition improved in recent years as a 

result of ARRA funding, and their average condition is 

projected to steadily decline in the years to come resulting 

from an overall reduction in transportation funding, even 

as individual assets are improved.

Figure 3-6. Percentage of NPS Other Transportation Assets 

in Good Condition, by Category and CRV ($ in Millions)

Source: FMSS FY 2014 Year-End Data

Waterfront

Trail

Trail Bridge

Unpaved Road

Constructed Waterway

Railroad

Unpaved Parking

Trail Tunnel

Percentage in Good Condition

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

$1,626

$1,637

$2,574

$830

$292

$115

$199

$193

Condition FCI Scale Percentage by CRV

$7.5

$0.4

$1.5

$0.7

74%

4%

15%

7%

Fair

Serious

Poor

 Good

Figure 3-5. Condition of NPS Other Transportation Assets

(CRV $ in Billions) 

Source: FMSS FY 2014 Year-End Data

0.000 – 0.109 

0.110 – 0.149 

0.150 – 0.499 

0.500 +
30 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation Life-Cycle 

Work Types5

Planning and Administration (PA)

Activities to identify challenges, 

needs and alternative solutions 

prior to implementing a solution

Capital Investment (CI)

Construction of new assets, as 

well as major reconstruction 

projects that incorporate new 

functions into existing assets

Facility Operations (FO) 

Activities that ensure the day-to-day 

operation of transportation systems (e.g., 

plowing, transit operations, mowing)

Preventive Maintenance (PM)

Maintenance tasks performed 

on an annual or more frequent 

basis (e.g., cleaning culverts, 

inspections, vegetation control)

Recurring Maintenance (RM)

Less frequent maintenance tasks 

performed on a cycle of 1 to 10 years (e.g., 

chip seals, mill and overlays, restriping)

Component Renewal (CR) 

Infrastructure replacement projects 

that do not expand the asset portfolio 

or liabilities for O&M activities

Operations and Maintenance 

O&M activities are a critical part of sustaining transportation 

investments and minimizing TCFO. These activities do not 

improve the condition of assets; rather, they are the dayto-day work required to keep assets open and functioning 

and the preventive maintenance projects designed to make 

sure capital investments are sustained for as long as possible. 

When fully funded and executed, O&M activities, which 

include the FO, PM and RM activities described at right, 

can significantly extend the useful life of transportation 

assets, reducing future needs for CR and CI investments 

and minimizing long-term life-cycle costs.

Park units define O&M priorities and schedules for their 

assets in park asset management plans (PAMPs) and 

prioritize activities when funding is insufficient to perform 

all recommended work. At present, there is no aggregation 

of actual O&M expenditures at a national level. However, 

the National Park Service estimates that nearly $475 

million is required annually to operate and maintain all 

transportation assets. A detailed discussion of FO, PM and 

RM needs and resources can be found in the Transportation 

Finance chapter of this plan.

A mismatch between CI or CR projects that improve 

asset condition and PM or FO activities that maintain 

asset condition can result in a pattern of “run to failure,” 

where new and recapitalized assets deteriorate faster 

than they should and have a shorter lifespan. When these 

conditions occur, TCFO increases. The National Park 

Service is working to prevent such mismatches, in part, 

through the CIS.

5

 The decommissioning of transportation assets is also a significant stage in the life cycle of transportation investments. However, 

this phase is not analyzed in the National LRTP.
National Park Service 31

CIS Scoring Elements

1. Financial Sustainability

2. Visitor Use

3. Resource Protection

4. Health and Safety

Capital Investment Strategy

Because future budgets are expected to increase significantly 

relative to the recent past, the National Park Service will not 

be able to maintain all assets at the current condition level 

or meet desired condition targets for all assets. To address 

this challenge, the National Park Service has adopted a 

comprehensive approach to linking FO and PM priorities 

set at the unit level, with CR and rehabilitation decisions at 

the regional level. The CIS, which covers transportation as 

well as other asset categories, will help the National Park 

Service focus investment on its highest priority assets, 

with a particular emphasis on assets that park units have 

committed to maintain over the long term. Successful 

implementation of the CIS is critical to making the most 

of limited funding, minimizing TCFO and ensuring that 

important assets are kept in good condition.

The CIS scores projects across four elements: (1) financial 

sustainability, (2) resource protection, (3) visitor use and 

(4) health and safety. Currently, the NPS transportation 

community uses the CIS financial sustainability score as 

a screening tool in the project selection process. Final 

prioritization and selection is managed by the NPS regional 

offices, which incorporate local sources of data for the 

other elements.

Grand Teton National Park

Park units identify O&M priorities 

and maintenance schedules for 

their assets in PAMPs. 
32 National Long Range Transportation Plan

OPTIMIZATION OF ASSETS 

Using a combined ranking of asset importance and 

condition known as the OB, NPS park units prioritize 

assets for investment and O&M funding. OBs range from 

1 to 5. They identify the highest priority (OB 1) and highpriority (OB 2) assets for capital investment. OB 3, 4 and 5 

are considered lower priority for CI. The same rankings also 

specify per NPS CIS guidance the relative level of O&M 

funds a park unit plans to dedicate to a particular asset.

When a park unit assigns assets to OB 1 or 2, it is a 

commitment by the park unit to fund a minimum amount of 

PM needed for those assets to be sustained in good condition. 

This commitment to provide ongoing PM funding lets 

regional fund managers know that CR and CI investments 

in these assets will be maintained by the park unit. 

Assets assigned to OB 1 and 2 account for 64 percent of 

NPS transportation assets (by CRV) and 69 percent of the 

DM. Prioritizing investments in these assets as required by 

the CIS is projected to reduce the DM backlog and improve 

the condition of highest and high-priority assets over time.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 

Because of funding shortfalls, not all necessary or 

recommended maintenance can be performed for all 

transportation assets in each year. This reality leads to 

DM, a measure of the accumulated total costs necessary 

to correct deficiencies resulting from unaccomplished past 

recommended maintenance and repairs. The Paved Road 

and Bridge Network accounts for $5.63 billion6 of DM, 

while Other Transportation Assets account for $1.49 billion 

of DM (Figure 3-7).

NPS transportation inventory assets accounted for 62 

percent of the total NPS DM backlog of $11.5 billion as 

of 2014.7

6

 This figure of $5.63 billion is sourced from the 2014 NPS Asset Inventory Summary “Paved Roads” line item and includes paved 

roads and parking, bridges and tunnels. 

7 This figure is sourced from the Final FY14 asset-level data, which are used to develop the “OMB Eight Major Industry Standard 

Assets Report”, 11/12/2014.

Figure 3-7. 2014 Transportation Asset 

Deferred Maintenance by OB ($ in Millions)

Source: FMSS FY 2014 Year-End Data

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$0

1 2 3

Optimizer Band

Deferred Maintenance

4 5

Paved Road and Bridge Network

Other Transportation Assets
National Park Service 33

Global climate change presents new challenges for 

transportation asset management. Typically, transportation 

infrastructure has been designed to withstand a range 

of historical seasonal fluctuations in temperature and 

precipitation, as well as occasional extreme weather. 

However, if future conditions continue to exceed historical 

norms on a more frequent basis, the condition, function 

and longevity of transportation facilities may be adversely 

affected. Changes in temperature, precipitation and sea 

levels may accelerate degradation of physical assets and, in 

the most extreme cases, may result in catastrophic damage 

or loss. Extreme weather and severe storms will continue to 

disrupt transportation systems, with the potential for major 

impacts to safety, visitor access and resource protection.

Impacts of climate change have already been observed, 

and they are expected to increase in severity over time. 

It will become increasingly necessary to adapt existing 

transportation assets to be resilient to changing conditions. 

Table 3-2 summarizes the range of projected climate change 

impacts presented in the 2014 National Climate Assessment 

(Melillo, Richmond and Yoge 2014), and their probable 

implications for transportation assets (Transportation 

Research Board 2008).

Transportation Asset Adaptation and Resilience

Facility Adaptation and Resilience

To mitigate climate change impacts 

on its transportation portfolio, 

the National Park Service is 

proactively pursuing two asset 

management strategies: facility 

adaptation and resilience.

Adaptation

Adjustment in natural or human 

systems to a new or changing 

environment that exploits 

beneficial opportunities or 

moderates negative effects.8

Resilience

A capability to anticipate, 

prepare for, respond to, and 

recover from significant multihazard threats with minimum 

damage to social well-being, the 

economy, and the environment.9 

8

 From U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States; U.S. National Climate Assessment.

9

 From U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States; U.S. National Climate Assessment.
34 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 3-2. Projected Climate Change Impacts and Implications for Transportation Assets 

Sources: Third National Climate Assessment (Melillo, Richmond and Yoge 2014), Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation 

(Transportation Research Board 2008)

Projected Impacts Implications for Transportation

Temperature

Changes vary by region, but average annual temperature is 

expected to continue to rise.

Heat waves are projected to become more intense.

The number of extreme hot days is projected to increase.

Cold waves are projected to become less intense.

Length of the frost-free season is projected to increase.

Ice volumes on land, lakes and seas are projected to decline, 

including increased melting of permafrost.

Accelerated degradation of infrastructure

Increased maintenance and rehabilitation needs

Increased safety and accessibility concerns for nonmotorized 

transportation

Increased incidence of wildfire-related closures and maintenance

Reduced seasonal operations for over-snow/ice systems

Reduced need for plowing and salting

Changes in visitation patterns from summer to spring and fall

Changes in visitor usage of transportation assets

Changes in water levels and stream flow timing in waterways used for 

transportation

Precipitation

Changes vary by region, and the direction of change is uncertain.

Frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events is 

projected to increase.

Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are 

projected to increase.

Droughts in the southwestern United States are projected to 

become more intense.

More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the 

northern United States and less in the southern United States.

Increased damage to infrastructure due to flooding

Increases in closures due to flooding

Increased maintenance and rehabilitation needs

Bridges, culverts and soil systems more frequently washed out, eroded or 

damaged from scour

Potential that bridges, culverts and drainage will be unable to 

accommodate higher peak stream flows and that wildlife migration paths 

through them will narrow or disappear

Sea Level

Sea level is projected to rise 1 to 4 feet by 2100.

More severe storm surge during extreme events is expected.

Increased inundation of low-lying coastal areas

Increased damage to coastal infrastructure during storm events

Temporary or permanent closure of critical transportation assets, possibly 

limiting accessibility to coastal areas
National Park Service 35

IDENTIFYING VULNERABLE ASSETS 

Analyzing and identifying assets vulnerable to climate 

change will be a significant challenge for the National 

Park Service in the coming years. The FHWA and others 

have developed frameworks and tools for identifying 

transportation infrastructure at increased risk of damage 

or loss as a result of the impacts of climate change, and the 

National Park Service has participated in several pilot efforts 

to begin assessing asset vulnerability. However, the field of 

transportation climate change adaptation is evolving at a 

rapid pace, as are approaches to infrastructure vulnerability 

analysis. There is not yet an industry consensus on best 

practices, and it is likely that the unique conditions and 

values of the National Park Service may require somewhat 

modified or unique approaches to vulnerability analysis. 

Even after vulnerable infrastructure is identified, standard 

methods do not yet exist for integrating consideration of 

these risks into asset management and design practices. 

Nevertheless, pilot efforts to better understand and 

respond to climate threats are underway nationally and in 

selected park units and regions. Many state and regional 

transportation agencies are moving forward as well. The 

National Park Service has an opportunity to learn from these 

pilot efforts and to collaborate with partners attempting to 

deal with the challenge of climate change. Without effective 

consideration of climate change hazards, transportation 

assets may be more frequently damaged or destroyed.

PREPARING FOR AND RESPONDING TO CLIMATE CHANGE 

The National Park Service takes climate change seriously 

and is working both to reduce transportation emissions 

(Resource Protection chapter) and to prepare for and 

respond to a changing world. The service is helping to 

address this challenge with several pilot efforts at the NPS 

park unit or regional levels (Table 3-3) and with offices and 

programs dedicated to climate change science, mitigation, 

adaptation and education.

Gateway National Recreation Area

Without effective consideration 

of climate change hazards, 

transportation assets may be more 

frequently damaged or destroyed.
36 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Office/Region/Park Unit Description

Alaska Region

Started an analysis of vulnerability to climate change in 2014, focusing on coastal erosion and permafrost thaw. 

The project is an outgrowth of the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, which identified adaptation to climate change as 

a key objective for the region.

Assateague Island National 

Seashore

Incorporating climate change and sea-level rise considerations into an update of the park unit’s general 

management plan.

Cape Cod National Seashore

Participated in an interagency transportation, land use and climate change scenario planning pilot project. 

Completed in 2012, the project informed the park unit’s climate action plan and provided information for use in 

land use and transportation planning partner agencies on Cape Cod.

Intermountain Region and 

Climate Change Response 

Program

Participating in a Central New Mexico interagency transportation, land use and climate change initiative. 

Launched in July 2013, the initiative seeks to develop regional climate futures that can inform transportation 

and land use planning by the NPS park units, other federal land management agencies and regional/local 

agencies in central New Mexico. 

Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science 

Office

Partnered with Western Carolina University to analyze the vulnerability of assets to a 1-meter rise in average 

sea level. The project examined 40 selected coastal park units. 

Partnered with the University of Colorado to provide sea level and storm surge projections for 105 coastal park 

units.

Northeast Region

Conducting an analysis of the vulnerability of transportation assets, focused on flooding. Started in 2013, 

the project is an outgrowth of the National Park Service Northeast Region LRTP, which identified adaptation 

to climate change as a key objective. In addition to the vulnerability analysis, the study will also develop 

recommendations for how to systematically address current and future flood vulnerabilities in the region’s 

transportation planning and programming processes.

Southeast Region, FHWA, 

National Park Service, and US 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Collaborated on the development of a tool for use in assessing the vulnerability of transportation assets in the 

Southeast Region. The tool was piloted by two park and two refuge units. The spreadsheet-based tool will help 

park unit and regional managers make more informed decisions about where and how to spend transportation 

funds, either to enhance the resiliency of vulnerable assets or to adapt their design to be resilient in the face of 

more extreme events.

Sustainable Operations and 

Climate Change Branch

Developed and applied a high-level risk screening tool and approach to assess risks posed by sea-level rise to 

assets within coastal parks. The tool was piloted at Pu’uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park in Hawaii 

and Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland and Virginia.

Table 3-3. Selected NPS Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Efforts

Sources: Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan (BLM et al. 2011); Assateague Island National Seashore General Management Plan 

Update (NPS 2013b); Cape Cod Climate Change Scenario Planning Project (USDOT Volpe Center 2012a); Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario 

Planning Project (USDOT Volpe Center 2014)
National Park Service 37

National Park Service

Climate Change Response Strategy

September 2010

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Climate Change Response Program

Sc

ei n

c

e

Adaptation Mitigation

Commu

nicat oi n

The NPS Sustainable Operations and Climate Change 

(SOCC) branch of the Park Facility Management Division 

is focused on ensuring that all NPS assets (transportation 

or otherwise) are sustainable in the face of climate change 

and on mitigating the impacts of NPS transportation on the 

climate. The SOCC branch is currently working to develop 

improved data and tools to help park managers identify 

climate-related risks and to make educated adaptation 

decisions. One notable effort is the branch’s work to develop 

and apply a high-level risk screening tool and approach to 

assess risk posed by sea-level rise to assets within coastal 

parks. The tool was piloted at Puʻuhonua O Hōnaunau 

National Historical Park in Hawaii and Assateague Island 

National Seashore in Maryland and Virginia. The SOCC 

also led the development of the NPS Green Parks Plan (NPS 

2012b), a key policy document that establishes priorities for 

climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) is a 

cross-disciplinary program that provides guidance, training, 

technical expertise, project funding and educational 

products that support actions to preserve the natural and 

cultural resources and values of the National Park Service. 

As part of its overall response to the threats of climate 

change, the CCRP developed the NPS Climate Change 

Response Strategy (NPS 2010) and Climate Change Action 

Plan 2012–2014 (NPS 2012c), which outline a long-term 

strategy and short-term actions for combating climate 

change servicewide. The program supports park units 

in many aspects of planning for climate change that are 

relevant to transportation, including understanding the 

range of potential future climate projections, assessing the 

vulnerability of assets to climate change and identifying 

potential adaptation solutions. The program also provides 

detailed guidance to park units in mitigating their impacts 

on the climate through the Climate Friendly Parks Program 

(Resource Protection chapter) and helps units keep abreast 

of evolving best management practices and new materials 

that are better adapted to climate change effects.

The National Park Service takes climate 

change seriously. As part of its overall 

response to the threats of climate change, 

it has developed the NPS Climate Change 

Response Strategy and Climate Action 

Plan 2012–2014, which outline a longterm strategy and short-term actions for 

combating climate change servicewide.

NPS Climate Change Response Strategy
38 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National LRTP established the first multimodal, 

servicewide inventory of all transportation assets. To enable 

efficient and comprehensive asset management analysis, 

planning and investment, the National Park Service will 

work to integrate the inventory into relevant systems of 

record, providing a foundation for tracking and managing 

asset condition into the future.

The National Park Service continues to face significant 

challenges in effectively managing its extensive, diverse 

transportation assets in the face of funding constraints. 

While a majority of transportation assets are currently in 

good condition, the accumulated DM backlog of $5.63 

billion for the Paved Road and Bridge Network and $1.49 

billion for Other Transportation Assets illustrates the gap that 

exists between necessary and available resources. Despite 

recent successes in raising the average condition of assets 

in the NPS transportation inventory as a result of ARRA, 

average condition is likely to plateau short of traditional 

condition goals and then decline steadily if funding remains 

at historical levels. Faced with these shortfalls, the National 

Park Service will direct its available resources to its most 

operationally critical assets, as described in the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy.

The National Park Service will continue work to integrate 

TCFO principles into the transportation project selection 

and programming processes for all relevant fund categories. 

The National Transportation Investment Strategy will 

help NPS regions and park units target transportation 

investments to highest priority assets and prioritize the 

O&M activities needed to sustain those investments over 

the long term.

Meeting Asset Management Objectives

Objective: Maintain Critical Assets and Services in Good Operating 

Condition Through Targeted Investment

Recommended Strategies

• Define and capture the national 

transportation asset inventory 

in NPS systems of record and 

ensure that all transportation 

asset categories are included

• Implement the National 

Transportation Investment 

Strategy in project prioritization 

and programming decisions for 

all fund categories to ensure that 

the highest priority transportation 

assets are brought up to and 

remain in good condition
National Park Service 39

The challenge of climate change requires an adaptive 

approach to transportation asset management. As with 

other transportation agencies, NPS asset management 

practices are currently grounded in the traditional 

approach, which assumes that future years will be the 

same as previous ones. Climate change adaptation requires 

the National Park Service to learn from the past, but be 

looking forward, anticipating plausible and sometimes 

unprecedented conditions. This approach may include 

revisiting park unit management goals and desired 

conditions because these frequently describe expectations 

based on historical conditions.

To adapt to climate change, the National Park Service will 

need to identify transportation assets that are vulnerable 

to a changing climate. Furthermore, asset management 

and planning processes must account for projected future 

conditions to remain efficient and to mitigate increasing 

exposure to climate change impacts.

Efforts to define guidance and tools to better equip 

transportation asset managers to address and prepare for the 

effects of climate change are already underway. Continued 

experimentation, research and partnerships will help the 

National Park Service better understand what does and does 

not work for specific asset categories, as well as regional 

variations in past and projected future climate. Learning 

and working with state and regional partners will be an 

important source of information in these efforts. Finally, 

it will be important to find effective ways to alter standard 

management practices to institutionalize a proactive 

approach to climate change adaptation that incorporates 

best practices and innovations.

Objective: Adapt Transportation Systems to Climate Change Impacts

Recommended Strategies

• Expand and refine efforts to 

identify infrastructure most 

at risk from the impacts of 

climate change, while working 

with partners to prevent 

duplication, share lessons 

learned and minimize costs

• Integrate climate change into 

transportation asset management, 

planning and investment processes

• Use industry best practices in 

sustainable transportation 

construction and O&M to adapt 

transportation assets to the 

effects of climate change
40 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The intent of the National Transportation Investment 

Strategy is to allocate funds to the most important assets, 

which will best position the National Park Service to meet 

its mission. Tracking the average servicewide condition of 

highest priority transportation assets over time measures 

the overall effectiveness of NPS transportation asset 

management in implementing the strategy. The National 

Park Service has identified condition targets for all its 

highest priority transportation assets. 

Definitions of Priority

The National LRTP defines “highest priority transportation 

assets” as follows:

• Paved Roads: FC 1, 7 and select FC 2

• Bridges: All road bridges

• Other Asset Categories: OB 1.

Baseline

The baseline for this performance measure, as noted in 

Figure 3-8, is as follows:

• PCR of 83 for highest priority paved roads and parking 

lots

• BHI of 92% for highest priority bridges

• FCI of 0.12 for all other highest priority transportation 

assets.

Targets

The National Park Service aims to achieve the following 

condition levels over a five-year period:

• PCR of 80 for highest priority paved roads

• BHI of 90% for bridges, all of which are highest priority 

assets

• FCI of 0.11 for all other highest priority transportation 

assets.

Measuring Performance

Performance Measure: Condition of Highest Priority 

Transportation Assets

Figure 3-8. Condition of Highest Priority 

Transportation Assets Performance Measure

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

0

0%

1.00

100

100%

0.00

Current 83

Current 92%

Current 0.12

Target 80

Target 90%

Target 0.11

Serious

Poor

Poor

Poor

PCR

BHI

FCI

Paved Roads

Bridges

All Other
National Park Service 41

Understanding which assets are vulnerable to the projected 

effects of climate change is essential to effective long-term 

asset management. Several efforts, led by NPS regions, the 

CCRP, the SOCC branch and partners are moving ahead 

to address climate change adaptation. In some cases, pilot 

projects have identified transportation assets that may be 

vulnerable either now or as climate change progresses. The 

National Park Service will continue and accelerate these 

efforts to ensure that park unit and regional managers have 

adequate information to invest transportation funds in ways 

that account for climate change.

Baseline

17 park units have completed transportation infrastructure 

vulnerability assessments.

Target

The National Park Service aims to complete transportation 

infrastructure vulnerability assessments for at least five 

park units per year over the next five years (Figure 3-9).

Performance Measure: Number of Park Units that Have Completed a 

Transportation Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment

Figure 3-9. Transportation Infrastructure 

Vulnerability Assessments Performance Measure 

42

17
42 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Colonial National Historical Park
National Park Service 43

Transportation Finance

Goal

Allocate available 

transportation 

funding wisely

Identify and prioritize investments based on the NPS mission, 

anticipated life-cycle costs and consideration of likely 

available future funding

Maintain flexible use of transportation funding sources while 

improving identification of investments and needs

Objectives

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
44 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service invests in, operates and maintains a transportation system that 

provides safe travel options for visitors and protects America’s spectacular natural and 

cultural resources. Responsibility for transportation investment decision making rests with 

many individuals who oversee various funding programs, geographic areas and organizational 

levels of the National Park Service. Priorities and input from every unit guide the investment 

decision-making process, and the DOI and the USDOT are stakeholders as well. The FHWA 

Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) is the largest and most well-known program 

that funds NPS transportation. However, several additional funding sources play critical 

roles as well. This chapter presents a holistic summary of transportation investments from all 

funding programs. This analysis forms the basis of the National Transportation Investment 

Strategy on page 11. 

Between FY 2006 and FY 2013, the National Park Service invested a total of $3.7 billion in 

transportation assets and services, an average of $461 million each year.10 With this funding, 

the National Park Service improved more than 2,500 centerline miles of paved roads, 

rehabilitated 232 bridges, constructed or improved 29 nonmotorized trails, completed 104 

transit planning studies and improvement projects, completed 10 water-based transportation 

infrastructure projects and continually updated road and bridge inventory condition data 

(NPS 2013a). 

Introduction

10 Consists of gross obligations for the FLTP and NPS non-fee programs, collected revenue for NPS fee programs and awards from 

discretionary programs. 

Blue Ridge Parkway
National Park Service 45

Yet, the financial health of the NPS transportation system is in decline. Despite a demonstrated 

capacity to obligate funding and improve the network, funding for the most significant NPS 

transportation programs has not kept pace with increasing needs. Funding levels for several 

important programs have decreased or been eliminated entirely in recent years.11 Considering 

these changes, the National Park Service forecasts average annual financial resources of $394 

million for its transportation investments for FY 2015 through FY 2020. 

The National Park Service estimates that an average of $1.5 billion per year is needed to address 

all transportation needs servicewide over a period of 6 to 10 years (adjusted for inflation). 

This estimate includes all activities in the transportation asset lifecycle, from planning through 

construction, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation, and will be adjusted during LRTP 

updates as actual funding levels are applied. Given forecasted resources of $394 million per 

year, the National Park Service forecasts an average funding gap of $1.1 billion per year over 

the life of this plan, thus resources will not be available to resolve the full deferred maintenance 

backlog on transportation-related assets. Furthermore, because $676 million of the total estimated 

annual needs are for the highest priority assets and services alone, if every dollar were spent on 

highest priorities there would still be a $282 million gap in meeting highest priority needs alone.

These fiscal realities are not unique to the National Park Service. Like nearly all state and local 

governments throughout the country, the National Park Service is improving its capabilities 

to strategically manage available funding and to make the most of every dollar. The National 

Transportation Investment Strategy aims to align transportation decision making across all 

regions and park units with the CIS, which seeks to focus investment on the highest priority assets 

and align investment decisions across funding programs and stages in the asset life cycle. The 

National Park Service is also developing management systems and reporting tools to facilitate 

data-driven decision making. As an outcome of this plan, the National Park Service will seek 

additional funding sources for transportation funding and explore options for reducing the 

inventory of lower priority transportation assets.

11 The recently passed FAST Act and FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act reverse this trend and increase NPS transportation 

funding. The forecast presented here does not take into account the funding increases from those acts. While these increases will 

be beneficial, they are not expected to substantially change the overall financial baseline; NPS transportation investment needs 

will still greatly exceed available funding.
46 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

This section presents transportation investments, needs 

and funding gaps from four perspectives: by funding 

source, by asset category, by asset priority and by asset 

life-cycle stage. The discussion that follows incorporates 

findings across all major funding sources for transportation 

investments, drawing data from a variety of management 

systems. All historical funding numbers are based on 

investments between FY 2006 and FY 2013. Historical 

and forecasted funding amounts are all represented in 

2014 dollars. 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Between FY 2006 and FY 2013, the 

National Park Service invested an 

average of $461 million per year in its 

multimodal transportation network.

Overview
National Park Service 47

NPS Transportation Success with ARRA 

The National Park Service has demonstrated an ability to quickly and efficiently put transportation funding to 

use to make transportation system improvements. In 2009 and 2010, it obligated $745 million of ARRA funds 

for 550 transportation projects. ARRA-funded projects were completed in 166 park units, across 46 states and 

seven NPS regions and enabled the National Park Service to repair or rehabilitate more than 1,100 miles of roads. 

Some examples of major investments accomplished with ARRA funds include the following:

Grand Canyon National Park 

Using ARRA funds, Grand Canyon National Park was able to dramatically 

improve pavement condition on approximately 130 miles of its roads, 

purchase 6 alternative fuel transit buses, improve the safety and 

functional operations of the Historic Grand Canyon Village Depot and 

rehabilitate or reconstruct 13 miles of nonmotorized trails. The park was 

awarded approximately $18 million in ARRA funds, of which slightly 

more than $12 million was spent on multimodal transportation projects. 

In addition to improving asset conditions, safety, operations and visitor 

experience, these projects stimulated regional economies and provided 

construction jobs amidst a national recession.

Joshua Tree National Park

Joshua Tree National Park received more than $5.3 million in ARRA funds, 

part of which went to address the park’s deferred maintenance needs 

for its roads, parking lots and trails. Approximately 58 miles of the park’s 

91 miles of paved roads received preservation treatments, such as chip 

seals and application of traffic markers. Additionally, 35 parking areas 

were resurfaced. These treatments prolonged the life of those roads and 

parking areas. In addition to pavement treatments, about half of the 

1.5-mile 49 Palms Oasis Trail was renovated to repair sections that were 

previously damaged. Other trails within the park also had maintenance 

work performed to clear brush and install erosion-control features.

Point Reyes National Seashore 

ARRA funds were awarded to Point Reyes National Seashore for several 

transportation projects around the park unit, such as the challenging 

rerouting of the Muddy Hollow Trail. The project consisted of a 3,000-

foot, side-hill trail reroute that completed the lower portion of the 

Muddy Hollow Trail. The rerouted trail section included several large 

new constructions: (1) 2,200 feet of new trail with rock base, adding 

rock to 150 feet of the existing base; (2) a 20-foot long by 6-foot wide 

wooden bridge with handrails; (3) 400 feet of new retaining wall on a 

steep side-hill to support new trail tread above wetland habitat; and (4) 

60-foot long by 6-foot wide raised boardwalk reroute over steep slopes 

and sensitive wetland and riparian habitat. This project was just one of 

many toward which Point Reyes dedicated its $3.2 million ARRA funds.

Grand Canyon National Park

Joshua Tree National Park

Point Reyes National Seashore
48 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Investments by Fund Source 

The National Park Service receives transportation funding 

from four main sources, which together averaged $461 

million in FY 2006–FY 2013 (Figure 4-1). Over this same 

period, the National Park Service invested 70 percent 

of transportation funding in the Paved Road and Bridge 

Network, with the remaining 30 percent invested in all 

Other Transportation Assets.

The FHWA has historically provided the majority of annual 

funding ($266 million or 58 percent) for transportation 

investments via programs authorized under Title 23 of 

the USC.

The National Park Service and the DOI, via Titles 16 and 54 

of the USC, has provided the next largest share of annual 

funding for transportation: $177 million, or 38 percent. 

These funding sources can be considered in two categories: 

“non-fee” programs, which are funded by congressional 

appropriations, and “fee” programs, which are funded by fees 

charged to visitors and concessioners at certain NPS units.

Programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration 

and funding from other public and private sources made up 

the remaining $18 million, or 4 percent of historical annual 

average transportation funding.

The National Park Service estimates 

that an average of $1.5 billion 

per year is needed to address all 

transportation needs servicewide; 

large-scale projects, such as the 

Arlington Memorial Bridge, represent 

$200 million of that annual need.

Arlington Memorial Bridge
National Park Service 49

Ninety-seven percent of NPS transportation funding 

has historically come from 19 funding programs, shown 

in Table 4-1. Notably, the FLTP historically provided 49 

percent of all transportation funding. Title 54 Operational 

Park Base funds provided the second largest share of 

transportation funding at 13 percent, and the Recreation 

Fee and Cyclic Maintenance programs provided 7 and 

6 percent, respectively. The remaining 25 percent was 

provided by a mix of funding sources, none of which 

contributed more than 4 percent.

Figure 4-1. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual NPS Transportation Investments, by Fund Source ($ in Millions)

Although historically the National Park Service achieved 

positive outcomes with its transportation investments, 

several issues related to the complex mix of programs 

created uncertainty for asset managers seeking to plan 

long-term improvements. Programs were controlled by 

different people at different levels of the National Park 

Service. Most of the programs not controlled by the park 

units were discretionary, competitive programs. Most of the 

Title 54 programs were not dedicated to transportation, and 

almost all were competitively programmed against projects 

in other mission-critical areas, such as visitor services or 

resource protection.

Funding Source

Asset Category Investments

NPS Transportation Funding

$16

$128

Title 54 

Non-Fee

Other 

$18

Title 54 

Fee 

$49

Title 23

$266

$461

Other 

Transportation 

Assets 

$138

$77

$228

$2

$16

$38

$51

$33

Paved Road and 

Bridge Network

$323
50 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 4-1. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Transportation Investments, by Fund Source and Program ($ in Millions)

Sources: NPS Administrative Finance System

Fund Source and Program

Transportation 

Primary Intent 

of Funds?

Project 

Programming 

Responsibility

Paved Road and 

Bridge Network12

Other 

Transportation 

Assets

Grand Total % of Grand 

Total

Title 54 Non-Fee - - $76 $51 $128 28%

Operational Base - Park Unit $43 $18 $61 13%

Cyclic Maintenance - Region/National $19 $10 $29 6%

Repair/Rehab - Region/National $5 $7 $12 3%

Line Item Construction - Region/National $3 $7 $10 2%

Other NPS Programs - Region/National $2 $6 $8 2%

Emergency Storm & Flood Damage - Region/National $4 $3 $7 2%

Title 54 Fee - - $16 $33 $49 11%

Recreation Fee13 - Park Unit $15 $16 $32 7%

Transportation Fee Yes Park Unit <$.5 $15 $15 3%

Concessions Franchise Fees - Park Unit <$.5 $2 $3 1%

Title 23 - - $228 $38 $266 58%

FLTP Yes Region/National $203 $21 $224 49%

Earmarks Yes Not Applicable $13 $5 $18 4%

Public Lands Highway - 

Discretionary Yes Region/National $5 $8 $12 3%

Other FHWA Programs Yes Region/National $5 $3 $8 2%

Emer. Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads Yes Region/National $2 <$.5 $2 <.5%

Scenic Byways Yes Region/National $1 $1 $1 <.5%

Transportation Alternatives Yes Park Unit <$.5 $1 $1 <.5%

Other/External - - $2 $16 $18 4%

TRIP Yes Park Unit <$.5 $8 $8 2%

Southern Nevada Public Land 

Management Act - Not Applicable <$.5 $4 $4 1%

Reimbursable Agreements - Park Unit $1 $2 $3 1%

Donations - Park Unit <$.5 $2 $2 <.5%

Total - - $323 $138 $461 100%

12 Using the definition provided on page 25 with the inclusion of unpaved parking lots.

13 Recreation Fee authorization falls under Title 16 as it is part of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

Note: All numbers presented are rounded to the nearest million. Some numbers may not add up as presented due to rounding.
National Park Service 51

Between FY 2015 and 2020, the National Park Service 

forecasts annual transportation financial resources of $394 

million per year, a decline of $66 million per year, or 14 

percent (Figure 4-2). This forecast is based on past funding 

availability, current and proposed transportation legislation 

and input from NPS managers and the NPS Budget Office.14

The Title 23 forecast presented in this plan is based on the 

assumption that FLTP would remain flat at MAP-21 funding 

levels and discretionary programs eliminated under MAP21 would remain eliminated. The Title 54 Non-Fee forecast 

reduced historical funding levels by 3 percent based on 

projections by the NPS Budget Office. As visitation, policies 

and authorizations are expected to remain constant, Title 

54 Fee funds are forecasted to remain flat. Other/External 

funding sources are forecasted to decrease by $8 million 

from the elimination of the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks 

Program (TRIP).

14 This forecast does not include funding increases provided by the FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which increased 

Title 54 NPS funding for FY 2016, or the FAST Act, which increased Title 23 FLTP funding for the National Park Service by 

approximately 18 percent over the life of the five-year authorization. The National Park Service will revise the financial baseline 

analysis presented here in 2017.

Figure 4-2. Comparison of FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual 

Investments and Annual Forecasted FY 2015–FY 2020 Resources 

($ in Millions) 

Title 54 

Non-Fee

Title 54 

Fee

Title 23

Other/

External

Historical Investment

Grand Total

$9

$49

$124

$266 $212

$128

$49

$18

$461 $394

Forecasted Investment

The National Park Service estimates its total annual 

transportation funding needed to address all transportation 

needs servicewide over a period of 6 to 10 years (adjusted 

for inflation) to be $1.5 billion. This estimate is based on 

asset condition models and management system records for 

paved roads and bridges, as well as needs documented in 

NPS project and management systems of record. This needs 

estimate includes all activities in the transportation asset 

lifecycle, from planning through construction, operation, 

maintenance and rehabilitation, and will be adjusted during 

LRTP updates as actual funding levels are applied. Based 

on forecasted funding of $394 million, the resulting annual 

funding gap is $1.1 billion (Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-3. Annual Estimated NPS Transportation Funding Gap 

Annual Need 

$1.5 billion Funding Forecast

$394 million

Annual

Funding Gap

$1.1 billion
52 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service operates and maintains a 

complex portfolio of transportation assets and services 

(Asset Management chapter). As shown in the figures 

below, the National Park Service historically invested 

the majority of transportation funding in paved roads, at 

$273 million per year (59 percent). Trails received the next 

largest investment at $52 million per year (11 percent), and 

transit systems received $34 million per year (7 percent). 

The remaining 23 percent of historical investments were 

in assets such as bridges, parking lots, marinas and other 

categories (Figure 4-4).

Between FY 2006 and FY 2013, the National Park Service 

invested an annual average of $323 million (70 percent) in 

the Paved Road and Bridge Network and an annual average 

of $138 million (30 percent) in all Other Transportation 

Assets (Figure 4-5). Title 54 programs contributed 29 

percent of the funding for road and bridge network 

investments and 61 percent of the funding for investments 

in Other Transportation Assets.

Investments by Asset Category

Figure 4-5. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Investment by Funding Authorization ($ in Millions) 

Source: NPS Administrative Financial System

Title 54 Non-Fee Title 54 Fee Title 23 Other

Paved Road and Bridge Network

Total: $323

$0

$0

Other Transportation Assets

Total: $138

$77

$51 $33 $38

$16

$228

$16 $2

If the National Park Service continued this 70/30 split in 

the future, there would be an estimated annual funding 

gap of $766 million per year for the Paved Road and 

Bridge Network and $346 million per year for Other 

Transportation Assets (Figure 4-6).

Figure 4-4. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Investment by Asset Category ($ in Millions) 

Source: NPS Administrative Financial System

Roads (Paved) Road Bridges/Tunnels

Parking

Marina

Transit

Roads (Unpaved)

Trails Other

Paved Road and Bridge Network

Total: $323

$100

$100

$200

$200

$300

$300

$400

$400

Other Transportation Assets

Total: $138
National Park Service 53

Figure 4-6. FY 2015–FY 2020 Average Annual Needs and Gaps by Asset Category Based on Historical Investment Patterns ($ in Millions)

Between FY 2006 and FY 2013, the National Park Service invested 70 percent 

of transportation funding in the Paved Road and Bridge Network, with 

the remaining 30 percent invested in Other Transportation Assets.

George Washington Memorial Parkway

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000

Asset Category 

Total 

Needs Met Needs

Unmet 

Needs

% of 

Needs 

Met

Paved Road and Bridge 

Network Needs $1,050 $284 $766 27%

Other Transportation 

Assets Needs $457 $111 $346 24%
54 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Investments by Asset Priority

The National Park Service estimates that an annual average 

of 76 percent ($350 million) of transportation funding 

was historically invested in highest priority assets.15 As 

shown in Figure 4-7, high-priority and other priority assets 

received 11 percent ($51 million) and 13 percent ($60 

million) of total transportation investments, respectively. 

The National Park Service invested the majority of its 

transportation funding in highest priority assets, but these 

estimates show that there remains room to shift additional 

resources to highest priority and high-priority assets. 

Needs for highest priority transportation assets alone 

account for $676 million per year, 45 percent of the total 

$1.5 billion annual need (Figure 4-8). Even if all $394 

million of forecasted resources were applied to highest 

priority assets, the National Park Service would still be 

more than $282 million per year short of meeting all 

forecasted needs for its highest priority assets.

The National Park Service defines asset priority categories 

differently for different kinds of transportation assets. 

Table 4-2 defines the asset priority definitions for highest 

priority, high priority and other priorities.

15 Priority was not available for historical investments, but a study of historical spending on roads at the 16 largest parks was used 

to estimate investments by priority (NPS 2013c).

Table 4-2. LRTP Asset Priority Definitions, by Asset Category

Asset Categories Highest Priority High Priority Other Priorities

Paved Roads and Parking FC 1, 7 and select FC 2 - Remaining FC 2 and all FC 3, 4, 5, 

6 and 8

Bridges All - -

Transit All - -

All Other OB 1 OB 2 OB 3, 4, 5
National Park Service 55

Figure 4-7. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Estimated 

Transportation Investment by Asset Priority ($ in Millions) 

Source: NPS Administrative Financial System

Other Priority

$60

High Priority

$51

Highest Priority

$350

Figure 4-8. FY 2015–FY 2020 Annual Needs and Gaps by Asset Priority Based on Historical Investment Patterns ($ in Millions) 

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

Asset Priority 

Total 

Needs Met Needs

Unmet 

Needs

% of 

Needs 

Met

Highest Priority Needs $676 $300 $376 44%

High Priority Needs $234 $43 $191 19%

Other Needs $595 $51 $544 9%
56 National Long Range Transportation Plan

NPS Transportation Life-Cycle

Work Types

Planning and Administration (PA)

Activities to identify challenges, needs 

and alternative solutions prior to 

implementing a solution

Capital Investment (CI)

Construction of new assets, as well 

as major reconstruction projects that 

incorporate new functions into existing 

assets

Facility Operations (FO)

Activities that ensure the day-to-day 

operation of transportation systems (e.g., 

plowing, transit operations, mowing)

Preventive Maintenance (PM)

Maintenance tasks performed on an 

annual or more frequent basis (e.g., 

cleaning culverts, inspections, vegetation 

control)

Recurring Maintenance (RM)

Less frequent maintenance tasks 

performed on a cycle of 1 to 10 years (e.g., 

chip seals, mill and overlays, restriping)

Component Renewal (CR) 

Infrastructure replacement projects that 

do not expand the asset portfolio or 

liabilities for O&M activities

Investments by Asset Life Cycle

Asset life-cycle stages (introduced in the Asset Management

chapter and reviewed in the sidebar) play an important role 

in transportation investment decision making. Between 

FY 2006 and FY 2013, the National Park Service primarily 

used Title 23 funds for CI, CR and RM projects, while most 

PM and FO activities were funded using its Title 54 funds 

(Figure 4-9). 

The use of different funding sources for various asset lifecycle stages can be partially explained by examining the 

programming responsibility of the funding sources (Figure 

4-10). For example, paved roads typically involve “3R” 

projects (resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation) that 

are captured in the following asset life-cycle stages: CI, CR 

and RM. These activities usually require special expertise 

and equipment and are funded through nationally and 

regionally administered fund programs (such as the FLTP 

and Cyclic Maintenance). Historically, PM and FO were 

almost entirely programmed at the park unit level using 

Title 54 funds. Because of the routine and small-scale 

nature of PM and FO work, park units determine how 

and when to make those investments.
National Park Service 57

Figure 4-9. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Investments, by Asset Life-Cycle Stage and Funding Source ($ in Millions) 

Source: National LRTP Financial Analysis

Figure 4-10. FY 2006–FY 2013 Average Annual Investments, by Asset Life-Cycle Stage and Programming Responsibility ($ in Millions) 

Source: National LRTP Financial Analysis

Planning and Administration

Unit Programmed

National/Regional Programmed

Congressional Earmarks

Programming Responsibility

Capital Investment

Facility Operations

Preventive Maintenance

Recurring Maintenance

Component Renewal

Unassociated

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200

Funding Sources

Title 54 Non-Fee

Title 54 Fee

Title 23

Other

Planning and Administration

Capital Investment

Facility Operations

Preventive Maintenance

Recurring Maintenance

Component Renewal

Unassociated

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200
58 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The CIS attempts to closely coordinate among funding 

programs and asset life-cycle stages to ensure that new, 

replaced or refurbished assets are properly maintained. As 

explained in detail in the Asset Management chapter, when 

a park unit assigns assets to OBs 1 and 2, it is a commitment 

by that park unit to fund a minimum prescribed share of 

recommended PM for those assets; it also sends a message 

to regional fund managers that CR and CI investments in 

these assets will be maintained by the park unit. Even with 

the best intentions to coordinate funding across life-cycle 

stages, units are challenged to strictly follow the CIS because 

they do not have the funding necessary to maintain all their 

highest priority transportation assets.

Forecasts show that, if future investments are made 

following past spending patterns, no single asset life-cycle 

stage can be funded adequately, as shown in Figure 4-11. 

The gaps for FO and PM deserve particular attention. 

As discussed above, because of funding constraints and 

competing priorities for park unit-level funding, the 

National Park Service has traditionally underinvested in FO 

and PM, resulting in an accelerated decline of assets in good 

condition and the eventual accrual of DM. If investment 

patterns continue as in the past, park units would require 

an additional $79 million ($53 million for FO, $26 million 

for PM) from Operational Park Base and/or fee programs to 

properly operate and perform annual routine maintenance 

on transportation assets. The National Park Service may 

choose alternative spending strategies in the future, subject 

to applicable laws, regulations, policies and funding program 

eligibility criteria.

The National Park Service Invests 

Less per Lane Mile on Road O&M 

than State DOTs Invest

The National Park Service invests less 

per lane mile on road O&M, both in 

actual dollars and as a percentage of 

requirements, than its state counterparts.

In the near future, park facility managers 

plan to spend $3,000 to $4,500 per lane 

mile, roughly 50 to 75 percent of the $6,000 

per lane mile that is required to maintain 

park paved roads in good condition (NPS 

2013d). Reasons for this underinvestment 

include limited budgets relative to needs 

and competition for limited funding with 

nontransportation needs. 

In comparison, the FHWA estimates that 

state DOTs invest between $5,000 and 

$10,000 per lane mile (excluding surface 

overlays, chip seal or deep base repairs 

that would normally be covered during 

major surface rehabilitation projects). 

And state DOT investments only meet 

an estimated 90 percent of actual needs 

(USDOT Volpe Center 2012b; FHWA 2010). 

Increased focus on the operations and PM 

of NPS roads should minimize condition 

decline and slow the accrual of DM.
National Park Service 59

Deferred Maintenance and Programmatic Needs

Transportation funding needs must also be considered from two additional perspectives: DM and 

programmatic needs. Existing DM for the Paved Road and Bridge Network is $5.63 billion. If all ongoing 

RM and CR needs, shown in Figure 4-11, were met on time, DM would not grow, and the National Park 

Service would address its existing DM backlog. 

Similarly, the National Park Service has identified a $760 million backlog of programmatic needs that 

address non condition issues, such as safety, code compliance and resource protection. Programmatic 

needs are the wide range of activities required by law and regulation to make the NPS transportation 

system safe, accessible and environmentally sound. If all needs were met, this programmatic backlog 

would not grow, and transportation programmatic needs would be addressed over time.

Under forecasted funding levels, however, DM and programmatic needs will grow. And because the 

National Park Service has little ability to reduce these backlogs in the aggregate, the best the service may 

hope to do is address DM and programmatic needs for highest priority assets first, resulting in greater 

DM backlog and unaddressed programmatic needs for assets not classified as highest priority.

Figure 4-11. FY 2015–FY 2020 Annual Needs and Gaps by Asset Life-Cycle Stage Based on Historical Investment Patterns ($ in Millions) 

Source: National LRTP Financial Analysis

$0 $200 $400 $600

Asset Life-Cycle Stage 

Total 

Needs Met Needs

Unmet 

Needs

% of 

Needs 

Met

Planning $27 $12 $15 45%

Capital Investment $305 $63 $242 21%

Facility Operations $109 $56 $53 51%

Preventive Maintenance $37 $11 $26 31%

Recurring Maintenance $429 $83 $346 19%

Component Renewal $565 $164 $401 29%

Administrative $34 $3 $32 8%
60 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Large-Scale Projects 

Of the $1.5 billion in annual need, $200 million per year represents large-scale project needs that are beyond 

the capacity of the funding sources that have historically been available for NPS transportation. These largescale projects address key mission and safety needs. Attempting to complete large-scale projects with the annual 

servicewide forecast of $394 million is a difficult task. 

Arlington Memorial Bridge Repair and Reconstruction 

Estimated Project Cost: $250 million 

The Arlington Memorial Bridge is an iconic bridge located in 

Washington, DC that is maintained and managed by the National Park 

Service. The Memorial Bridge was built in 1932 and is in severe need 

of repair and reconstruction. It is one of only five bridges crossing the 

Potomac River into the District of Columbia. The bridge carries more 

than 68,000 vehicles each day, along with thousands of pedestrians 

and bicyclists who use the bridge both for commuting and visiting 

other sites in the National Mall. In June 2015, two lanes of traffic were 

closed and a weight restriction of 10 tons was mandated because of 

accelerated deterioration.

Mount Rainier National Park Roadway Rehabilitation

Estimated Project Cost: $84.9 million

The Sunrise Area is the highest point that can be reached by vehicle 

in Mount Rainier National Park and is the second most visited site in 

the park unit. With deteriorating roadways and bridges, worsened 

by increasing intensity of storms, the east-side roadways leading to 

Sunrise are in severe need of rehabilitation. This four-phase project 

would take place over a six-year period to ensure that public vehicular 

access is maintained to this beautiful and popular site.

Natchez Trace Parkway Multiuse Trail Construction

Estimated Project Cost: $102 million

The Natchez Trace Parkway is a 444-mile route from Natchez, 

Mississippi to Nashville, Tennessee that follows the original pathways 

of the Natchez, Chickasaw, and Choctaw Indian tribes; French and 

Spanish explorers; and American settlers along the Mississippi River 

and Tennessee River Valley. In June 2003, a Multiuse Trail Feasibility 

Study recommended constructing 42.2 miles of trails along three 

sections of the historic parkway that would provide non motorized 

transportation options for visitors and neighboring residents.

Arlington Memorial Bridge © stevehdc 

Mount Rainier National Park © John Chao

Natchez Trace Parkway © Marc Muench
National Park Service 61

Meeting Transportation Finance Objectives

The National Park Service developed the CIS to focus NPS 

investments on its highest priority assets and services and 

to align capital investments with O&M investments. The 

National Transportation Investment Strategy incorporates 

CIS principles by focusing the majority of funding on 

highest priority assets and increasing the percentage of 

O&M needs met, which research shows should lead to 

lower overall life-cycle costs. 

For the National Transportation Investment Strategy to 

be effective, funding program managers will need to work 

together to build this approach into project identification, 

prioritization and programming practices. In support of the 

National Transportation Investment Strategy, the National 

Park Service needs more robust analyses of outcomes 

of PM spending to support increased funding for road 

maintenance activities, such as crack sealing and joint repair, 

brushing and culvert cleaning. These activities will allow 

the National Park Service to maintain its roads at higher 

standards and maximize their useful service lives.

The forecasted funding scenario is not a foregone 

conclusion. The National Park Service can close the gap 

between available funding and needs by seeking new 

sources of revenue. By actively expanding partnerships 

with other federal land management agencies and state 

and local governments, the National Park Service will 

improve outcomes of regional planning and may gain 

access to nontraditional funding sources. In addition, to 

reduce transportation costs, the National Park Service 

could systematically seek to decommission low-priority 

assets and services.

Objective: Identify and Prioritize Investments Based on the NPS 

Mission, Anticipated Life-Cycle Costs and Consideration of Likely 

Available Future Funding

Recommended Strategies

• Implement the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy 

for all funding programs

• Research the benefits 

and costs of PM

• Seek out new transportation 

planning partners and 

funding sources

• Decommission the lowest 

priority transportation assets
62 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Improving the coordination of transportation investments 

across funding programs presents an opportunity to reduce 

TCFO. The FLTP provides a dedicated fund source for almost 

50 percent of NPS transportation investments. The remaining 

50 percent comes from more than 60 funding programs, 

including multiple fee programs, discretionary programs 

the USDOT administers and NPS discretionary programs 

administered by offices at all organizational levels. The Paved 

Road and Bridge Network, which represents 73 percent of 

the value of the NPS asset portfolio and 50 percent of DM, 

competes with all other types of needs from NPS funding 

programs. Consistent, reliable and targeted coordination 

of funding would ensure that transportation assets meet or 

exceed their design service lives while minimizing TCFO.

Coordination of transportation investments across 

funding programs will require evaluating assumptions, 

cultural attitudes, policies and funding program eligibility 

criteria. Good data will be needed to explore these ideas 

and facilitate future transportation finance analyses. 

Currently, transportation assets are not identified as 

such in the Financial and Business Management System 

(FBMS). Additionally, not all transportation assets are in 

the FBMS, the FBMS does not yet associate obligations 

with specific assets and there is no system of record for 

planned maintenance investments. Addressing data issues 

and improving information systems will enable faster, more 

timely reporting and more meaningful financial analyses.

Objective: Maintain Flexible Use of Transportation Funding Sources 

While Improving Identification of Investments and Needs

Recommended Strategies

• Improve the coordination of 

transportation investments 

across multiple funding programs 

in keeping with the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy 

and CIS emphasis on highest 

priority assets and services

• Identify transportation assets in 

the FBMS and incorporate NPS 

transit systems into the FBMS

• Associate obligations with 

specific transportation assets 

in the NPS financial system

• Produce a biennial report of 

planned and actual preventive 

maintenance spending
National Park Service 63

Measuring Performance

This performance measure extends the NPS focus beyond 

DM to all investments in highest priority transportation 

assets and services.

Baseline 

The baseline for this performance measure is 76 percent.

Target 

The target for this performance measure is 95 percent 

within five years (Figure 4-12).

This performance measure is directly related to the CIS 

requirement that park units complete at least 55 percent 

of planned PM activities on OB 1 assets.

Baseline 

Not available.

Target 

The targets for this performance measure are as shown in 

Figure 4-13 and are as follows:

• 20 percent of park units in year 1

• 40 percent in year 2

• 60 percent in year 3

• 80 percent in year 4

• 100 percent in year 5 and subsequent years.

Performance Measure: Percentage of Transportation Funds 

Invested in Highest Priority Transportation Assets

Performance Measure: Percentage of Park Units that 

Meet Preventive Maintenance Targets for Highest Priority 

Transportation Assets

Figure 4-12. Percentage of Transportation Funds Invested in 

Highest Priority Assets

Figure 4-13. Percentage of Park Units Meeting PM Targets

20%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

40% 60% 80% 100% Target 

100%

95%

76%
64 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Blue Ridge Parkway
National Park Service 65

Incorporate natural and cultural resource 

considerations into all aspects of transportation 

decision making and operations to avoid, minimize or 

mitigate negative impacts on these resources

Minimize and mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions 

of the NPS transportation system

Goal

Protect and preserve 

natural and cultural 

resources

Objectives

Resource

Protection

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
66 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service is a global leader in environmental stewardship and historic 

preservation. In this role, it protects unparalleled natural and cultural resources of great 

importance to the nation and, increasingly, the international community. Within many 

park units, park roads and parkways were designed to “lie lightly on the land,” preserving 

scenic, aesthetic, historical and environmental resources. In some cases, a park unit’s 

transportation system itself is nationally recognized for remarkable engineering feats, 

technological advances and landscape architecture designs that impinge as little as possible 

on their spectacular settings. 

While the National Park Service is a leader in using science, technology and design to 

provide visitor access to resources with a minimal footprint, much of its transportation 

infrastructure was built prior to the modern environmental conservation and historic 

preservation movement. Consequently, resource impacts may not have been fully considered 

or analyzed when the infrastructure was originally built. In some cases, park roads were 

built directly on top of or adjacent to significant resources to provide visitor access. 

However, the maintenance and operation of these legacy transportation systems can 

perpetuate impacts on mission-critical natural and cultural resources. As an additional 

challenge, a large part of the NPS transportation portfolio is itself historic and thus 

requires management considerations beyond that of typical transportation infrastructure.

NPS transportation policy is grounded in commitments to environmental excellence 

and historic preservation. The National Park Service uses context-sensitive design and 

best management practices to address impacts on natural and cultural resources and to 

reduce contributions to climate change from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that its 

transportation systems and users cause. 

This chapter identifies some of the primary areas where transportation infrastructure 

impacts the quality and integrity of the natural and cultural resources the National Park 

Service is charged with protecting. The chapter also addresses the role that the NPS 

transportation system plays in the agency’s GHG emissions.

Introduction
National Park Service 67

Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

Natural resource data that the National Park Service and 

partners collect for resource management and activities, 

combined with expertise and scientific support, enables the 

National Park Service to fulfill its core resource protection 

mission and values. When integrated into internal and 

external planning and management processes, natural 

resource data and analysis allows for informed decision 

making. NPS program support for data includes the Natural 

Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate (NRSS), 

which provides scientific, technical and administrative 

support to national park units systemwide. Related to 

transportation, the NRSS can provide frameworks and 

tools to assess transportation impacts to natural resources 

at the project level and ecosystem scale. 

To understand the status and trends of natural resources 

within NPS park units, the Inventory and Monitoring 

Program collects, analyzes and synthesizes natural 

resource data and presents findings in useful formats, 

as well as provides guidance for data collection and 

integration. Managed by the NRSS, the Integrated Resource 

Management Application is a web-based system for 

searching for NPS natural and cultural resource data and 

information. In addition to internal efforts, the National 

Park Service works with the FHWA and other partners to 

collect data and information that can inform resource issues 

related to transportation planning and operations. While 

the National Park Service has extensive natural resource 

inventories, they are not fully integrated with facilities or 

law enforcement databases, making specific analysis on 

the resource impacts from transportation within the NPS 

system limited. Additionally, NPS park units exist in a matrix 

of other land uses and activities, so in many cases data on 

transportation-related resource impacts and improvements 

cannot be isolated from the confounding influences of the 

surrounding environment. 

The National Park Service manages more than 84 million acres of land and water that encompass an enormously diverse 

range of life, ecosystems and habitats. The effect transportation systems and users have on natural systems and processes 

depends largely on site-specific conditions, such as the location and design of a facility, traffic volumes and the degree of 

sensitivity of the surrounding environment. This plan identifies the types of resource impacts that are observed in many 

park units across all regions.

Natchez Trace Parkway © Mark Muench

Several key issues where transportation impacts natural 

resources can be identified as servicewide issues in 

spite of the challenges with quantifying transportationspecific impacts on NPS resources. These issues fall into 

the following resource areas: air quality and scenic views, 

acoustic environment and soundscape, night sky resources, 

habitat fragmentation and wildlife-vehicle collisions, 

non-native species and vegetation management, geologic 

resources, water resources and erosion. 

Natural Resource Stewardship
68 National Long Range Transportation Plan

AIR QUALITY AND SCENIC VIEWS

Air pollution, even in relatively low levels, affects ecological 

health, visibility, scenic views, visitor experience and human 

health. Motorized transportation use, on both paved and 

unpaved roads, and visitation are directly linked to air quality 

in parks. Highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles, marine 

engines, aircraft engines and other motorized vehicles 

all contribute to air pollution in gaseous and particulate 

form. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has established national ambient air quality standards for 

ground-level ozone and other air pollutants. Areas that fail 

to achieve these standards are classified as nonattainment 

areas. Once a nonattainment area achieves these air quality 

standards, it receives a “maintenance” classification and 

must maintain good air quality for 25 years.

As of 2012, 70 NPS park units were located in ozone 

nonattainment areas and 37 were in particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. These park units are generally 

located near or downwind from urban or industrial areas. 

When NPS park units fall within a nonattainment area, all 

proposed transportation and road construction projects 

must undergo an evaluation to assess whether the projectrelated activity would contribute to air quality violations 

or potentially delay attainment of air quality standards. 

While the National Park Service strives to improve the air 

quality of its park units, the regional nature of air quality 

creates additional challenges in doing so. Because ozone 

and particulate matter are regional pollutants, their origin 

and atmospheric movement are often beyond the control of 

park managers. Air pollution can also limit the visibility and 

negatively impact scenic views at park units. Degradations 

in visibility affect how far and how well visitors can see from 

scenic outlooks. Dust, which some park roads running 

through soils sensitive to wind erosion can generate, is 

one form of air pollution that, in particular, impairs scenic 

views. This dust impacts park air quality by introducing 

particulate matter. And, while transportation systems 

provide the access for visitors to enjoy scenic views, those 

systems also have the potential to impair scenic viewsheds 

if they are improperly located, designed or maintained.

ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT AND SOUNDSCAPES

Natural sounds are vital to the natural functioning of 

park unit ecosystems and the visitor experience. Natural 

acoustic conditions are important in park units for reasons 

ranging from intraspecies communication and predation 

and predator avoidance to the effective use of habitat. In 

particular, noise affects wildlife such as breeding birds and 

amphibians. Transportation, in addition to surrounding land 

uses, is a major contributor to noise in the environment, 

which in turn impacts the acoustic environment of park 

units. Congestion and pavement surfaces alone can greatly 

add to the noise volume that automobile traffic generates. 

The NPS Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division offers 

guidance on minimizing noise impacts from transportation, 

such as using quiet pavement technology, lower speed limits 

and soundscape outreach.

Noise from aircraft overflights also impacts NPS resources 

and the visitor experience. When aviation is considered in 

transportation planning and system upgrades, attention is 

given to the elevation, time of day and routing of flights. 

The National Park Service continues to work with other 

agencies to reduce the park unit impacts from overflights.
National Park Service 69

Arches National Park © Dave Beedon

NIGHT SKY RESOURCES

The quality of the nighttime environment is relevant to 

nearly every park unit in the National Park System, stemming 

from its importance in ecosystem functions, wilderness 

character and aesthetics. Since 2001, the National Park 

Service has systematically inventoried night sky quality 

in approximately 100 park units. That data shows that 

nearly every park unit measured exhibits some degree of 

light pollution. Transportation infrastructure and systems 

are major contributors to light pollution from their use 

of unmitigated artificial lighting. Vehicle headlights and 

artificially lit parking lots, roads and other transportation 

fixtures can impact the natural lightscape, reduce the ability 

to see celestial objects and negatively affect wildlife. Artificial 

lighting from transportation systems and users can often be 

seen for many miles.

Since 2001, the 

National Park Service 

has systematically 

inventoried night sky 

quality in approximately 

100 park units.
70 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service uses 

best management practices to 

help minimize transportation 

impacts on wildlife, including 

incorporating design features, 

such as culverts or bridges that 

allow for aquatic species passage.

HABITAT FRAGMENTATION AND WILDLIFE–VEHICLE 

COLLISIONS

Roadways and other transportation systems present a 

significant barrier to movement for many aquatic and 

terrestrial species. These movement barriers, related to 

both the presence of the road itself and associated vehicular 

noise, in turn have multiple adverse and compounding 

ecological impacts, including on threatened and endangered 

species. When habitat areas are bisected by a roadway, 

abrupt edge conditions are created. Such areas, in addition 

to wildlife–vehicle collisions, can encourage wildlife to 

exhibit road avoidance behaviors and can lead to a loss of 

diversity within a given population or species. 

Wildlife–vehicle collisions present a direct impact of 

transportation on park unit resources. Some species face 

serious reductions in population survival probability as a 

result of wildlife–vehicle collisions alone. Populations of 

threatened or endangered species, wide-ranging species and 

migratory species are especially vulnerable to road mortality. 

A review of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species identified 21 species for which direct road mortality 

is among the major threats to its survival in the United States 

(Huijser et al. 2008) (Table 5-1). These species and other 

sensitive species are currently found within 32 parks units 

(NPS 2005). Many other species, including additional 

threatened or endangered species and other sensitive 

species, are also at risk of fatality as a result of conflicts 

with vehicles, such as eagles (golden and bald) and owl. 

Everglades National Park
National Park Service 71

The National Park Service collects limited data on wildlife–

vehicle collisions occurring on roads within NPS boundaries. 

Data is largely acquired through a department-wide law 

enforcement records management system known as the 

Incident Management and Reporting System (IMARS). 

When accidents are reported, law enforcement officers 

record details on the Motor Vehicle Accident Report Form. 

On this form, a classification for the type of incident includes 

a coding for “collision with animal.” In some cases, the 

species involved is recorded in the accident detail section 

of the form. Many wildlife–vehicle collisions go unreported, 

especially those involving smaller wildlife species, because the 

collision does not involve property damage or human injury. 

Consequently, the impacts to small mammals and amphibians 

are generally unknown. In addition, animals may leave the 

roadway after a collision occurs and thus go uncounted. 

Although the National Park Service does not systematically 

collect road-related wildlife mortality data, a 2007 

servicewide survey of resource managers indicates that roadcaused mortality significantly affects wildlife populations 

(Ament et al. 2008). In addition, the most recent available 

NPS crash data indicate a higher rate of crashes involving 

wildlife as compared to all public roadways nationally. 

From 1990 to 2005, wildlife–vehicle collisions were the 

leading cause of single-vehicle crashes in the NPS system 

and accounted for 10 percent of total vehicle crashes, which 

was more than double the 4.6 percent national average 

(NPS 2009, Huijser et al. 2008). Wildlife–vehicle collisions 

were the most common crash type in the Intermountain, 

Northeast and Southeast regions (NPS 2009).

Despite expressed concerns of the 106 park unit resource 

managers who responded to the 2007 survey, only one-third 

employed some form of mitigation to reduce road impacts 

on wildlife in their park (Ament et al. 2008). This low rate of 

implementation reflects the reality that the efficacy of any 

implementation strategy is dependent on the context of the 

site and area. Another deterring factor is the availability of 

funding to establish and maintain the mitigation strategy. 

The most common mitigation techniques currently in use 

within NPS park units include the use of wildlife signs, speed 

reduction and public education. Other measures such as 

wildlife crossings and associated fencing have been installed 

along non-NPS roads traversing national parks with high 

traffic densities, such as Big Cypress National Preserve and 

Glacier National Park. To date, wildlife crossings have not 

been installed on NPS-managed roads. Although often the 

most costly solution initially, wildlife crossings may reduce 

long-term operational costs for the National Park Service 

(Huijser et al. 2009).

Table 5-1. Known Threatened and Endangered Species at Risk as a Result of Road Mortality in NPS Park Units

Species Class Species Common Names

Mammals Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Key deer, bighorn sheep (peninsular California), San Joaquin kit fox, Canada lynx, ocelot, Florida 

panther, red wolf

Reptiles American crocodile, desert tortoise, gopher tortoise, Alabama red-bellied turtle, bog turtle, copperbelly water snake, eastern 

indigo snake

Amphibians California tiger salamander, flatwoods salamander, Houston toad

Birds Audubon’s crested caracara, Hawaiian goose, Florida scrub jay
72 National Long Range Transportation Plan

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

The transportation system and its users are a primary source 

for the introduction and spread of non-native species (plants 

and animals). This introduction and spread is a significant 

concern for the National Park Service because non-native 

species can disrupt natural processes and ecosystem 

functions and can dominate park unit aquatic and terrestrial 

areas. In some cases, non-native species can also block sight 

lines along transportation corridors and can cause safety 

and maintenance problems.

Vegetation management is an important but often overlooked 

aspect of transportation construction and maintenance 

projects. It not only supports healthy ecosystems and 

addresses climate change adaptation, but also it helps 

preserve and protect infrastructure investments and improves 

safety conditions. Vegetation management activities range 

from roadside mowing, tree trimming and hazardous tree 

clearing to native plant revegetation (maintaining biological 

integrity), non-native species control and proper movement 

and staging of heavy construction equipment.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND HAZARDS

The National Park Service recognizes the importance 

of protecting geologic resources while making decisions 

about transportation. These geologic resources include 

natural landforms, such as canyons and valleys, unique rock 

formations, dunes, caves and karst systems, fossils and other 

paleontological resources, volcanoes, geothermal features, 

shorelines, glacial features, mineral deposits and abandoned 

mineral lands. 

Aside from resource protection, a comprehensive 

understanding of geologic and environmental hazards 

is important to avoiding potential loss of life, assets and 

natural and/or cultural resources. Such hazards may result 

from many of the aforementioned resources, as well as other 

natural and human-made geologic hazards. For instance, 

natural geologic hazards can include mass movement 

(e.g., rockfall, landslides, debris flows, snow avalanches), 

earthquakes and associated slope instability and/or 

liquefaction, erosion related to coastal zones and hydrologic 

and weather-related hazards, such as hurricanes and floods. 

Human-made geologic hazards include weighting and/or 

undercutting of slopes, oil and gas wells, introduction or 

existence of hazardous materials, abandoned mineral lands 

and roadways built in geologically sensitive areas. Humancaused environmental hazards, such as hazardous material 

spills from freight movement, for example, are an important 

but often overlooked aspect of transportation construction 

and maintenance projects.

Although the National Park Service has resource inventories 

with data potentially relevant to transportation planning 

efforts, these inventories are not specifically designed to 

provide information on transportation system impacts 

or vulnerabilities related to geologic resources and 

environmental hazards. In most cases, additional data and 

studies are needed to answer site-specific, transportationrelated questions and to evaluate the impacts associated with 

a specific (existing or proposed) transportation development.

WATER RESOURCES AND EROSION

Transportation systems impact water resources pervasively 

throughout the National Park Service. Surface transportation 

systems impinge on water resources in many ways, including 

surface water and groundwater flow modification, water 

quality degradation, degradation or loss of wetlands, 

drainage and impacts on marine organisms. Similarly, marine 

transportation systems can also affect water resources. For 

example, marine transportation systems can disturb fish and 

wildlife, modify habitat, destroy marine plants and introduce 

non-native species and lead to propeller contact and water 

pollution. Such impacts to water resources are particularly 

salient when affecting a wild and scenic river or designated 

study river, as they have special legal protections related to 

water quality, free-flowing condition, and the outstandingly 

remarkable values for which the river was set aside.
National Park Service 73

Because many transportation assets are sited next to rivers, 

streams, lakes and coastal environments, wetlands mitigation 

can become a significant component of NPS transportation 

construction activities. The National Park Service has a “no 

net loss of wetlands” policy, meaning that if construction 

within or adjacent to a wetland cannot be avoided by any 

practicable alternative, the disturbed areas’ equivalent must 

be equally reclaimed as a wetland area in another location 

(NPS 2006). Additionally, management policies direct the 

agency to restore previously degraded or destroyed wetlands 

for a long-term net gain of wetlands across the National 

Park System (NPS 2006).

Erosion and shoreline modifications resulting from 

transportation infrastructure within riparian areas and 

alongside waterways also affect water resources and 

natural ecosystem processes. For example, with culverts 

and bridges, heavy precipitation can lead to scouring and 

the transport of sediments. The resultant influx of sediments 

into a waterway can degrade water quality, and erosion can 

create safety concerns for bridges. In some cases, erosion 

control and shoreline preservation measures are necessary 

for these roadways and transportation infrastructure, 

particularly where stream banks and retaining walls are 

in constant danger of being undermined. For this reason, 

erosion control measures, such as clearing roadside drains 

and ditches and fixing or replacing (e.g., resizing) culverts, 

are incorporated into a large number of transportation 

projects. Similarly, shoreline treatments, such as using 

appropriate vegetative covers, mitigate shoreline hardening 

and erosion and its effects on natural resources.

NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS IN 

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

The NPS Transportation Branch is currently developing the 

INSTEP tool for use in the planning, design, construction, 

operations and maintenance of transportation assets 

and systems. The INSTEP tool will involve scoring new 

transportation projects at various phases of a project—

ranging from planning and predesign to construction 

and operations—to rate the project’s ability to avoid, 

minimize or mitigate negative environmental impacts 

that assets and users cause. The score will help inform 

decision making and may uncover opportunities to create 

more sustainable transportation assets and operations and 

to incorporate innovative strategies. Such strategies may 

include implementing approaches informed by FHWA's 

Eco-Logical framework to coordinate landscape-scale 

ecosystem planning with transportation planning.

The INSTEP tool will enable the creation of a long-term, 

performance-based database containing project-level data. 

This database will be used to inform cost-benefit discussions. 

It will also offer a source of best practices and sustainability 

guidance and give the National Park Service a greater ability 

to monitor resource conditions identified in projects over a 

period of time. The INSTEP tool is currently in the pilot phase. 

Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park

The INSTEP database will be used to 

inform cost-benefit discussion and 

will offer a source of best practices 

and sustainability guidance. 
74 National Long Range Transportation Plan

NPS properties preserve a fundamental link between the 

past and present, and access to these resources ensures 

that individuals can learn about and appreciate their own 

history and the American story. Many NPS transportation 

assets are themselves cultural resources for park unit visitors 

to enjoy. These assets include national parkways, national 

scenic byways, national historic trails and national historic 

civil engineering landmarks. Assets may also be culturally 

significant because of their age, architectural or engineering 

significance, historical role or designation. Most of these 

culturally significant assets are in active use, such as the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, 

and in some cases, they are among the most used or heavily 

traveled parts of the NPS transportation network.

Culturally significant transportation assets are, by definition, 

different from other elements of the NPS transportation 

system. Culturally significant transportation assets are 

defined in NPS Director’s Order 80: Real Property Asset 

Management. This directive describes these assets as having 

“an importance and significance above and beyond their 

originally intended functions, they are generally expected 

to be preserved indefinitely, and a primary part of the NPS 

mission is to protect and preserve their importance and 

significance.” This mandate is well documented in the NPS 

Organic Act and in other bureau policies and guidance. 

Cultural Resource Stewardship

The relationship between cultural resources and the 

transportation system is not limited to transportation 

assets themselves. Several other cultural resource types 

both affect—and are affected by—the NPS transportation 

system. These cultural resource types include ethnographic 

resources, archeological resources, historic landscapes 

and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization World Heritage Sites. Because of the 

importance of cultural resources to the service, all 

transportation decisions should consider possible impacts 

to such resources.

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Many NPS transportation 

assets are themselves 

cultural resources to be 

enjoyed by park visitors.
National Park Service 75

16 This FMSS data is reported by federal real property historic status, which includes four resource tiers: (1) National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL), (2) National Register Listed (NRL), (3) National Register Eligible and (4) Contributing to an NHL or NRL asset.

is prioritized as part of the CIS. Resource protection is a key 

consideration for funding prioritization at the regional level, 

and as such, the historic status of culturally significant assets, 

as reported in the FBMS, may grant them some priority over 

other assets. Consequently, it is important that these assets 

are consistently and correctly categorized in the FBMS.

The National Park Service has identified 3,935 culturally 

significant transportation assets servicewide, which 

represents approximately 18 percent of all NPS transportation 

assets (Table 5-2).16 This number originates from two cultural 

resource databases—the List of Classified Structures and the 

Cultural Landscape Inventory. Collectively, these databases 

contain the most comprehensive, national-level list of 

culturally significant transportation assets in the service. 

Table 5-2. Historic Transportation Assets, by Asset Category

Source: FMSS FY 2014 Year-End Data

Category Federal Real Property (FRP) 

Historic Status Total NPS Inventory Percentage of NPS Inventory

Roads 1,338 7,700 17%

Parking Areas 893 7,900 11%

Road Bridges and Tunnels 817 1,460 56%

Trails 466 2,250 21%

Trail Bridges 115 950 12%

Trail Tunnels 25 40 63%

Constructed Waterways 16 30 53%

Marina/Waterfront 49 950 5%

Railroad Systems 137 250 55%

Transit Systems N/A 130 N/A

Total 3,856 21,660 18%

IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT 

TRANSPORTATION ASSETS

The National Park Service maintains inventories for many 

types of cultural resources, but most of these inventories 

are only documented at the regional or park unit level. 

Compilation of that data at a national level is often 

complicated by varying methods of data collection and 

storage. Cultural resource inventories also are not fully 

integrated with the asset databases that track asset condition.

The FBMS is the system of record for real property in the 

National Park Service. This database tracks asset inventory 

and historic status and works in conjunction with the FMSS 

to track asset condition and DM. The FBMS also provides 

the foundation on which transportation funding 
76 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service works to ensure consistency 

between the FBMS and cultural resource databases, 

but challenges remain. The primary challenge to data 

consistency is that cultural significance/historic status is 

not tracked to the same degree in both databases. In the 

FBMS, historic status is only noted at the location level 

(e.g., a roadway), not at the asset level (e.g., a feature 

associated with a location, such as a guardrail). Assets on 

the List of Classified Structures that are not associated 

with a List of Classified Structures listed location do not 

reflect that designation in the FBMS for asset prioritization 

purposes. For example, a historic stone guardrail (asset 

level) along a nonhistoric roadway (location level) would 

not automatically be recognized as having a historic status 

in the FBMS; that determination resides at the location 

level only. Currently, the FMSS database does not include 

all cultural landscapes listed in the Cultural Landscape 

Inventory; however, a four-year effort is underway to enter 

nationally significant cultural landscapes into the FMSS 

database. Accurate identification of all culturally significant 

transportation assets in the FBMS is critical for effective 

CIS prioritization.

CONDITION OF CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT 

TRANSPORTATION ASSETS

The preservation of culturally significant assets is at the 

core of the National Park Service mission, and this holds 

true for transportation assets as well.

Due to ongoing efforts to better capture the condition of 

these assets in servicewide systems of records, baseline 

conditions data are not available for all asset categories. 

Efforts to compile a comprehensive baseline are underway 

and will be complete before the first update of this plan.

Based on available data, the National Park Service 

estimates that culturally significant roads and parking 

areas are in nearly equal condition to those not classified 

as culturally significant. However, culturally significant 

Other Transportation Assets are in average poor condition, 

in contrast to those not classified as culturally significant, 

which are in average fair condition. Servicewide data is not 

available for bridges (Figure 5-1).

For more information on transportation asset condition, 

refer to the Asset Management chapter.

Figure 5-1. Baseline Conditions of Culturally Significant 

Transportation Assets as Compared with All Transportation Assets

Sources: FMSS FY 2014 Year-End Data, 2015 NPS Pavement Condition Report

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

0

1.00

All Assets 83

All Assets 0.15

100

0.00

Culturally Significant Assets 0.22

Culturally Significant Assets 82

Baseline data n/a

Serious

Poor

Poor

PCR

BHI

FCI

Paved Roads

Bridges

All Other
National Park Service 77

Climate Change Mitigation

GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), 

contribute to the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. 

And a warming atmosphere significantly contributes to 

global climate change, which has implications both for the 

resources the National Park Service seeks to protect and 

the transportation systems that support visitation and other 

important park functions.

The National Park Service is taking action to address climate 

change by actively reducing its carbon footprint (volume of 

GHG emissions), reducing its criteria pollutant emissions 

and by raising public awareness of the causes and effects of 

climate change. In 2010, the service developed its Climate 

Change Response Strategy (NPS 2010) and an associated 

Climate Change Action Plan 2012–2014 (NPS 2012c). The 

action plan sets the service’s goals, objectives and actions 

related to climate change science, adaptation, mitigation 

and communication. 

To formally address the GHG mitigation component of the 

climate change response strategy, the National Park Service 

developed the Green Parks Plan in 2012 (NPS 2012b). The 

Green Parks Plan establishes goals for energy conservation 

and GHG reductions servicewide.17

In addition to generating GHG emissions, the burning of 

gasoline and diesel fuels in cars and trucks results in the 

release of air quality pollutants, such as ozone, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, 

regulated under the Clean Air Act. Therefore, efforts to 

reduce GHG emissions from transportation in park units 

are likely to lead to reductions in these related air quality 

pollutants as well.

National Capital Parks-East

17 Executive orders issued by the President on March 28, 2017, and by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretarial Order 3349), call 

for review of current mitigation policies to ensure they do not interfere with achieving energy independence.
78 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Scope 1

Emissions from sources that the National 

Park Service owns or directly controls. For 

transportation, Scope 1 consists of NPS 

fleet vehicles and equipment.

Scope 2

Indirect emissions from purchased 

electricity and heating, cooling and steam 

generation. For transportation, Scope 2 

deals only with energy use in buildings 

that primarily serve a transportation system 

function.

Scope 3

Emissions from sources that the National 

Park Service does not directly control or 

own, but that are attributable to agency 

activities. For transportation, this scope 

includes employee travel (business travel 

and employee commuting).

18 Note: The federal government shutdown, which lasted from October 1 through 16, 2013, tightened agency travel restrictions, and 

natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy contributed to a greater than expected rate of decline in transportation emissions in 2013.

NPS GHG EMISSIONS

NPS transportation activities account for roughly 35 percent 

of servicewide GHG emissions, but these emissions have 

increased slightly in recent years. In 2015, total transportation 

system emissions were estimated to be 132,000 metric tons 

of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2E), a reduction of 25 percent 

from the 2008 baseline.18 Scope 1 and 2 emissions accounted 

for approximately 58,000 MTCO2E, while employee travel 

(Scope 3) accounted for 74,000 MTCO2E (Figure 5-2). 

Scopes 1 and 2 combined declined by approximately 22 

percent from the 2008 baseline, while Scope 3 declined by 

approximately 28 percent.

Figure 5-2. Transportation GHG Emissions Estimates, 2008–2015 

(In MTCO2E)

Source: National Park Service, Sustainable Operations and Climate 

Change Branch

2008 2012 2013 2014 2015

40

80

120

160

200

2009 2010 2011

Scope 1&2 Scope 3
National Park Service 79

VISITOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

In addition to the GHG emissions from agency activities, 

visitors generate emissions when they use personal vehicles 

within park boundaries. Visitor vehicles are by far the largest 

source of GHG emissions within park unit boundaries. They 

were estimated to account for 890,000 MTCO2E in 2013 

(Figure 5-3). Consistent with federal guidelines, the National 

Park Service does not include visitor vehicle emissions 

in its national GHG emissions reporting. However, the 

service is currently exploring methods to more accurately 

and comprehensively estimate, model and reduce visitor 

emissions without restricting access, including efforts 

to quantify the emissions savings that result from public 

transportation systems in place at many park units. Many 

units also provide nonmotorized transportation trails that 

support zero-emissions active transportation and traveler 

information systems that enable visitors to get around park 

units more easily and efficiently.

National Capital Parks-East

The National Park Service is taking action to address climate 

change by actively reducing its carbon footprint.

Figure 5-3. Estimated 2013 NPS Transportation Emissions, by 

Scope, Including Visitor Vehicle Emissions

Scope 1

5% 

Scope 2

<1% 

Scope 3

 7% 

Visitor Vehicle Emissions 

88% 
80 National Long Range Transportation Plan

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION

The Green Parks Plan sets objectives for addressing and 

reducing GHG emissions via park unit operations and 

planning. The plan establishes servicewide mitigation 

targets, which apply equally to transportation and other 

sectors. Green Parks Plan emissions targets address 

emissions that derive from direct and indirect NPS activities; 

the targets do not currently include visitor vehicle emissions.

The Green Parks Plan articulates the following transportation 

emissions reduction targets:

• By 2020, reduce Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 35 

percent from the 2008 baseline

• By 2020, reduce Scope 3 GHG emissions by 10 percent 

from the 2008 baseline.

Transportation emissions declined by approximately 22 

percent for Scope 1+2 and by approximately 28 percent 

for Scope 3 from 2008 to 2015, demonstrating significant 

progress toward meeting the transportation sector’s share 

of the Green Parks Plan reduction targets. However, 

it is notable that (1) the federal government shutdown 

(October 1 through 16, 2013), which tightened agency travel 

restrictions, and (2) natural disasters, such as Hurricane 

Sandy, contributed to a greater than expected rate of decline 

in transportation emissions in 2013. 

Many NPS park units have begun to reduce their carbon 

footprint and to communicate the consequences of climate 

change through interpretive programs and educational materials. 

One hundred twenty park units participate in the Climate 

Friendly Parks program (NPS 2014b). This program, which 

the service initiated in collaboration with the EPA in 2002, aims 

to reduce park-related GHG emissions and inform the public 

about the climate-friendly actions each park unit is taking. As 

part of this program, park units develop and implement their 

own GHG emissions inventories and mitigation strategies. 

The program also provides park units with an opportunity 

to build a ground-up emissions inventory that could include 

more detailed estimates of visitor vehicle emissions.

Transportation emissions declined by 

approximately 22 percent for Scope 1+2 

and by approximately 28 percent for 

Scope 3 from 2008 to 2015, demonstrating 

significant progress toward meeting 

the transportation sector’s share of the 

Green Parks Plan reduction targets. 
National Park Service 81

Although visitor emissions are not included in Green 

Parks Plan reduction targets, the plan seeks to encourage 

visitors to reduce their environmental impacts. Many park 

units have implemented practices to reduce both NPS and 

visitor transportation emissions without restricting access, 

including providing public transportation shuttles and 

nonmotorized transportation trails, using alternative fuels, 

purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles and minimizing 

work-related travel. Park units also employ environmental 

management systems to systematically link environmental 

goals with park unit operations plans and activities. 

Expanding and encouraging these kinds of actions are 

important to the continued progress in reducing NPS 

transportation emissions.

Yellowstone National Park

Educating visitors and the NPS workforce about how their 

individual actions affect the environment is an important 

part of the service's approach to reducing transportation 

emissions. The My Green Parks website encourages NPS 

employees to take actions to conserve energy and decrease 

their carbon emissions (NPS 2012d). The service is also 

inspiring visitors to reduce their environmental impacts 

within and outside park unit boundaries. For example, the 

National Park Service developed a training program for 

interpretive rangers that provides tools to successfully educate 

visitors on the impacts of climate change and the role they 

can play in individual emission reductions. The service has 

also prepared the GreenRides Toolkit to assist park rangers in 

educational and outreach efforts to reach sustainability goals, 

including climate change mitigation. Through these efforts, 

visitors may be inspired to change their transportation habits 

both during their visit and afterward in their daily lives.
82 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service is committed to using contextsensitive solutions in planning and implementing its 

transportation systems to ensure that transportation assets 

impact as little as possible of their natural and cultural 

surroundings. Such context-sensitive solutions enable the 

service to preserve cultural and natural resources, while at 

the same time maintaining safety and mobility. Despite NPS 

efforts, its transportation infrastructure can have negative 

impacts on the quality and integrity of the natural and 

cultural resources that it is charged with protecting.

Meeting Resource Protection Objectives

Objective: Incorporate Natural and Cultural Resource Considerations 

into All Aspects of Transportation Decision Making and Operations to 

Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Negative Impacts on These Resources

Yosemite National Park

Improvements in the availability, consistency and use of 

natural and cultural resource data, including GIS-based 

spatial data, are needed to make informed decisions about 

transportation investments as part of the CIS. Several 

inventories exist for different types of natural and cultural 

resources; however, a lack of national-level guidance for 

data collection and management of these inventories often 

results in disconnected databases with limited utility for 

transportation planning.

Developing guidance for the effective management of 

natural and cultural resources is needed to maintain 

the long-term integrity of NPS transportation assets. In 

addition to consistent data, transportation planners also 

need best management practices to minimize and mitigate 

transportation impacts on natural and cultural resources, 

working at both local and landscape scales. 
National Park Service 83

Recommended Strategies

Natural Resource Stewardship Strategies

• Complete development of the INSTEP tool for planning, design, construction and O&M of 

transportation facilities and systems

• Coordinate existing NPS resource, law enforcement and facilities data systems to improve 

critical data collection and analysis gaps and develop guidance on how to collect, input and 

find relevant data

• Reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions and improve reporting of data to capture species type and 

locations of incidents

• Use geographic information systems-based natural and cultural resource data in the early stages 

of transportation planning and project development to identify areas of potential concern

• Implement approaches informed by FHWA's Eco-Logical framework to coordinate landscapescale ecosystem planning with transportation planning

• Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships with state transportation agencies, regional 

planning organizations, and universities to coordinate mitigation measures, including design 

and placement of wildlife crossing infrastructure, and assist with improving air, sound and 

light quality within NPS park units and the surrounding areas

• Identify case studies and develop and disseminate guidance on best management practices 

to minimize and mitigate transportation impacts on natural resources

Cultural Resource Stewardship Strategies

• Improve cultural resource data collection and data management processes. Create servicewide 

guidance for data collection, along with a recognized cultural resource transportation asset 

definition to ensure proper collection and identification of those assets. In addition, create 

a direct link between the FMSS database and both the List of Classified Structures database, 

including both locations and assets, and the Cultural Landscape Inventory 

• Develop and disseminate guidance on best management practices for preserving culturally significant 

transportation assets. This guidance should include special contract requirements and compatible 

design solutions for the treatment of culturally significant transportation assets.
84 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Objective: Minimize and Mitigate the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of 

the NPS Transportation System

The National Park Service is taking action to address climate 

change by reducing its carbon footprint and by raising 

staff and public awareness through educational avenues. 

Transportation sources contribute 35 percent of overall NPS 

GHG emissions. Although the service has made significant 

gains in recent years at reducing GHG emissions from the 

transportation sector, further efforts to reduce emissions 

and sustain these cuts will be necessary for the National Park 

Service to meet its overall GHG emission reduction goals.

The National Park Service estimates total servicewide 

GHG emissions for national reporting and has started 

developing detailed park-level inventories through the 

Climate Leadership in Parks program. Over time, the service 

seeks to complete a comprehensive emissions inventory at 

the park unit level. Such an inventory will not only provide 

information for national reporting, but also detailed data 

for action at the park unit level.

Currently, the NPS GHG emission reduction targets do 

not account for visitor vehicle emissions. Although not 

directly under NPS control, visitor travel within park units 

is the greatest source of GHG emissions servicewide. The 

National Park Service seeks to better understand the factors 

that affect visitor vehicle emissions within park units and 

will continue and expand its interpretive efforts, investments 

and O&M decisions designed to reduce the carbon intensity 

of visitor travel.

Recommended Strategies

• Formalize a process for monitoring 

and reporting NPS transportation 

system emissions beginning with 

servicewide estimates and moving 

toward a comprehensive, bottomsup inventory generated at the park 

unit level

• Set reduction targets for visitor 

vehicle emissions and pursue 

solutions to achieve those targets 

without restricting visitor access

• Gather and communicate successful 

actions that NPS park units or 

regions are taking to reduce NPS 

transportation system emissions
National Park Service 85

Performance Measure: Complete All Components of the INSTEP 

Tool for Use in the Planning, Design, Construction, Operations 

and Maintenance of Transportation Facilities and Systems

The National Park Service is committed by mission, 

agency best practices and federal law to provide visitor 

access to park units in a way that preserves resources for 

future generations. The INSTEP tool will help decision 

makers identify opportunities to create and manage more 

sustainable transportation assets and to incorporate 

innovative strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate the 

negative environmental impacts that assets and users 

cause. When operationalized, the INSTEP tool will give the 

National Park Service a greater ability to conduct long-term, 

performance-based monitoring of resource conditions.

Baseline

The INSTEP process tool is currently 60 percent complete.

Target

100 percent completion of the INSTEP tool within 5 years 

(Figure 5-4). As transportation projects begin to use this 

tool, the National Park Service can review data collected 

through the tool and evaluate possible quantitative targets.

Figure 5-4. Illustration of the INSTEP Tool Performance Measure

Measuring Performance

100%

60%
86 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Performance Measure: Develop a System for Tracking and Forecasting 

the Condition of Culturally Significant Transportation Assets

Preserving cultural resources and values for the enjoyment, 

education and inspiration of this and future generations is 

at the core of the NPS mission. Comprehensive information 

on the condition of these assets is not available at a national 

scale, but preliminary analysis suggests that they are at times 

in worse condition than the overall NPS transportation asset 

portfolio. Developing a system to comprehensively track and 

forecast condition of culturally significant transportation 

assets will enable the service to better gauge its performance 

in preserving these important resources (Figure 5-5).

Baseline

30 percent complete.

Target

100 percent complete within five years.

Figure 5-5. Develop System to Track and Forecast Condition of 

Culturally Significant Transportation Assets Performance Measure

30%

100%
National Park Service 87

Performance Measure: Percentage Decrease in NPS Transportation 

System Emissions

As part of the NPS commitment to being a climate leader 

and in support of Executive Orders 13514 and 13693, 

the National Park Service is taking steps to reduce its 

GHG emissions. It is actively measuring, inventorying 

and reporting aggregate statistics for GHG emissions—

from all sources—through servicewide reports. Individual 

NPS park units have also started creating their own GHG 

inventories using the Climate Leadership in Parks tool, 

and these park-level inventories often include estimates 

of visitor vehicle emissions.

Baseline

The performance measure, depicted in Figure 5-6, uses a 

2008 baseline, which is consistent with required federal 

agency reporting under Executive Orders 13514 and 13693:

• Scope 1 and 2: 74,000 MTCO2E

• Scope 3: 104,000 MTCO2E.

Target

As shown in Figure 5-6, meet or exceed Green Parks Plan

targets for Scopes 1, 2 and 3 for overall NPS greenhouse 

gas emissions:

• Scope 1 and 2: By 2020, reduction of 35 percent from 

the 2008 baseline 

• Scope 3: By 2020, reduction of 10 percent from the 

2008 baseline.

Figure 5-6. Transportation System Emissions Performance Measure

-35%

-10%

2008 Baseline

2008 Baseline

Scope 1 and 2

Scope 3
88 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve
National Park Service 89

Improve ease of access to and within national park units for 

all people

Create a range of appropriate transportation options that 

support a network of seamless connections within each park 

unit and to surrounding communities

Provide state-of-the-art traveler information and wayfinding 

and, where appropriate, interpretation and education 

opportunities that complement transportation options

Visitor

Experience

Goal

Maintain and 

enhance the quality 

of visitor experiences

Objectives

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
90 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation-related visitor experience is the perceptions, feelings and reactions a person 

has before, during and after a visit to a park. Visitors’ experiences with transportation 

begin before visitors come into contact with transportation elements at park units, and 

they continue after trips are completed in the form of visitor recollections. When analyzing 

transportation-related visitor experience, it is important to consider the entire visitor 

experience cycle (Figure 6-1).

Everything about a transportation system—from its location, type and design—can strongly 

influence the quality of visitors’ experiences. These experiences are also influenced by how 

visitors view available transportation opportunities and the quality of services provided at 

a park site. Visitor experience is an essential, albeit intangible resource to manage, maintain 

and enhance within every national park unit.

For many visitors, roads are a central part of the transportation-related visitor experience, 

and in turn, visitor experience is an essential element of roadway design. Unlike federal and 

state roads, park unit roads are not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation. 

Instead, they are designed to enhance the visitor experience. At the same time, they safely 

and efficiently accommodate park visitors and serve essential management access needs 

(NPS 1986). Yet roads are only one part of most park units’ transportation network. 

Understanding the transportation-related visitor experience in its entirety requires 

understanding the NPS transportation network as a complete multimodal system. 

While NPS transportation networks are primarily intended to serve park units and the 

visitors to those units, implications from these networks extend beyond park unit boundaries. 

Populations residing in gateway communities are uniquely tied to their neighboring park 

units and are directly affected by their day-to-day operations, including their transportation 

systems. Transportation can play a critical role in enhancing the economic and social wellbeing of gateway communities. Creating and maintaining a safe, reliable, integrated and 

accessible transportation network enhances choices for transportation users, provides 

easy access to employment opportunities and other destinations and promotes positive 

effects on the surrounding community.

Introduction
National Park Service 91

The National Park Service is committed to developing and maintaining transportation 

assets and services that improve access to park units for all users and contribute to 

the enjoyment of park unit resources and values. This chapter addresses some of the 

topics that affect transportation-related visitor and user experience, including visitor 

use characteristics, demographic trends, transportation barriers to visitation, traveler 

information, transportation system usage and congestion management.

Figure 6-1. Visitor Experience Cycle

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office

Travel Planning

Travel to Park

Arrival & Orientation

Park Experience

Departure

Recollecting
92 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

Visitation and Visitor Use Characteristics

Characteristics of visitor use, which include the amount, 

type, timing and distribution of visitor activities and 

behaviors, help in understanding traveler trends, user 

transportation needs and influences on the experiences 

of visitors. The National Park Service has a great deal 

of information related to visitor use characteristics and 

visitation levels. 

TOTAL VISITATION

The nation at large and the majority of states are experiencing 

significant growth in total population, as well as dramatic 

shifts in urbanization. At the same time, the US population 

is aging and diversifying. Amid this ongoing growth and 

change, total annual visits to federal and state parks have held 

steady over the past 20 to 30 years but have declined slightly 

on a per capita basis. NPS visitation mirrors these trends: It 

has had roughly constant visitation nationally over the last 20 

years, but with notable differences between recreation and 

nonrecreation visitation (Figure 6-2). In 1990 total visitation 

to NPS park units, including recreation and nonrecreation 

visits was 335.2 million. Total visitation increased to 431 

million in 2011. Over this time frame, recreation visits 

increased by 9 percent, while nonrecreation visits increased 

by nearly 92 percent (with much of the increase occurring 

before 2000). This increase in nonrecreation visits is largely 

the result of an increase in adjacent residential development 

and commuter traffic flows. 

Recreation Visit 

A recreation visit is the entry of a 

person onto lands or waters that the 

National Park Service administers 

for recreational purposes, excluding 

government personnel, through-traffic 

(commuters), trades persons or persons 

residing within park boundaries.

Nonrecreation Visit

A reportable nonrecreation visit includes 

commuters and other through-traffic, 

persons going to and from inholdings, 

including subsistence users, tradespeople 

with business in a park unit and 

government personnel (other than NPS 

employees) with business in a park.

Figure 6-2. Annual Visitation, 1990–2011

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office Millions of Visitors

100

200

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Recreational

Nonrecreation
National Park Service 93

Table 6-1. Change in Visitation by Region (1990–2011)

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office

Region Recreation (in Thousands) % Change Nonrecreation (in Thousands) % Change

Alaska 1,206 107% 9 1%

Intermountain −1,648 −4% 1,756 24%

Midwest −1,364 −7% −182 −5%

National Capital 12,089 36% 52,089 413%

Northeast 6,742 15% −360 −61%

Pacific West 110 0% 550 16%

Southeast 2,463 4% 24,788 52%

The quality of a user’s experience specific to transportation 

depends on the needs of the individual or group using 

the transportation system or asset. Parks understand that 

different user types have different transportation needs. 

Recreation and nonrecreation visitors also have varying 

transportation requirements. For example, recreation 

visitors may value access to specific resources, such as 

trailheads and day-use areas, and because of this use 

pattern, they often need more traveler information and 

wayfinding guidance than nonrecreation visitors. In 

contrast, while nonrecreation visitors may also value scenic 

vistas, they primarily require efficient access through NPS 

lands. The different needs between these two user groups 

can, at times, create conflict, particularly on parkways and 

commuting routes where interactions between the two 

groups is most common.

VISITOR PROFILES

According to 2013 survey data from 330 park units, the 

majority of adult visitors are more than 50 years old (Figure 

6-3) and a higher percentage are female (55 percent). 

In addition, national park unit visitation is not uniform 

across racial and ethnic groups. The majority of visitors 

are non-Hispanic and white (approximately 80 percent), 

with African Americans and Hispanic Americans visiting 

park units at lower rates (NPS 2011b). Expanding use of 

park units by diverse communities and young people is 

a key tenet in the NPS A Call to Action initiative and its 

Healthy Parks, Healthy People plan. Both plans outline 

specific strategies that the service will implement to improve 

awareness of and access to national parks units from these 

populations.

While the National Park Service collects a great deal 

of information related to visitor use characteristics and 

visitation levels, the data collected and the collection 

methodologies vary by park unit and tend to change over 

time. Having more detailed and accurate information about 

visitors and how they use park units—including visitor 

origins, the timing of visits, visitor patterns of use, visitor 

distribution throughout the park units and the information 

sources they use to plan their visits—would help the service 

ensure that transportation investment decisions are closely 

aligned with visitors’ needs and desires.

Visitation trends over the past 20 years also differ across NPS regions. For example, the Alaska and National Capital regions 

have experienced substantial recreation visitation growth since 1990 (although much of the increased visitation in the National 

Capital Region is attributable to new monuments). The Pacific West and Southeast regions experienced stable recreation 

visitation over the same period, while the Intermountain and Midwest regions experienced declining visitation (Table 6-1).
94 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Rocky Mountain National Park

Figure 6-3. Visitor Age Distribution*

Source: University of Idaho Parks Studies Unit 2013

9%

4%

9%

13%

19%

22%

25%

71+

18–21

22–30

31–40

41–50

51–60

61–70

*Because of to the data collection method, data for visits by persons 

under the age of 18 were not captured.

Demographic Trends

Age, race, and ethnicity—separately and together—have 

implications for transportation, resource protection 

and visitor experience. The United States is becoming 

multigenerational, with four generations active in the 

workforce and at least one additional generation on either 

side. The nation is becoming more multicultural as well, 

with Hispanics, Latinos and Asians growing at the fastest 

rates. The continued aging and diversification of the US 

population will in turn drive the future demands and 

needs of the NPS transportation system. For example, 

older visitors are more likely to have mobility and visual 

impairments than are younger visitors (Brault 2012). 

Transportation infrastructure and associated travel 

information must be planned to meet the needs of all 

visitors. The nation’s growing diversity may necessitate 

the use of more inclusive communication methods, while 

the increasing number of older visitors may require new 

accessibility considerations. Access improvements may 

also increase the likelihood of visitation from extended, 

multigenerational family groups.
National Park Service 95

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

Lack of transportation is an oft-cited obstacle to participation 

in outdoor activities, such as park unit visits. It is also a welldocumented constraint for young people and especially 

young people of color (Payne et al. 2002). Studies show that 

children and youth under 16 take fewer trips, travel fewer 

miles and spend less time each day in vehicles. Compared to 

previous generations, fewer young adults are getting driver’s 

licenses or buying cars. Instead, more are opting to share 

vehicles or use multimodal and alternative transit systems 

(Dutzik and Baxandall 2013). Similarly, adults over 65 take 

fewer daily trips, drive fewer miles and spend less time each 

day in vehicles. Understandably, a smaller percentage of 

senior adults drive and own vehicles than other adult age 

groups. Older adults also typically walk and cycle less and 

prefer closer and more accessible parking. Furthermore, 

findings from the second NPS Comprehensive Survey of 

the American Public (CSAP2) (NPS 2011c) indicate that 

the length of time it takes to travel to National Park System 

units acts as a deterrent to visitation. Lack of transportation 

can be a barrier to park visitation particularly for those 

parks that have limited transportation options. Efforts to 

remove or mitigate transportation barriers to NPS units and 

improve access, in combination with other outreach efforts, 

could lead to increased visitation from these fast-growing 

population segments.

ACCESSIBILITY BARRIERS

The National Park Service is required to comply with 

the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standards 

related to transportation. Yet because the standards for 

accessibility compliance have changed over the years, 

elements that may have formerly been compliant may now 

be considered noncompliant. Because of this change, NPS 

managers are being encouraged to apply the principles of 

universal design—the design of products and environments 

to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, 

without adaptation or specialized design.

According to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National 

Organization on Disability, people with disabilities are 

more likely than those without disabilities to consider 

inadequate transportation to be a problem in daily life (34 

percent versus 16 percent) (Harris Interactive 2010). That 

statistic is inclusive of all forms of disabilities, including 

not only mobility impairments but also seeing, hearing and 

speech impairments; emotional or mental disabilities; and 

learning disabilities. Findings from the CSAP2 indicate that 

the accessibility of a park unit for people with disabilities 

does act as a physical barrier to visitation. Sixteen percent 

of people surveyed either “strongly agree” or “somewhat 

agree” that NPS park units are not accessible to persons 

with physical disabilities, and 13.9 percent neither agreed 

nor disagreed.

ADDITIONAL BARRIERS

Additional barriers beyond transportation, some of 

which are influenced by social and cultural factors, 

limit visitation to park units. CSAP2 respondents from 

racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds reported 

barriers and constraints at higher levels than their nonHispanic white counterparts. While few non-Hispanic 

white visitors identified NPS units as unsafe, unpleasant 

or places where poor service was received, visitors from 

racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds were more 

likely to do so. Nonvisitors from diverse racial or ethnic 

backgrounds were even more likely to identify such factors 

as obstacles to visitation. Additional factors that play a 

role in nonvisitation to park units is a decline in naturebased play among youth and an increased fascination 

with video games and electronic media (Pergams and 

Zaradic 2006, 2008). 

Barriers to Visitation
96 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Traveler information, wayfinding and signage are key 

transportation features that facilitate visitor travel to and 

within a park unit. Providing improved traveler information 

to potential visitors in advance of their trips may help to 

increase the public’s awareness of NPS park units and ease 

their access when visiting a park unit. Effective traveler 

information and wayfinding signage improves visitor 

experiences because it helps visitors navigate a park unit 

with ease. In addition, providing information on traffic, 

available transit options and parking via websites or through 

variable message signs may help visitors avoid crowded 

locations and mitigate congestion.

Visitor traveler information needs may differ based on 

a park unit’s location (e.g., rural, urban), environmental 

or geographic setting and the types of visitors it serves. 

Regardless of these differences, traveler information must 

satisfy a wide range of visitors. NPS partners, including 

gateway communities and tourism partners, play a critical 

role in providing traveler information to visitors.

Park unit visitors receive traveler information via several 

methods, all of which may make planning a trip or navigating 

resources within a park unit easier. Roadside signs and 

park unit brochures are some of the most frequently used 

methods of communicating transportation information to 

NPS transportation system users. In addition, the service 

provides some traveler information to potential visitors 

electronically. For example, all NPS park unit websites have 

a “Plan Your Visit” section targeting visitors. This web page 

typically includes directions, maps and other information 

needed to plan a park unit visit. Currently, the NPS Office of 

Communications is updating these “Plan Your Visit” pages 

on park units’ websites to drive consistency of content. It is 

also converting park unit websites to a new platform that 

will enable optimal viewing on mobile devices. 

Traveler Information

Advances in communication technologies are changing the 

way people access travel information. The traveling public 

continues to use global positioning system (GPS)-enabled 

smartphones in greater numbers. The ability of these mobile 

devices to provide on-demand, just-in-time, personalized 

information is approaching a cultural standard. Nearly 75 

percent of smartphone users access real-time information, 

such as public transit schedules, current traffic conditions 

and directions to locations, on their devices (Pew Research 

Center 2012). These statistics suggest that potential visitors 

and visitors en route to NPS sites may want to use mobile 

devices to access park unit-related information or to receive 

pushed data for real-time routing, location data and visitor 

and emergency information. This increased reliance on 

obtaining directions or location information from GPS 

devices, especially smartphones, poses a certain level of 

risk for visitors within national park units. Because some 

GPS-enabled devices do not have accurate data for road 

systems or site locations within NPS park units, visitors can 

get lost if they rely solely on these devices for navigation. 

Cell reception and cellular data networks may also be 

unavailable or inconsistent in park units, so visitors may 

feel stranded if cut off from their main source of directions. 

In rare cases, these limitations have posed severe safety 

issues for visitors who need emergency assistance but 

cannot identify their location or contact help. For these 

reasons, many park units unit websites and maps (which 

are distributed at entrance stations) instruct visitors not to 

rely on GPS devices for navigation. Parks may also provide 

specific coordinates or names to enter into a GPS device to 

improve location accuracy. Park unit websites usually note 

a lack of cell reception if applicable.

In light of the rising use of smartphones and other mobile 

devices, a growing number of NPS park units are employing 

new technologies, such as mobile device applications 

and quick response codes, to distribute information to 

mobile devices and to integrate interpretation into the 

transportation system. In partnership with Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, the Great Smoky Mountains 

Association created the nation’s first NPS app. This free 
National Park Service 97

app contains park unit guidebooks, road maps, (including 

off-line park unit road and route maps for use when a 

cellular signal or wi-fi is not available) and other material. 

Apps are available for both large park units, such as Zion 

National Park, Grand Teton National Park, the National 

Mall and Gettysburg National Military Park, and smaller 

units, such as the Cane River Creole National Historical 

Park. Several of these apps provide visitors with historical, 

cultural or environmental interpretation at NPS park units. 

The National Park Service is also partnering with Amtrak, 

which provides access to more than 237 park units, to 

develop free podcasts for select train routes. These podcasts 

provide interpretation on the history and sites of interest 

along the route.

Boston National Historical Park/

Boston African American National Historic Site

 A growing number of 

NPS units are employing 

new technologies, such as 

mobile device applications 

and quick response codes, 

to distribute information 

to mobile devices.
98 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Traffic congestion in some park units is a concern, particularly 

during peak daytime hours or peak tourist season. Congestion 

can be defined as a situation where the travel demand for 

an asset or service exceeds the capacity of that asset/service 

to handle the demand at performance levels considered 

acceptable to the asset/service users (Institute of Transportation 

Engineers 1997) or for the National Park Service, a situation 

where travel patterns negatively impact visitor experiences 

or park resources. The National Park Service recognizes that 

managing congestion produces benefits that help the agency 

fulfill its missions, including improved visitor experiences, 

reduced resource impacts and the opportunity to invest 

transportation funding more wisely.

Congestion Management

Figure 6-4. NPS Congestion Management Process

The National Park Service is developing a servicewide 

congestion management program.

Congestion is managed individually by park managers. NPS 

park units implement a variety of projects and management 

actions to reduce congestion based on the specific issues or 

challenges surrounding the causes of traffic congestion at a 

park unit. This approach of managing congestion, however, 

often does not look broadly at NPS transportation as a whole—

regionally or subregionally— and can lead to less than optimal 

allocation of resources across the service. To address this 

issue, the National Park Service is developing a servicewide 

congestion management program in phases. This program will 

enable NPS managers at all levels to allocate resources more 

effectively to address congestion-related problems, starting 

with changes in operational and management strategies rather 

than large investments in additional parking and/or expensive 

shuttle systems (Figure 6-4). 
National Park Service 99

PHASE I

Phase I laid the foundation for the program, with technical 

memoranda documenting available data, users and needs 

and results from a 2010 servicewide park unit congestion 

survey. According to the 2010 survey, the most common 

strategies used to manage congestion are employing park 

rangers to manage traffic, managing special events, changing 

traffic circulation and adding remote parking lots with 

shuttle service. 

The 2010 servicewide congestion management survey 

(NPS 2011d) provides information on the most important 

congestion-related issues throughout the entire National 

Park System. Of the 178 park units that completed the survey, 

nearly one half (49 percent) reported that they were currently 

experiencing congestion. The survey results documented 

congestion occurring in all park population centers (from rural 

to urban) and in all regions. Parks experience traffic congestion 

at a variety of times, including weekdays (including commuter 

peaks), peak season and weekends. Both recreational and 

non-recreational travel contributes to congestion.

NPS managers who responded to the survey identified specific 

types of locations where congestion was present in a park 

unit. The most frequent area of concern was parking areas, 

where 70 percent of park units are experiencing congestion 

(Table 6-2). The managers also identified specific time periods 

of congestion. The most frequently reported congested time 

period was the midday tourist period, followed by commuter 

peak periods.

Table 6-2. Location of Congestion in Park Units

Source: NPS 2011d

Location of Congestion 

Percentage of Park 

Units (N=178 Park 

Units)

Parking areas 70%

Roadways providing access to park unit 41%

Visitor centers 34%

Park unit entrance stations 29%

Primary park unit vehicle tour routes 28%

Pedestrian loading areas 25%

Pedestrian paths/trails 23%

Other park unit attractions 21%

Trail heads 18%

Scenic overlooks 16%

Transit stops 13%

PHASE II

Using the results from the 2010 survey, Phase II of the 

congestion management program developed a congestion 

management toolkit for park and regional managers, with 

a new problem solving framework and a wide range of 

management and build solutions. 

 

In addition to the toolkit Phase II also includes pilot 

congestion assessments (short-term technical support to 

relieve congestion conditions), an analysis of how existing 

data related to congestion can be used to manage and 

possibly predict congestion, and stakeholder outreach 

to the National Park Service, FHWA and other federal 

land management agencies. The identification of potential 

qualitative and quantitative performance measures will 

conclude the Phase II work.
100 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Many NPS units offer multimodal forms of transportation 

both to and within their boundaries; however, the private 

automobile remains the primary form of transportation 

visitors use to access most park units. The FHWA estimates 

that vehicles travel more than 2.4 billion miles on NPS 

roads each year.19 This mileage equates to approximately 

22 miles per vehicle based on 2010 visitation levels.

Despite the large role of the private automobile, the National 

Park Service supports alternative transportation systems and 

encourages multiple modes of transportation to and within 

park units. While it may not be appropriate or possible 

for all NPS park units to accommodate access to or travel 

within the park unit by multiple modes, NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (NPS 2006) states that “depending on a 

park unit’s size, location, resources, and level of use, the 

[National Park] Service will, where appropriate, emphasize 

and encourage alternative transportation systems, which 

may include a mix of buses, trains, ferries, trams, and—

preferably—nonmotorized modes of access to and moving 

within parks.” To meet this requirement and provide access 

to diverse populations, the service maintains numerous 

alternative transportation systems, including shuttle/bus/

van/tram systems, boat/ferry systems, planes, snowcoaches 

and trains/trolleys. 

The National Park Service has also formed strong 

partnerships with local transit agencies and the private 

sector to provide connections between park units and 

gateway communities. Presently, 131 transit systems serve 

66 park units. Of these systems, 85 percent are operated by 

non-NPS entities under an agreement or contract, where 

the National Park Service shares in the O&M costs of these 

systems.

19 Extrapolated from a subset of 33 park units representing 63 percent of paved road miles for which vehicle miles traveled figures 

are available (FHWA 2008).

20 A “passenger boarding” occurs each time a passenger boards a vehicle. This industry-standard measure is also known as an 

“unlinked trip” and is used in the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database.

Transportation System Usage

In 2013, there were 26.9 million passenger boardings20 

across all transit systems serving NPS park units. More 

than half of all passenger boardings (67.5 percent) were 

on a shuttle/bus/van/tram and 29.5 percent were on a boat/

ferry. Notably, boardings seem to be concentrated on a small 

number of transit systems. For example, approximately 80 

percent of all boardings in 2013 were associated with only 

10 transit systems. In contrast, the vast majority of the transit 

systems (71 percent) had fewer than 100,000 passenger 

boardings in 2013 (NPS 2014a). 

Grand Canyon National Park

The National Park Service has formed 

strong partnerships with local transit 

agencies and the private sector to 

provide connections between park 

units and gateway communities.
National Park Service 101

Traditionally transportation planners rely on quantitative 

data about travelers and their transportation patterns. While 

the National Park Service collects a great deal of information 

related to visitor use characteristics, visitation levels and 

transportation-specific data, the data is neither consistent 

nor comprehensive across all park units. 

For example, visitation data collection methodologies 

vary by park unit and tend to change over time. Collection 

methods include both direct visitor counts and proxies, such 

as vehicle counts. As part of the NPS Traffic Monitoring 

Program, there are permanent traffic counters at 34 

park units; the Visitor Use Statistics Office uses traffic 

counters at an additional 206 park units. There are known 

inaccuracies with some traffic counters; the agency is 

currently developing guidance on how to improve traffic 

data collection. In addition, data is inconsistent across 

all park units on visitor origins, the timing of visits, their 

patterns of use and distribution throughout park units 

or the information sources they use to plan their visits. 

Similarly, although some individual park units and their 

respective local and state transportation partners collect 

transportation-specific data, there are no comprehensive 

data at the national level exists for automobile travel, such 

as vehicle miles traveled, level of service, time spent in 

congestion and parking occupancy. No comprehensive data 

on bicycle and trail use is available. Having more detailed 

and accurate information about visitors and how they use 

park units would help the National Park Service ensure that 

transportation investment decisions are closely aligned with 

visitors’ needs and desires.

The increasing availability of innovative technologies to 

collect data could provide the National Park Service with a 

more efficient means for collecting more data to strengthen 

its transportation planning. Gathering basic information on 

traffic frequency and speed is becoming easier and less costly 

because of new traffic-counting devices. Likewise, with the 

growing use of GPS-enabled smartphones, a new method is 

emerging for collecting traveler information. These devices 

can accurately provide location and traffic data, such as 

Trends in Data Collection

travel time, speed, acceleration, direction of travel and mode 

of travel. Agencies are increasingly using crowdsourcing—

the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas or content 

by soliciting contributions from a large group of people—

to gather data and inform transportation planning and 

programming decisions. In addition, advances in ITS and 

connected vehicle technologies are improving the collection 

and management of real-time, multimodal transportation 

data. These new technologies and crowdsourcing methods 

could provide the National Park Service with the ability 

to collect consistent and comprehensive transportationrelated data. 

Yellowstone National Park
102 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Meeting Visitor Experience Objectives

Objective: Improve Ease of Access to and Within National Park 

Units for All People

Poor accessibility for people with disabilities and older 

visitors acts as a barrier to visitation. In addition, many park 

units experience traffic congestion during peak periods, 

which can negatively influence visitor experiences and 

impede visitor access to resources.

21 A Call to Action objectives that are relevant include In My Back Yard, Parks for People, Follow the Flow and Stop Talking and Listen. 

Recommended Strategies

• Further develop a congestion management program that provides a programmatic 

approach to understanding and alleviating the highest priority congestion issues

• Implement Phase II of the congestion management program

• Identify specific challenges and opportunities associated with connecting communities to park 

units, particularly for urban residents, minority communities and people with disabilities

• Encourage and support NPS regions in developing cluster plans to promote 

transportation linkages between urban park units in close proximity

• Build partnerships with gateway communities and partners to ensure that the 

transportation systems within and adjacent to NPS boundaries are accessible 

to mobility-restricted individuals and persons with disabilities

• At the discretion of regional transportation programs, support park units in conducting 

assessments of the physical and programmatic barriers to using the transportation system 

and preparing self-evaluation and transition plans to address those barriers. These selfevaluation and transition plans will include identification of barriers, solutions for barrierremoval, prioritization and associated time frames for removing those barriers

• Develop and deliver a comprehensive education and training program to all NPS 

staff, their USDOT partners responsible for transportation contracts and relevant 

stakeholders on accessibility compliance and the principles of universal design. The 

education program will include the development of suggested contract language

Improving access to park units, particularly for urban 

residents, minority communities and people with disabilities, 

is a key goal outlined in several NPS plans and initiatives, 

including A Call to Action21 and the Healthy Parks Healthy 

People plan. By reducing transportation barriers and 

managing congestion, the National Park Service can, at the 

same time, increase access to opportunities for enjoyment, 

education and inspiration of this and future generations.
National Park Service 103

Objective: Create a Range of Appropriate Transportation Options 

that Support a Network of Seamless Connections Within Each Park 

Unit and to Surrounding Communities

The mode(s) of transportation used to reach and explore 

a park unit plays a major role in visitors’ experiences. Each 

transportation mode offers a unique kind of experience 

to visitors, and visitors make travel mode choices based 

on a wide variety of individual considerations—from 

desired activities and time available to past experiences 

with alternative transportation. Providing a range of 

transportation options, as appropriate for a particular 

park unit, has value to visitors, regardless of whether 

those options also serve other purposes, such as reducing 

congestion, lowering emissions and preserving natural 

resources. While management strategies can influence 

mode choice in visitors, providing the highest possible 

degree of choice to visitors can enhance the quality of 

their experiences. 

The National Park Service strives to provide an efficient 

transportation system that consists of well-designed 

roadways, transit operations, and pedestrian and bicycle 

connections, with convenient linkages to regional road 

networks, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle systems. 

However, in doing so, the service needs to also meet the 

asset management and transportation finance objectives 

outlined in this report. As such, when creating any 

new transportation option, the service must consider 

the anticipated life-cycle costs of new investments and 

ensure that it has the capacity to maintain the asset in good 

operating condition. 

Currently, a lack of data about visitors and their use of the 

NPS transportation system is constraining the service in 

its transportation planning abilities. In an attempt to gain 

additional visitor information, the National Park Service, 

in coordination with other federal land management 

agencies, developed questions to help park units collect 

qualitative and quantitative information on the public’s 

perceptions, experiences and expectations related 

to transportation conditions, services and recreation 

opportunities on federal lands. Having more detailed and 

accurate information about visitors, their perceptions and 

expectations of NPS transportation systems and their 

travel patterns and behaviors will help park units make 

better investment decisions and measure the impacts of 

their transportation planning and programming decisions. 

It will also improve visitor experiences by ensuring that 

park unit transportation investment decisions are closely 

aligned with visitors’ needs and desires, as appropriate.

 

Recommended Strategies

• Define and implement a consistent 

servicewide methodology for 

collecting data on visitor and 

employee transportation usage, 

including use of transit, pedestrian 

and bicycle trails, vehicle traffic 

volumes and vehicle miles 

traveled within park boundaries

• Coordinate with gateway 

communities and partners to identify 

existing transportation gaps and 

to provide multimodal options to 

improve connectivity to park units

• Support regions and park 

units in pursuing discretionary 

funding opportunities, such as 

Federal Transit Administration 

grant programs, to address gaps 

in nonmotorized connections 

and between modes

• Develop and disseminate best 

practice examples of methods to 

safely turn pedestrian or bicycle 

access into viable transportation 

options, such as improving 

infrastructure and signage
104 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Objective: Provide State-of-the-Art Traveler Information and 

Wayfinding and, Where Appropriate, Interpretation and Education 

Opportunities that Complement Transportation Options

Comprehensive, reliable and accessible traveler information 

enhances recreational access and promotes travel and 

tourism to NPS park units. Traveler information is also an 

important tool for connecting with visitors during several 

phases of the visitor experience cycle. Because visitor 

satisfaction is strongly tied to expectations, disseminating 

traveler information prior to visitor arrival can prepare 

visitors for satisfying experiences. In addition, technology 

and social media are playing a vital role in interpretation 

and education and can enhance the transportation 

experience and support visitors’ recollection of a positive 

park unit experience. 

The traveling public’s increasing reliance on GPSenabled smartphones is changing social expectations for 

accessing real-time, accurate and relevant information. 

The NPS A Call to Action acknowledges the need to use 

leading-edge technologies and social media to effectively 

communicate with the public. In doing so, it calls for 

transforming the NPS digital experience to offer rich, 

interactive, up-to-date content from every park unit and 

program. Similarly, the America’s Great Outdoors: A 

Promise to Future Generations report and the National 

Travel and Tourism Strategy (Task Force of Travel 

Competitiveness 2012) speak about the important role that 

comprehensive, reliable and accessible traveler information 

can play in enhancing recreational access and promoting 

travel and tourism to national park units.

Currently, the National Park Service does not fully 

understand how visitors to national park units prefer to 

receive information. Gaining a better understanding of how 

visitors use park unit transportation-related information 

will enable more strategic investments for both information 

and communication technologies.

Recommended Strategies

• Conduct research to better 

understand visitor trip planning 

habits to inform efforts to develop 

trip planning tools and resources

• Develop a servicewide approach 

to disseminating traveler 

information on mobile devices

• Develop guidance for park units 

on how to use technology to 

improve traveler information 

and interpretation for 

different area classifications 

and visitor characteristics

• Collaborate with partners to 

provide park unit traveler 

information, such as site traffic 

and road conditions, weatherrelated delays, facility closures 

and parking conditions, within 

local and regional traveler 

information systems

• Create a standard format for 

the “Plan Your Visit” section 

of nps.gov that systemizes the 

availability of essential traveler 

information across all park units
National Park Service 105

Measuring Performance

Performance Measure: Percentage of Park Unit Websites that 

Provide Nine Elements of Essential Traveler Information

Visitor satisfaction is increased when visitors’ 

expectations are met. Providing detailed information 

about a transportation system and a description of the 

transportation experiences at a park unit can help establish 

accurate expectations. An April 2014 review of the Plan 

Your Visit portion of the then 401 NPS park unit websites 

indicated that park units do not currently provide the level 

of comprehensive traveler information recommended. 

Ensuring that all park units provide essential traveler 

information (as defined by the elements listed under 

Baseline below) is a critical milestone in achieving the 

objective of providing state-of-the-art traveler information.

Baseline

Less than one percent of park unit websites provided 

information on all nine of the following traveler information 

elements as of April 2014. Several websites provided one or 

more of these elements, as shown in Figure 6-5.

Driving Directions: detailed driving directions to access a 

site, including recommended address or latitude/longitude 

coordinates to enter into a GPS-enabled device

Public Transportation: information on how to access the 

park unit via motorized alternative transportation, as well as 

alternative transportation modes that are available for travel 

within the park unit; if the unit is not accessible via alternative 

transportation, this should be noted on the website

Accessibility: information on whether the transportation 

system (including both motorized and nonmotorized portions 

of the system) is accessible to individuals with disabilities

Description of the Experience: description of what a 

visitor should expect to experience when using the park 

unit’s transportation system

Travel Distances and Times: driving times between sites 

within the park unit

Bike/Pedestrian Information: information on how to access 

the park unit via nonmotorized transportation, as well as 

nonmotorized alternative transportation modes that are available 

for travel within the park unit; if the unit is not accessible via 

nonmotorized transportation, this should be noted on the website

Figure 6-5. Park Unit Websites Information Provided

Target 

100%

Driving Directions

Public Transportation

Accessibility

Description of the Experience 

Travel Distances and Time 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Access

Parking Lot Locations and Peak Use

Presence or Lack of Congestion 

Alternative Fueling Stations

95%

66%

63%

56% 

36%

33%

14%

11%

1%

Parking Lot Locations and Peak Use: information on 

parking lot locations and accommodations (e.g., regular 

spaces, accessible spaces, RV spaces), as well as information 

on parking lot peak use/availability

Presence of Lack of Congestion: information on the 

typical presence or lack of congestion at specific locations 

or at times of the year/week/day

Alternative Fueling Stations: link to the Department of 

Energy Alternative Fueling Station Locator.

Target

100 percent of park unit websites provide information 

on all nine of the listed traveler information elements (as 

appropriate) within five years.
106 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Performance Measure: Completion of Phase II of the NPS 

Congestion Management Program 

Completion of Phase II of the congestion management 

system will enable the service to develop a programmatic 

approach to understanding and alleviating the highest 

priority congestion issues. Applying this programmatic 

approach at the project and program levels will help the 

National Park Service better understand how and when to 

invest funding in congestion management to improve the 

visitor experience and reduce impacts to natural, cultural, 

historic and other park resources. 

Baseline

75 percent complete.

Target

100 percent complete in 2017.

As shown in Figure 6-6, progress toward completion of the 

congestion management program will be tracked in four 

categories:

• Technical assistance: diagnostic and treatment help desk 

(congestion assessments)

• Stakeholder engagement: internal and external 

communications

• Performance and monitoring: congestion projects 

evaluation results

• Research and development: congestion performance 

measures/indicators/thresholds.

Figure 6-6. Congestion Management Program Status

Target 

100%

Technical Assistance

Research and Development 

Stakeholder Engagement

Performance and Monitoring

75%

75% 

25%

0%
National Park Service 107

Performance Measure: Percentage of Transportation Contracts and 

Projects that Include Accessibility Language and Are Compliant 

with Accessibility-Related Laws, Regulations and Policies

Poor accessibility for people with disabilities can act 

as a barrier to visitation. The National Park Service is 

committed to making all practicable efforts to make NPS 

transportation assets and services accessible and usable 

by all people. Incorporating accessibility requirements 

into all transportation-related contracts and ensuring that 

they comply with accessibility standards and requirements, 

including the ABA Accessibility Standards and Sections 

504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, will help 

ensure that NPS transportation infrastructure and systems 

are designed and constructed to be accessible and usable 

by all people, thereby improving ease of access to and 

within national park units.

Ensuring that all new transportation assets and programs, 

including rehabilitation, upgrade and expansion projects, 

comply with accessibility standards and requirements, 

including the ABA Accessibility Standards and Sections 

504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, will help 

the National Park Service to meet its goal of improving 

the ease of access to and within park units for all people.

Baseline

Baseline data is not available for this performance measure.

Target

100 percent of transportation projects and contracts in 

compliance within five years, as shown in Figure 6-7.

Figure 6-7. ABA Accessible Transportation Contracts and Projects

100%
108 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Zion National Park
Institute a comprehensive, performance-based transportation 

safety program that addresses engineering, education and 

enforcement

Reduce serious and fatal transportation-related injuries

Maximize safety without impairing park resources and values

Enable effective emergency response

 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Safety

Objectives

Goal

Provide a safe 

transportation 

system for all users
110 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service, as the steward of our nation’s special places, offers a unique 

environment for operating transportation systems. Many transportation assets are built, 

maintained and operated to complement the natural and cultural resources that surround 

them and to promote the intended visitor experience of the park unit. In this environment, 

the service must maximize transportation safety within the context of preservation and 

resource management. In some cases, context-sensitive design deviates from industrystandard safety practices, such as historic stone barriers, lane widths or lighting levels. In its 

planning, the National Park Service strives to be context sensitive in transportation design 

and operations while ensuring that appropriate safety mitigation measures are in place.

Visitor and workforce safety are among the highest NPS priorities, and transportation is 

a significant source of risk to the safety of NPS transportation system users. The most 

recently compiled safety data shows that an average of 6,900 crashes occur each year on 

NPS roads, and 20 percent of these crashes resulted in an injury or fatality (NPS 2009). 

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for visitors and a major source of injury 

for NPS employees.

Although individual park units manage safety for their transportation networks, the 

National Park Service lacks an effective motor vehicle crash data collection system and 

comprehensive transportation safety guidance to support planning and programmatic 

decision making servicewide. Efforts are underway to establish a performance-based 

approach to transportation safety management; however, gaps in crash data reporting 

and analysis have slowed this effort. To address this issue, the service is committed to 

developing an industry-standard transportation safety management system built on 

improved crash data. Improved data collection and multidisciplinary performance-based 

planning approaches that consider education, engineering, enforcement, emergency 

services and resource stewardship will allow the service to improve prevention strategies 

and increase safety on its transportation networks. 

Introduction
National Park Service 111

Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

Improving the Transportation Safety Program

Some of the most important measures of transportation 

safety are the number and rate of system user fatalities, 

injuries and crashes. To reduce fatalities, injuries and 

crashes, transportation safety professionals need modern 

transportation safety management systems to more 

effectively target prevention efforts.

The current NPS Transportation Safety Program prioritizes 

safety projects based on their effectiveness in reducing the 

number and severity of crashes. The National Park Service 

is required and directed in NPS Management Policies 2006

(NPS 2006) to use crash data to inform decision making 

related to transportation, law enforcement, emergency 

response and other related programs (Code of Federal 

Regulations, National Park Service Management Systems, 

Title 23, Section 970.212). Data analysis about where, when 

and why crashes occur in NPS park units are the foundation 

to an industry-standard transportation safety program 

enabling the service to make programmatic, performancebased decisions. 

The National Park Service has been collecting crash records 

to assist in managing roadway safety for decades. The 

service’s most complete, national crash data was compiled 

between 1990 and 2005 and covers 222 park units. This data 

was compiled in the legacy Servicewide Traffic Accident 

Reporting System database. Since 2005, individual park units 

have continued to collect crash records, but those records 

had not been compiled into a national dataset until recently. 

The Traffic Accident Reporter database contains crash 

records that park units collected between 2006 and 2012. 

The database contains records from park units and covers 

more than 90 percent of all crashes during that time period. 

The current system of record for crash information is the 

IMARS. This DOI system is a relatively new system for 

reporting law enforcement incidents, including motor vehicle 

accidents in NPS units. However, the IMARS crash module, 

which contains detailed crash information, has only recently 

been implemented.

To strengthen its Transportation Safety Program, the 

service is developing a comprehensive transportation safety 

management system. This system will bring together data 

on crashes, traffic volume, roadway features and condition 

to identify the most cost-effective opportunities to improve 

safety. Building this comprehensive transportation safety 

management system is essential to all NPS safety programs. 

The Transportation Safety Program will use information 

from the transportation safety management system, 

along with best practices and safety research, to identify 

policies and practices to reduce the number and severity 

of transportation incidents.

The NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System is the system 

that will serve as the foundation of the 

Transportation Safety Program. The system 

includes the following components:

• A crash data system

• A traffic data system

• A crash analysis system

• A data-driven project programming 

and delivery system

• A performance measure 

tracking system. 

Together, these systems will provide the 

critical information needed to support 

data-driven programmatic safety decisions.

The NPS Transportation Safety 

Program develops and deploys safety 

initiatives. This program will use data 

outputs from the transportation safety 

management system, best practices and 

safety research to identify policies and 

practices to reduce the number and 

severity of transportation incidents.
112 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Crash Overview

Between 1990 and 2005, 110,067 vehicle crashes were reported 

in NPS park units, and more than 20 percent of those crashes 

resulted in an injury or fatality.22 During that same period, 

21,448 injury crashes resulted in 32,894 injuries, and 673 fatal 

crashes resulted in 800 fatalities on NPS roads. There were 

more than 1,600 vehicle crashes involving pedestrians or 

bicyclists on NPS roads during the same period, and nearly 

half of those resulted in injury or fatality.23 Between 1990 

and 2005, there was a yearly average of 6,900 vehicle crashes 

resulting in an average of 50 fatalities and 1,300 injuries on the 

NPS road network. These statistics make motor vehicle crashes 

the second leading cause of death among visitors and a major 

source of employee injury.

Crashes are not evenly distributed across park units and regions 

(Figure 7-1). Nearly three quarters of all NPS crashes occurred 

within 33 parks. Regionally, the percentage of total crashes was 

highest in the National Capital Region, where 38 percent of 

all NPS vehicle crashes occurred (Figure 7-1). The National 

Capital Region experiences higher traffic volumes within park 

units and contains more parkways than other regions, which 

may explain the higher crash percentages. Commuters in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area are the most common 

travelers on five of the major parkways the service owns and 

operates, a use that was not intended or anticipated when these 

parkways were originally designed and built.

Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 summarize the types of collisions 

servicewide from 1990 to 2005 for all crashes and for fatal and 

injury crashes, respectively.

22 All crash data is derived from the NPS Servicewide Traffic Accident Reporting System as reported in the 2009 internal NPS 

report, NPS Traffic Safety Overview, unless otherwise noted. Current NPS servicewide crash data is limited to on-road motor 

vehicle crashes. Some regions collect multimodal crash data, such as the Alaska Region, which is collecting such crash data to 

implement one of its LRTP performance measures. Multimodal crash data will be incorporated into LRTPs as it becomes available. 

23 Bicycle and pedestrian data were extracted and analyzed from the 1990–2005 Servicewide Traffic Accident Reporting System database. 

Methodology for the analysis of these data is included in the National Long Range Transportation Plan Safety Technical Report. 

Figure 7-1. Percentage of Systemwide Crashes, by NPS Region 

(1990–2005)

Intermountain

Midwest

Alaska

Northeast

Pacific West

Southeast

National Capital 38%

20%

16%

15%

9%

2%

<1%

Effective, consistent and 

continuous traffic law 

enforcement plays an 

important role in reducing 

traffic accidents and improving 

transportation safety.
National Park Service 113

Figure 7-3. Type of Collision for Fatal and Injury Crashes 

(1990–2005)

23%

35%

Multi-Vehicle Other 4% (4 Types)

Multi-Vehicle Rear-End

Single-Vehicle Lane Departure (14 Types)

Unknown Crash Type 1%

Single-Vehicle Animal 3%

Multi-Vehicle Angle 10%

Single-Vehicle Not Categorized 14%

Multi-Vehicle Head-On 7%

Single-Vehicle Bicycle/Pedestrian 3%

Figure 7-2. NPS Systemwide Type of Collision for All Crashes 

(1990–2005)

22%

29%

Multi-Vehicle Other 13% (4 Types)

Multi-Vehicle Rear-End

Single-Vehicle Lane Departure (14 Types)

Single-Vehicle Bicycle/Pedestrian 1%

Single-Vehicle Animal 10%

Multi-Vehicle Head-On 5%

Multi-Vehicle Angle 10%

Single-Vehicle Not Categorized 6%

Unknown Crash Type 4%

Canyonlands National Park
114 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Emergency Response and Evacuation

Timely and proper treatment of transportation incidents is essential for improving victim survival and recovery. 

Transportation plays an essential role in providing access for emergency response vehicles and a means to evacuate visitors 

and employees in an emergency situation. On average each year, the NPS Search and Rescue and Emergency Medical 

Services carry out more than 4,000 search and rescues and respond to more than 14,400 emergency medical events in 

park units. Coordination, including establishing jurisdictional roles, with outside law enforcement and first responders 

is essential. Although some larger NPS units employ their own emergency personnel, many NPS units rely on partner 

organizations (primarily state or local governments) to perform emergency services. For example, sharing road data and 

maps with well-marked evacuation routes for emergency vehicles improves first responders' ability to locate and rescue 

visitors in need. Including emergency response and evacuation considerations in park unit transportation plans will also 

improve response times and help improve the health outcomes for those who suffer injury.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

NPS transportation facilities play an essential role in providing access for emergency 

response vehicles and a means to evacuate visitors and employees in an emergency situation.
National Park Service 115

Example Prevention Strategies from the Four E's of 

Transportation Safety

Comprehensive safety strategies are developed around four major components of highway safety referred to as the four 

E’s. Effective strategies that address all four components can be tailored to respond to locally identified problems at each 

park unit. The following example prevention strategies cover each of the four major components of highway safety being 

employed at NPS park units.

EDUCATION

Safety information helps visitors understand transportation 

safety risks and comply with posted laws and safety best 

practices. Safety education, for example, can inform drivers 

about the rules of the road and roadway conditions or advise 

them on making good choices, such as not texting while driving 

and wearing a seat belt. Park units are employing high-visibility 

educational strategies, including increased or enlarged signage 

and ITS strategies, such as dynamic message signs, traffic 

safety checkpoints and public relations campaigns. US Park 

Police in the Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC areas 

participate in the “Smooth Operator” program to combat 

aggressive driving. As part of this campaign, enforcement waves 

coincide with media blitzes to inform and educate the public 

about the dangers of aggressive driving.

ENGINEERING

Engineering incorporates safety countermeasures on roadways 

to reduce the number of errors drivers make navigating the 

road, and reduce the severity of crashes if a vehicle leaves 

the road. Safety countermeasures can be grouped into three 

areas: highway design, traffic operations and maintenance. 

Highway design helps keep vehicles on the road through 

adequate geometric alignments, signs and pavement markings, 

and can reduce crash severity through use of roadside barriers 

and breakaway devices. Traffic operation improvements that 

reduce congestion can reduce the potential for crashes. Routine 

maintenance helps ensure road surfaces and roadside elements 

remain in adequate working order to help drivers navigate 

safely. In response to safety issues identified in a planning study, 

Blue Ridge Parkway installed rumble strips, median barriers, 

lighting and additional steel-backed timber guardrails. It is 

also upgrading its historic guard walls to be crashworthy but to 

blend in with the parkway’s character. Natchez Trace Parkway 

installed profile edge markings near bridge approaches in 

lieu of rumble strips to improve night/rain visibility without 

deterring from the quiet, rural driving experience.

ENFORCEMENT

Effective, consistent and continuous traffic law enforcement 

plays an important role in reducing traffic accidents and 

improving transportation safety. Enforcement of traffic laws 

and a visible police presence tend to deter motorists from 

engaging in unsafe driving behavior. Park units are employing 

high-visibility enforcement strategies to combat speeding, 

improve seat belt usage and encourage safe driving behavior. 

For example, US Park Police and rangers at Acadia, Zion 

and Great Smoky Mountains national parks and Delaware 

Water Gap National Recreation Area used public awareness 

campaigns and sobriety checkpoints to increase public 

perception of the high risks and consequences of driving 

under the influence.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Timely and proper emergency response is essential for visitor 

and workforce safety, as well as the protection of critical park 

unit resources. Parks can reduce accident response times 

through training exercises and better coordination with 

partners. The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 

is currently analyzing whether emergency medical services 

response time in the park is sufficient. It is also developing 

strategies to improve partner coordination. Strategies for 

addressing the emergency response component include 

improving the collection and sharing of crash information 

to produce more accurate crash reports and using GPS 

technology to improve response time and location information 

related to emergency medical services. After a large wildfire 

cleared a significant amount of protective vegetation in 2011, 

Bandelier National Monument installed a series of automated 

alert systems to notify NPS rangers and designated first 

responders of eminent flash flooding risks. These types of 

roadway mitigation measures are critical for timely emergency 

response and evacuation, visitor and employee life and safety 

and the protection of critical infrastructure.
116 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Meeting Safety Objectives

Objective: Institute a Comprehensive, Performance-Based 

Transportation Safety Program that Addresses Engineering, Education 

and Enforcement

The National Park Service is committed to addressing 

transportation safety and is instituting a performancebased, programmatic approach to improving safety within 

its transportation network. In June 2012, the National 

Park Service, US Park Police and the FHWA began work 

on a new servicewide Transportation Safety Program. 

The framework and charter for this national program 

include recommendations for actions, coordination and a 

strengthened agency commitment to transportation safety 

within the context of the NPS mission to protect valuable 

natural, scenic, recreational and cultural resources.

The current lack of nationally aggregated NPS crash data 

has hindered the effective management of NPS safety issues. 

Continuing and strengthening current NPS efforts to improve 

the collection, recording, analysis and reporting of crash 

data will help the new program focus limited funding on the 

highest priority transportation safety needs. Development 

of an industry-standard transportation safety management 

system, which will aggregate safety data, will enable analysis 

that can be integrated into project prioritization and selection 

and O&M decision-making processes to make transportation 

within NPS park units safer.

Continued support and prioritization of the development 

of the Transportation Safety Program and transportation 

safety management system is critical to fulfilling NPS 

commitments to reducing traffic incidents within the park 

unit transportation system and improving safety outcomes 

for all users.

Recommended Strategies

• Implement a performance-based 

Transportation Safety Program 

to develop safety projects that 

address safety emphasis areas

• Develop, support and fund the 

transportation safety management 

system to provide the critical data 

and analysis needed to guide 

performance-based programming 

and monitor the extent to 

which emphasis area goals and 

objectives are being met
National Park Service 117

The National Park Service seeks to reduce the number of 

serious and fatal transportation-related injuries within park 

units. Implementation of the NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System, currently under development, will 

facilitate a data-driven approach to improving transportation 

safety. The system will allow the Transportation Safety 

Program to identify locations with disproportionately 

high incident rates, and tailor engineering, education 

and enforcement activities in these locations to improve 

safety and reduce incident rates and severity. This objective 

includes all transportation modes, including reported 

injuries involving motorists, transit vehicles, bicyclists and 

pedestrians.

Objective: Reduce Serious and Fatal 

Transportation-Related Injuries

Recommended Strategies

• Once implemented, use the 

NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System to target 

engineering, education, and 

enforcement activities to the 

locations with greatest need for 

multimodal safety improvements

• Encourage complete 

and consistent collection 

of crash records

• Encourage regions and parks to 

identify the required resources 

and action steps for implementing 

appropriate engineering 

countermeasures to improve safety

• Educate staff and visitors 

about best practices in 

transportation safety

• Improve coordination with local 

law enforcement and pursue 

enforcement initiatives that 

reduce fatal and injury crashes 

through campaigns targeting 

speeding, distracted driving, 

drunk driving, and other types 

of risky driving behavior
118 National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service strives to balance contextsensitive designs that preserve park unit resources and 

values with maintaining safe conditions. During the project 

delivery process, the context of important cultural, historic 

and natural resources and viewsheds is often considered 

for exceptions to safety design standards (e.g., low lighting 

along roadways, shorter historic stone barriers). As a result, 

some existing transportation assets do not meet current 

engineering standards. Whenever design exceptions are 

considered, appropriate mitigation measures are also 

evaluated and applied as needed to help ensure safety.

Coordination between engineering and cultural and natural 

resource staffs during the project design process is a critical 

step in developing a safety strategy that accommodates a park 

unit’s setting and supports the visitor experience. Beginning 

such coordination in the early stages of transportation 

planning and carrying it throughout the project development 

process enables staffs to identify design alternatives and 

mitigation options early. Such early coordination can help 

to avoid unforeseen environmental or safety issues from 

arising later in the project development process, when they 

have greater impacts on project schedules and budgets.

Objective: Maximize Safety Without Impairing Park Resources 

and Values

Recommended Strategies

• Establish processes and/or 

tools that facilitate early and 

continuous consultation with 

resource protection and visitation 

experts during transportation 

safety planning, programming 

and project development

• Develop and disseminate guidance 

on best practices for contextsensitive transportation design and 

operations that improve safety
National Park Service 119

Park unit emergency evacuation and safety training plans 

are essential tools for ensuring visitor and workforce safety. 

Because of transportation’s critical role in emergency 

response, these plans should explicitly identify evacuation 

routes suitable for emergency response vehicles. However, 

not all park units have plans in place, and some existing plans 

have not been updated to factor in changing conditions.

Moreover, having an emergency evacuation and safety 

training plan is not enough to ensure that visitors and the 

NPS workforce will be safe. An increased understanding 

of safety issues by visitors and the NPS workforce is also 

needed to reduce transportation-related incidents. For 

example, the National Park Service communicates the 

limits of navigation technology and encourages visitors to 

adequately prepare for their visits to remote areas where 

they may not be able to easily call for help. Enforcement 

and awareness campaigns have also shown the potential 

to help raise awareness of safe practices.

Objective: Enable Effective Emergency Response

Recommended Strategies

• Ensure that all park units have 

an up-to-date evacuation plan 

with a transportation component 

that identifies critical signage 

and evacuation routes

• Improve the ability of 

transportation users to notify 

emergency responders of their 

locations by installing mileposts, 

markers and other landmarks
120 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Measuring Performance

Performance Measure: Completion of the NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System

Completion of the transportation safety management 

system is an essential milestone in the implementation of the 

new NPS performance-based approach to transportation 

safety. This implementation relies, at least partially, on the 

continued development of the DOI IMARS.

Baseline

As of spring 2015, the transportation safety management 

system was approximately 30 percent complete. Progress 

toward completion of the five elements of the system will be 

tracked by the five categories listed under Elements of the 

Safety Management System below and shown in Figure 7-4.

Target

Complete all components of the transportation safety 

management system within five years.

Figure 7-4. Completion of the NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System

Elements of the Safety Management System

ANALYSIS SYSTEM MILESTONES

Availability of industry-standard analysis capability, including crash analysis software. 

Current Status: 60 percent complete.

CRASH DATA SYSTEM MILESTONES

Crash database (Traffic Accident Reporter database) established; field reporting of incidents; output capability from the 

Traffic Accident Reporter database; amount of data populated into the Traffic Accident Reporter database. 

Current Status: 30 percent complete.

PROGRAMMING SYSTEM MILESTONES

Data-driven project safety evaluation criteria developed; project proposal and evaluation tied to safety performance metrics; 

project evaluation processes informed by data and analysis and performance metrics. Completion of data portions of the 

transportation safety management system must precede this milestone. 

Current Status: 30 percent complete.

TRAFFIC DATA SYSTEM MILESTONES

Rehabilitation of traffic count stations. The National Park Service currently operates approximately 100 permanent traffic 

count stations in 35 park units. Of those, 55 are fully operational, 18 are partially working (e.g., one or more lanes may not be 

working), 23 are not working and 9 do not automatically download and send data to a central office. The service is currently 

in the first year of a multiyear rehabilitation of all the traffic counters and is also expanding the traffic count program to 

include approximately 45 additional permanent traffic count stations in 15 parks units. 

Current Status: 15 percent complete.

MONITORING SYSTEM MILESTONES

Mitigation efforts and countermeasures evaluated using data and analysis; project delivery and programming are improved 

based on data and analysis in light of performance goals and metrics. 

Current Status: 10 percent complete.

30%

15%

60%

30%

10%

Crash Data System

Traffic Data System

Analysis System

Programming System

Monitoring System

Target 

100%
National Park Service 121

Cape Cod National Seashore
Natchez Trace Parkway © Mark Muench
 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Conclusion
124 National Long Range Transportation Plan

With this National LRTP, the National Park Service provides 

a framework for moving the NPS transportation system 

forward into the service’s second century. The National 

LRTP is fiscally constrained, identifying strategies based on 

forecasted funding levels to shape transportation investments 

over the next 20 years within a dynamic environment. The 

National LRTP better aligns transportation planning with 

all aspects of the NPS mission and recommits the service 

to both protecting and providing access to the nation’s 

most important, unique and special places. The National 

LRTP sets goals and objectives that address both traditional 

transportation topics, such as asset management, financial 

sustainability and safety, as well as additional NPS missionfocused topics, such as visitor experience, climate change 

and natural and cultural resource protection.

Visitation to NPS units has grown from 293 million in 

2014 to over 325 million in 2016. The NPS transportation 

system that supports these visitors represents a combined 

$38 billion in public investment. Maintaining these 

transportation assets is critical to the NPS mission of 

preserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources 

and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 

The National LRTP includes the most comprehensive 

analysis of NPS transportation finance ever completed. 

The National Park Service estimates that an average of $1.5 

billion per year is needed to address all transportation needs 

servicewide. Between FY 2006 and FY 2013, the National 

Park Service invested an average of $461 million per year in 

its transportation network. Given forecasted resources of 

$394 million per year, the NPS expects an average funding 

gap of $1.1 billion per year. Even if every dollar were spent 

exclusively on highest priorities, there would still be a $282 

million gap in meeting those highest priority needs. As a 

result, resources will not be available to fully resolve the 

$5.63 billion deferred maintenance backlog for the Paved 

Road and Bridge Network or the $1.49 billion backlog for 

Other Transportation Assets. The National LRTP provides 

a framework for how the National Park Service can make 

the best use of limited funding.

Moving Forward 

Transportation planning in the National Park Service does 

not stop with the release of this landmark document. The 

service is committed to continuing the broad coordination 

and collaboration across the agency, with the FHWA and 

with state, local and agency partners that contributed to the 

National LRTP. We are using that momentum going forward 

and will take decisive action to achieve the plan’s goals and 

performance targets.

We will work across the agency and with our partners to 

put National LRTP strategies into practice and establish 

performance monitoring protocols. Teams throughout the 

agency will work through existing programs to advance 

the goals of the plan. The future of transportation in our 

national park units depends on everyone’s commitment, 

creativity and enthusiasm for realizing the vision of a 

sustainable transportation system that is safe and seamless, 

enables high-quality access to essential park unit experiences 

and is effectively managed to accommodate changing 

environmental, social and financial conditions.

In the second century of the National Park Service, 

transportation systems will increasingly connect people to 

the outdoors in diverse and engaging ways, supported by 

modern management systems and programs. 

For example:

• Following the National Transportation Investment 

Strategy will direct funding to the highest priority assets, 

fulfill more of the O&M needs that keep assets in good 

condition longer and continue the NPS commitment 

to multimodal transportation.

• Working with local partners and gateway communities 

will help the National Park Service address vehicle 

congestion and expand the range of transportation 

options to make access to national park units more 

seamless, fun and convenient.
National Park Service 125

Lowell National Historical Park © James Higgins

• Improving the tracking and management of culturally 

significant transportation assets will help preserve 

nationally significant and historic structures for 

generations to come while ensuring that they meet 

modern safety needs.

• Completing the safety management system will help 

the National Park Service to better identify and address 

potential safety concerns on NPS transportation systems.

• Improving integration of natural and cultural resource 

considerations in transportation decision making will 

help maintain a critical balance between visitor access 

and resource protection in new transportation projects.

• Increasing efforts to assess the vulnerability of NPS 

transportation assets to the impacts of flooding and 

extreme weather will equip the National Park Service 

with the information to make smart, forward-looking 

investments.

Please visit the NPS Long Range Transportation Planning 

website to stay engaged and for performance reports 

beginning in 2018. Check out this site for information in the 

coming years about updates to the National LRTP. With this 

first National LRTP, the National Park Service is beginning a 

3C transportation planning process that will result in regular 

updates to reflect changing conditions and policies. The 

first update to the National LRTP is scheduled for 2021. 

We invite you to join us on this journey into a new century 

of stewardship, engagement and enjoyment of America’s 

national parks.
126 National Long Range Transportation Plan

3C Continuing, comprehensive and cooperative. Long range transportation planning is described in federal surface 

transportation legislation as being a 3C process considering all modes of transportation.

ABA Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The ABA requires access be provided to facilities designed, built, altered, or 

leased with Federal funds. The United States Access Board, an independent federal agency that promotes equality 

for people with disabilities, develops and maintains accessibility guidelines under this law.

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Commonly referred to as the “stimulus package”, ARRA 

provided $3 billion to the Unites States Department of the Interior (DOI). Of that amount, $750 million went to 

the National Park Service to fund job-creating investments in critical infrastructure and facilities, trail restoration, 

abandoned mine remediation, and energy efficiency and renewable energy.

BHI Bridge Health Index. The BHI is a single number indicator of the structural health of bridge assets. This indicator is 

expressed as a percentage value from 0 percent (worst condition) to 100 percent (best condition).

BIP Bridge Inspection Program. The BIP is managed by the Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands 

Highways (FLH) on behalf of the National Park Service. It is responsible for the safety inspection and structural 

rating of approximately 1,400 NPS structures in accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. The 

team also manages the NPS structures inventory and collects, maintains, and evaluates data, providing FLH and 

NPS planners with an annual list of bridge structure rehabilitation and repair priorities.

CCRP Climate Change Response Program. The CCRP is a cross-disciplinary program that provides guidance, training, 

technical expertise, project funding and educational products that support actions to preserve the natural and 

cultural resources and values of the National Park Service.

CI Capital Investment. CI is a step in the transportation asset life cycle. It is the construction of new assets, as well as 

major reconstruction projects, that incorporate new functions into existing assets.

CIS Capital Investment Strategy. The CIS is a servicewide initiative that relies upon universal life-cycle management 

principles to minimize costs, maximize service life and align capital and maintenance investments.

CR Component Renewal. CR is a step in the transportation asset life cycle. It includes infrastructure replacement projects 

that do not expand the asset portfolio or expand liabilities for operations and maintenance (O&M) activities.

CRV Current Replacement Value. CRV indicates necessary total expenditure in current dollars required to replace a 

facility to meet current acceptable standards of construction and comply with regulatory requirements.

CSAP2 Second NPS Comprehensive Survey of the American Public

DM Deferred Maintenance. DM comprises recurring maintenance (RM) or component renewal (CR) needs that are not 

completed on schedule.

DOI United States Department of the Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Glossary of Selected Acronyms and Terms
National Park Service 127

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. The FAST Act (Public Law 114-94) is the most recent reauthorization 

of federal surface transportation authorities and programs. It amends existing and continuing authorities described 

in the United States Code.

FBMS Financial and Business Management System. The FBMS is an integrated suite of software applications that help 

the National Park Service manage several business functions, including budget formulation and execution, core 

financials and acquisition. It serves as the system of record for the real property inventory and interfaces with the 

Facility Management Software System (FMSS).

FC Functional Classification. FC includes eight categories of routes that comprise the NPS road system.

FC 1: Principal park roads and rural parkways that constitute a main access route, circulatory tour, or thoroughfare 

for park visitors (public access). Examples include Going-to-the-Sun road in Glacier National Park and the Natchez 

Trace Parkway.

FC 2: Connector park roads that provide access within a park to areas of scenic, scientific, recreational or cultural 

interest (public access). Examples include routes to overlooks and campgrounds.

FC 3 and 4: Special purpose and primitive park roads (public access). Examples include routes through 

campgrounds and undeveloped areas.

FC 5: Administrative access roads (public access). Examples include roads to park administration offices.

FC 6: Restricted access roads (limited/no public access). Examples include roads to utility areas.

FC 7: Urban parkways and city streets that serve high volumes of park and non-park related traffic (public access). 

Examples include parkways within the National Capital Region around Washington DC.

FC 8: City streets that are extensions of adjoining street systems but owned and maintained by the National Park 

Service (public access).

FCI Facility Condition Index. The FCI, generated by Facility Management Software System (FMSS) data, provides an 

indication of the condition of assets. Values are derived from a ratio of the deferred maintenance (DM) divided by 

the current replacement value (CRV) for each NPS asset.

FHWA Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA is an agency within the United States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) that supports state and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the nation’s 

highway system (i.e., the Federal Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (i.e., the 

Federal Lands Transportation Program), in addition to other programs and responsibilities.

FLH Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Federal Lands Highways

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program. The FLTP, authorized by the FAST Act (and previous surface transportation 

bills), provides funds to federal agencies with land and natural resource management responsibilities for 

transportation infrastructure investment. 

Glossary (continued)
128 National Long Range Transportation Plan

FMSS Facility Management Software System. The FMSS is an asset management system used throughout the National 

Park Service and is the system of record for asset management. Unit staff use a suite of programs including the 

FMSS to manage, track and prioritize daily operations and maintenance work orders. The FMSS is used to track 

the condition of some types of assets, to plan for each asset throughout its life cycle, identify deficiencies, bundle 

projects, and compute current replacement values. Condition data for paved roads and bridges is developed by 

the Road Inventory Program (RIP) and Bridge Inventory Program (BIP) and is imported into the FMSS.

FO Facility Operations. FO is a step in the transportation asset life cycle. It includes activities that ensure the day-today operation of transportation systems (e.g., plowing, transit operations, mowing).

FTA Federal Transit Administration. The FTA is an agency within the United States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) that provides financial and technical assistance to public transit systems—including buses, subways, 

light rail, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries—and oversees safety measures and helps develop next-generation 

technology research.

FY Fiscal Year. Federal fiscal years begin each October; for example, FY 2016 begins on October 1, 2015 and ends on 

September 30, 2016.

GHG Greenhouse Gas. A GHG is a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect, which causes global warming and 

contributes to global climate change.

GPS Global Positioning System. GPS provides location and time information anywhere on Earth to military, civil, and 

commercial users around the world.

IMARS Incident Management and Reporting System. IMARS is a department-wide law enforcement records management 

system used by the National Park Service. The crash module was recently implemented and is now the system of 

record for NPS traffic safety incidents.

INSTEP Innovative and Sustainable Transportation Evaluation Process and Guidance tool. Currently under development, 

INSTEP will rate projects’ ability to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative environmental impacts that assets and 

users cause.

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems. ITS refer to the application of advanced information and communications 

technology to surface transportation in order to achieve enhanced safety and mobility while reducing the 

environmental impact of transportation.

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan. A LRTP is a strategic, long-range plan that provides guidance to programs and 

managers throughout the National Park Service.

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. MAP-21 (Public Law 112-141) was a reauthorization of 

federal surface transportation authorities and programs from July 6, 2012 to July 31, 2015. It amended existing 

and continuing authorities described in the United States Code, which have been further amended by the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).

Mode A mode is a particular form or method of travel distinguished by vehicle type, operation technology, and right-ofway separation from other traffic. Examples include: motorized vehicle, train, streetcar, bus, boat, bicycle, walking 

or use of an assisted mobility device.

Glossary (continued)
National Park Service 129

MTCO2E Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent. MTCO2E is a unit used by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Pollution Prevention Program to standardize the measurement of global warming potential.

Multimodal Multimodal refers to a transportation network that provides multiple mode choices for some of the same trips. 

For example, a NPS road between a visitor center and a scenic vista that provides travel lanes for people driving, 

bus service with bus stops and shelters for people taking transit, and a separated multi-use path for people 

walking and riding bikes would be a multimodal transportation network. Multimodal may also be used to refer 

to a transportation plan that jointly considers multiple modes of transportation.

n/a Not available

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health 

and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants: 

carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution and sulfur dioxide.

NPS National Park Service. The National Park Service is a bureau of the United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 

Established in 1916, its fundamental purpose has been "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

OB Optimizer Band. NPS unit management uses OB to rate asset priority from highest priority (OB 1) to lowest 

priority (OB 5). Every asset in a park unit's asset portfolio is assigned an OB.

O&M Operations and Maintenance. O&M refers to annual and ongoing activities related to the management of 

transportation assets. O&M includes the preventive maintenance (PM) and facility operation (FO) stages in the 

transportation asset life cycle, and some recurring maintenance (RM) activities.

PA A stage in the transportation asset life cycle – Planning and Administration is a transportation life-cycle work 

type that includes activities to identify challenges, needs and alternative solutions prior to implementing a 

solution.

PAMP Park Asset Management Plan. A PAMP is a strategy and road map for individual park units. A PAMP provides a 

ten-year asset management strategy for a park unit, allowing for annual updates that coincide with the budget 

and planning processes already occurring.

The Paved Road and Bridge Network includes all paved roads and parking areas, bridges and tunnels. Other 

Transportation Assets include unpaved roads and parking, trails, waterways, docks, marinas and railroads.

PCR Pavement Condition Rating. PCR values range from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating pavement in better 

condition. A number of distress factors comprise PCR, including type of cracking, amount of cracking, patches, 

potholes, rutting and roughness.

Paved Road and 

Bridge Network

Glossary (continued)
130 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Performance Measures establish a quantitative system to evaluate progress towards the achievement of goals and 

objectives. They are part of an accountability system to measure the results of project activities, like improvements 

in pavement and bridge conditions, safety, resource protection, and congestion control, or information to improve 

the visitor experience.

PM Preventive Maintenance. A stage in the transportation asset life cycle, PM includes maintenance tasks performed 

on an annual or more frequent basis (e.g., cleaning culverts, inspections, vegetation control), and is distinguished 

from recurring maintenance (RM). 

RIP Road Inventory Program. The RIP is managed by the Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands 

Highways (FLH) on behalf of the National Park Service. It collects data by use of an automated road analyzer, 

which provides an inventory of maintenance items (pavement type and quantities), point (culverts, etc.), and linear 

features (ditches, guardrails, etc.). It identifies pavement distress and evaluates the condition of existing park 

roads. The program uses modeling software to provide NPS transportation staff with recommended pavement 

treatments and projects and assists the National Park Service in quantifying future pavement investment needs.

RM Recurring Maintenance. A stage in the transportation asset life cycle, RM includes less frequent maintenance tasks 

performed on a cycle of one to ten years (e.g., chip seals, mill and overlays, restriping) and is distinguished from 

preventive maintenance (PM).

Scope 1, 2, 3 Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions are three categories of emissions that contribute to a park emissions inventory.

Scope 1: Emissions from sources that the National Park Service owns or directly controls. For transportation, Scope 

1 consists of NPS fleet vehicles and equipment.

Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity and heating, cooling and steam generation. For Transportation, 

Scope 2 deals only with energy use in buildings that primarily serve a transportation system function.

Scope 3: Emissions from sources that the National Park Service does not directly control or own, but that are 

attributable to agency activities. For transportation, Scope 3 includes employee travel (employee commuting and 

business travel).

SOCC NPS Sustainable Operations and Climate Change Branch of the Park Facility Management Division. The SOCC 

develops programs to assist parks in implementing sustainable best practices in climate change mitigation and 

facilities adaptation, energy conservation and water management, sustainable building design and operation, and 

pollution prevention.

Traffic Accident Reporter is a system-wide crash database developed by the Washington Support Office (WASO) 

Park Facility Management Division to provide a single, reportable database for storing and querying motor vehicle 

crash records on NPS roads. This system collected NPS crash records from NPS units from 2006-2012. It has been 

replaced by the Incident Management and Reporting System (IMARS) crash module.

Performance 

Measure

Traffic Accident 

Reporter

Glossary (continued)
National Park Service 131

TCFO Total Cost of Facility Ownership. TCFO is a method of accounting which includes all costs of acquiring, owning, 

and disposing of an asset.

Title 23 Refers to Title 23 of the United States Code, which comprises authorizing legislation for the Federal Highway 

Administration, including funding programs.

Title 54 Refers to Title 54 of the United States Code, which comprises authorizing legislation for the National Park Service, 

including funding programs.

TRIP Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. Originally named the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public 

Lands program, TRIP was a discretionary grant program administered by the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) that funded transit and other alternative transportation projects for federal public lands. Funding for the 

TRIP program ended in 2012.

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation. The USDOT administers several transportation agencies within the 

federal government, including the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

WASO Washington Support Office. The WASO is the NPS headquarters office, which provides services to regional offices, 

park units, program areas, and NPS partners, and coordinates with other agencies and bureaus in the United 

States Department of the Interior (DOI).

Glossary (continued)
132 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Acknowledgments

Project Advisory Group 

Dianne Croal

Alternative Transportation Program Manager

NPS Pacific West Region

Justin DeSantis

Transportation Program Manager

NPS Pacific West Region

Aung Gye

Transportation Planning Team Lead

Office of Federal Lands Highway

Federal Highway Administration

Mark Hartsoe

Branch Chief, Transportation

Park Facility Management Division

NPS Washington Support Office

Cynthia Nelson

Branch Chief

Planning Division

NPS Denver Service Center

Shawn Norton

Branch Chief, Sustainable Operations and Climate Change

Park Facility Management Division

NPS Washington Support Office

Kevin Percival

Branch Chief, Facilities Planning

Park Facility Management Division

NPS Washington Support Office

Woody Smeck

Superintendent

Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks

NPS Pacific West Region

Ben West

Chief of Planning and Compliance

NPS Southeast Region

The National LRTP was prepared by the Facilities Planning Branch of the NPS Park Facility Management Division, with 

support from the project advisory group and the organizations, individuals, and subject matter experts listed.
National Park Service 133

Preparers 

NPS Denver Service Center 

Tracy Atkins

Ken Bingenheimer

Christine Bruins

Rachel Collins

Nancy Doucette

John Gerbich

Ángel López

Charles Notzon

Michael Pisano

Michael Rees

Deryn Wagner

Zak Wood

NPS Facilities Planning Branch

Stephanie Fischer

Wm. Bryce Lloyd

Kevin Percival

NPS Rivers, Trails & Conservation 

Assistance

Krista Sherwood

USDOT John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center

Andrew Breck

Charlotte Burger

Jonah Chiarenza

David Daddio 

Lauren Deaderick

Catherine Duffy

Gina Filosa

Jonathan Frazier

David Hyde

Michael Kay

Alex Linthicum

Michelle Maffeo 

Kevin McCoy

FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway 

Division

Melissa Bordewin

Elijah Henley

Booz Allen Hamilton 

Sarah Burke

Jason Coccia

Nicholas (Tony) Dan 

Eric Pynn 

DHM Design 

Ken Abel 

Mike Gasper
134 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Facility Management 

Tom Canick 

Liza Ermeling

Jim Evans 

Stephanie Fischer

Dave Keough 

Kris Provenzano

Roland Rollinger

Katie Ryan

Vito Spinale

Peter Steele 

Wayne Vander Tuin

Transportation Finance 

Mark Anderson

Jack Burns

Jennifer Getz

Greg Kimmitt

Jane Moore

Resource Protection 

Jeff Albright

Randy Biallas

Eric Bilderback

Jan Burton

Susan Dolan

Jeffrey Durbin

Greg Eckert

Michael Evans

Tara Hamilton

Elijah Henley

Cat Hawkins Hoffman

Maureen Joseph

Jennifer Kovarik

Julie Thomas McNamee 

Bruce Nash

Shawn Norton

Roger Reed

Regina Rochefort

Tanya Shenk

Tracy Stakely

Randy Stanley

Chris Steuer

Frank Turina

Don Weeks 

Don Wojcik

Lochen Wood

Jennifer Wyse

Visitor Experience 

Ray Bloomer 

Kerri Cahill 

Tom Canick

Connie Chitwood

Joanne Cody

Tara Hamilton 

Charles Higgins

Charlie Jacobi

Jennifer Kovarik 

Linda MacIntyre

Bret Meldrum

Bruce Peacock

Kurt Rausch

Dean Reeder

Kate Richardson

Le’alani Schaumburg

Safety 

Lane Baker

Jennifer Cheng-Dobson 

Russell Fennelly 

Elijah Henley

Dave Keough 

Jeff Manley

Michael May 

Sara Newman 

Kenneth Phillips 

Jennifer Proctor 

Dean Ross 

Sam Russell

Derek Sakris 

Greg Schertz 

Susan Smichenko

Subject Matter Experts
National Park Service 135

References

Ament, Rob, Anthony P. Clevenger, Olivia Yu and Amanda R. Hardy

2008 “An assessment of road impacts on wildlife populations in US National Parks.” Environmental Management 42, no. 3 

(2008): 480–496.

Brault, Matthew

2012 “Americans With Disabilities: 2010.” Current Population Reports, P70-131. US Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Available 

at http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities and US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

2011 Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan. Available at http://www.akfedlandslrtp.org/

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), US Department of Agriculture, US Department of the Interior and US Environmental 

Protection Agency

2011 America's Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations. February 2011. Available at http://whitehouse.gov/sites/

default/files/microsites/ceq/ago_report_-_report_only_2-7-11.pdf

Dutzik, Tony and Phineas Baxandall

2013 A New Direction: Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for America’s Future. US PIRG Education Fund, 

Frontier Group. Spring 2013. Available at http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

2008 2008 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance. United States Department of 

Transportation. Washington, D.C.

2010 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance. United States Department of 

Transportation. Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/ 

Harris Interactive

2010 The ADA, 20 Years Later. Kessler Foundation. Available at http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.org/pdfs/surveyresults.pdf

Huijser, Marcel P., Patrick Tracey McGowen, Julie Fuller, Amanda Hardy and A. Kociolek

2008 “Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress.” No. FHWA-HRT-08-034.

Huijser, M. P., J. W. Duffield, A. P. Clevenger, R. J. Ament, and P. T. McGowen

2009 Cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada; 

a decision support tool. Ecology and Society 14(2): 15. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art15/

Institute of Transportation Engineers

1997 A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion and Enhancing Mobility. Washington, D.C.

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond and G. W. Yoge

2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. US Global Change Research 

Program. Available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

References including author, date, and title
136 National Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service

1986 12 - point plan: the challenge, the actions. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO. 1986.

2005 National Park Service 2005 Statistical Abstract. National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office, Denver, CO. 2005.

2006 NPS Management Policies 2006. Available at http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf

2009 Internal National Park Service Report: NPS Traffic Safety Overview. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Final Draft, 2009. 

2010 Climate Change Response Strategy. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/NPS_CCRS.pdf

2011a Strategic Action Plan. Healthy Parks Healthy People US National Park Service. November 2011. Available at https://www.

nps.gov/public_health/hp/hphp.htm

2011b National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the American Public 2008-2009. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of National 

Park System Visitors and Non-Visitors. University of Wyoming. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/

products.cfm

2011c National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the American Public 2008-2009. National Technical Report. University of 

Wyoming. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/products.cfm

2011d Service-wide Congestion Management System Phase 1: Emphasis Area Identification. Technical Memorandum 7 Compiled 

Congestion Survey Information Report. HDR. NPS Task No. T2420090144.

2012a NPS Capital Investment Strategy. Available at http://inside.nps.gov/waso/custommenu.cfm?lv=1&prg=6&id=10805

2012b "Green Parks Plan: Advancing Our Mission through Sustainable Operations." Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.

nps.gov/greenparksplan/downloads/NPS_2012_Green_Parks_Plan.pdf

2012c Climate Change Action Plan 2012–2014. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/NPS_CCActionPlan.pdf

2012d “My Green Parks.” Available at http://mygreenparks.nps.gov/

2013a Transportation Reauthorization Resource Paper. Available at http://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/NPS_WASO_2012_

Transit_Inventory.pdf

2013b Assateague Island National Seashore General Management Plan Update. Available at http://www.nps.gov/asis/parkmgmt/

general-management-plan.htm

2013c "White Paper: Five-Year NPS Transportation Spending Summary, Fiscal Years 2007–2011." National Park Service Park 

Facility Management Division. June 18, 2013.

2013d “White Paper: Benchmarking Paved Road Operation and Maintenance Costs and Developing High-Level Estimates for 

Future Use.” National Park Service Park Facility Management Division. 

2014a National Park Service Transit Inventory, 2013. Available at https://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/FINAL_NPS_

WASO_2013_National_Transit_Inventory.pdf

2014b “Climate Friendly Parks Program.” Available at http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/

2015 A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement. August 25, 2015. Available at http://

www.nps.gov/calltoaction/

2016 2015 National Park Service Pavement Condition Report. Prepared by Eastern Federal Lands Pavements Section, USDOT 

FHWA. March 2016.

References including author, date, and title (continued)
National Park Service 137

Payne, L., A. Mowen and E. Orsega-Smith

2002 An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: The role of residential location, race, and age. 

Leisure Sciences. 24: 181-198.

Pergams, O. R. W. and P. A. Zaradic

2006 Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by 

watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management 80:387-393. 

Available at http://www.pergams.com/uploads/JEM.pdf

2008 Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences USA 105:2295-2300.

Pew Research Center

2012 “Three-quarters of smartphone owners use location-based services.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at 

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Location-based-services.aspx

Task Force of Travel Competitiveness

2012 National Travel & Tourism Strategy.

Transportation Research Board

2008 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on US Transportation. Committee on Climate Change and US Transportation and 

Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.

org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf

University of Idaho Park Studies Unit

2013 National Park System 2013 Visitor Survey Card Data Report.

US Department of Transportation John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (USDOT Volpe Center)

2012a A Framework for Considering Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning: Lessons Learned from 

an Interagency Pilot Project on Cape Cod. US Department of Transportation Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42000/42077/DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-11-02.pdf

2012b “Benchmarking [NPS] Roadway Operations and Maintenance Spending: Summary Briefing.”

2014 Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario Planning Project. Available at http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportationplanning/public-lands/central-new-mexico-climate-change-scenario-planning-project

Vassigh, Alidad and Tann vom Hove

2012 “Urban population growth between 1950 and 2030.” City Mayors Statistics. Available at http://www.citymayors.com/

statistics/urban-population-intro.html

References including author, date, and title (continued)
138

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally 

owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting 

our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and 

historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under US administration.

NPSG 999/126905A 

July 2017
Inside of back cover.
140 National Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service

Washington Support Office 

Park Facility Management Division

Facilities Planning Branch

For more information please visit the NPS Long Range Transportation Planning website

All photos NPS property unless otherwise noted

NPSG 999/126905A